Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 44 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 >  Last ›
   4301. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4220286)
I know people who know him though, but we have never discussed him.
Seriously? Man. If there's one group of people in the world I will never understand, it's non-gossips.
   4302. GregD Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4220287)
Let us fervently hope so. The EC is a bad idea.
Mostly the EC stinks but the utility is that it

1) narrows the focuses of recounts in really close elections. Absent it, we'd have national recounts in really close elections, which would be a shitstorm of epic proportions. One of the interesting things about the EC is that it diminishes the payoff of padding votes in states that are easily decided. Take that away, and you'd need real watchdogs over the ballot counters (not so much in-person voter fraud, which is rare, but fraud by voting commissions.)

2) It forces things toward a majority, which is important for stability. Consistently electing presidents who win only a plurality increases the chances of violent conflict; we hide popular pluralities, generally, in electoral vote majorities.

3) The impact on third parties is well known. While I of course would love for my own hobbyhorse to get elected through a third party, I have to say that avoiding plurality elections has probably saved us from President Buchanan or President Robertson or President Perot.
   4303. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4220288)
Now if you think that Romney would have a better than 30% chance of winning an election held today, then you have a real disagreement with Nate. But if all you're saying is that the economy (or something else) will cause Romney to surge ahead in the coming weeks and win in November, then you're simply boxing a shadow, since that's not Nate's line of work.


Well, to be fair, the prediction IS stating that there probably won't be something else and thus Obama has a 70% chance to win. Of course, that's 30% to lose and you can imagine all sorts of exogenous shocks that would rapidly change how people look at Obama's presidency. Imagine Hurricane Isaac breaking the levies and a smaller scale but still botched repeat of Katrina occurring. That's certainly a big thing that could happen that would change the race. Likewise, what about the EMU coming unglued at the seems after a Greek exit and the resultant financial crisis that makes 2008 look like a blip? That's an event with a small chance of happening that nevertheless is entirely plausible and very likely would doom Obama. However, given that those things aren't super likely to happen, given that Obama has a persistent lead at the time being, given that the effects of each campaign are likely to mostly cancel the other out, and given that the economy is growing at a mediocre but not terrible clip, then it's likely that Obama wins.

If one of those big things happens, or if a combination of smaller things significantly impacts the race, then the odds change and (if helping Romney) the 30% was correct and (if helping Obama) the 70% was correct. But at that point we have new odds that are formulated by the impact of those events.

Consider it this way: given that playing Russian Roulette has an 84% chance of not killing you per iteration, that doesn't mean it's shocking when someone gets their brains blown out. Given that those are roughly twice as good odds than Obama is facing, why would we be shocked if it turned out poorly for him?
   4304. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4220289)
By which you mean you handwave away anything of Nate's that gets brought up here and then cast aspersions on Nate because he is, gasp, a liberal.

Total garbage. I haven't "cast aspersions on Nate," and if I was going to "handwave" Nate's findings, I wouldn't read them in the first place.

***
I also think Joe and Ray hurt their own understanding of the election by ignoring him,

When did I say I "ignore" Nate Silver?

I guess it's easy to "win" arguments when you ascribe (false) positions to other people and then swat them down.

It would be a lot easier for them, though, if the nativist wing hadn't scuttled Bush's immigration reform.

Bush's immigration "reform" would have created new Democrats at a rate of about 10 to 1. Given the choice to vote GOP out of loyalty or to vote for Dems who promise "free" stuff, poor people are generally going to vote for the free stuff. The Reagan amnesty in '86 certainly didn't create a groundswell of support for the GOP among Latinos. Claiming the Bush amnesty would have been different is political flimflammery of the highest order.
   4305. McCoy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4220292)

Total garbage. If I was going to "handwave" Nate's findings, I wouldn't read them in the first place.


So you read his work, get angry because some liberal isn't telling you how great your party is doing, and then handwave it away?
   4306. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4220294)
So you read his work, get angry because some liberal isn't telling you how great your party is doing, and then handwave it away?

More garbage. When have I exhibited any "anger" toward Nate Silver or re: Nate Silver's work? And again, why would I read Nate Silver at all if I was only going to "handwave" his findings?

When I read Rasmussen, I keep in mind that it was written by a conservative. When I read Nate, I keep in mind that it was written by a liberal. I don't "handwave" anything from either person, but I remain cognizant of who's doing the writing. This is rational behavior, not irrational behavior.
   4307. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4220295)
I'm already on record in this thread as accepting Nate's predictions with his existing caveats. I think the popular vote will be pretty close. I think the EC will be a cake walk for Obama. Barring intervening events, etc.
   4308. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4220296)
Absent it, we'd have national recounts in really close elections, which would be a shitstorm of epic proportions.


With the caveat that it would have turned out differently if it were a popular vote election, would 2000 have been better or worse, re-count wise, had it been a popular vote election? Gore won by over half a million votes. After numerous re-counts in Florida, only a couple of thousand votes changed hands. Obviously that made a big difference in Florida, but I don't see it possible for Bush to have made up more than a small fraction of his 540,000 vote deficit via re-count, and thus it wouldn't have been nearly as bad.
   4309. Shredder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4220298)
Seriously? Man. If there's one group of people in the world I will never understand, it's non-gossips.
I know him. I don't think I've talked to him since he moved to NY, but from hanging out with him in Chicago a number of times, there's not really much to gossip about.
   4310. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4220299)
3) The impact on third parties is well known. While I of course would love for my own hobbyhorse to get elected through a third party, I have to say that avoiding plurality elections has probably saved us from President Buchanan or President Robertson or President Perot.
I don't think it's well-known at all. Why would it be easier to win a plurality of the national popular vote than a plurality of the electoral college vote?

Third parties fail because of the way our Congress is elected, not because of the electoral college in presidential elections.
   4311. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4220301)
I'm already on record in this thread as accepting Nate's predictions with his existing caveats. I think the popular vote will be pretty close. I think the EC will be a cake walk for Obama. Barring intervening events, etc.

That's me too. And count me with those who are continually amazed and irritated at the focus on national polls instead of EC-filtered polling by the major media covering the Presidential race.
   4312. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4220302)
Given the choice to vote GOP out of loyalty or to vote for Dems who promise "free" stuff, poor people are generally going to vote for the free stuff.


I love this quote.

Seriously? Man. If there's one group of people in the world I will never understand, it's non-gossips.


I gossip some, just never yet about Nate. To be fair I don't talk with those folks much, too busy gossiping with other people :)
   4313. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4220303)
Why would it be easier to win a plurality of the national popular vote than a plurality of the electoral college vote?


Imagine a scenario like this:

Red States:

1st place - R
2nd place - I
3rd place D

Reverse R and D for blue states. It's possible for the I to get the plurality of the popular vote, but little to none of the EV. Is that likely, probable, possible? I don't know.

edit: Oh, and if the I manages to get the plurality of the EV's, but not the majority, the house won't elect him anyway.
   4314. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4220308)
(2) the liberal screamers here

Maybe I'm naive, or pedantic, or old, or something, but what on earth brings about this description? Who in the last 5 or so pages of this discussion counts as a liberal screamer? Could you point one out so I have even the vaguest idea what you are talking about?
   4315. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 28, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4220309)
The EC has a decent chance of being gone by 2020, given the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

That seems pretty unlikely - it would start to need bipartisan support in state governments to get that in the next 8 years. Without bipartisan support, the compact would have to convince a number of swing states to join and intentionally reduce their own importance. And with bipartisan support, the compact ends the first time the results would be different - the citizens of non-swing states will find that they like the idea of the compact a lot less once it gives the presidency to the other guy.

   4316. The Good Face Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4220312)
A wise man said, "Why do we need low-skilled immigrant workers? Our public schools generate all the low-skilled workers we could ever need."


This is far more interesting than Nate Silver. The future prospects for people on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve are terrible and all trends indicate things will only get worse for them.
   4317. Steve Treder Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4220315)
That seems pretty unlikely - it would start to need bipartisan support in state governments to get that in the next 8 years. Without bipartisan support, the compact would have to convince a number of swing states to join and intentionally reduce their own importance. And with bipartisan support, the compact ends the first time the results would be different - the citizens of non-swing states will find that they like the idea of the compact a lot less once it gives the presidency to the other guy.

Agreed. I hope the EC gets ashcanned, but I don't expect it, certainly not within the next decade.
   4318. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4220316)
the citizens of non-swing states will find that they like the idea of the compact a lot less once it gives the presidency to the other guy.


Do people think that getting rid of the EC might gain traction if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the EC this time? In that case, both major parties will have seen the EC cost them an election. Or in that case, do both parties focus on the fact that the EC gave them an election that they (might have) lost otherwise and suddenly everybody becomes a fan of the EC?
   4319. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4220319)
I know he's a liberal, so I don't blindly accept his findings as gospel. This would be considered rational behavior in any other setting, so it's beyond me why it shouldn't apply to FiveThirtyEight.


1: No one accepts his findings as Gospel
2: Assuming you know # 1, what you meant to say is that you do not trust Nate BECAUSE he's a liberal, well Joe, that's only considered "rational behavior," in wingnut circles.

   4320. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4220324)
When did I say I "ignore" Nate Silver?


A poor choice of words on my part, what I should have said was that by assuming that his bias must have some impact on his work and thus discounting what he writes to some extent because of that, while at the same time not actually checking to see if that assumption bears out, you're hurting your own understanding of the election.

Claiming the Bush amnesty would have been different is political flimflammery of the highest order.


I'm less referring to the decade immediately after the legislation than the ability to attract Latino voters over the long term as the demographics of the country change. Or are you arguing that letting the Republican party be seen as scuttling comprehensive immigration reform will be more effective in attracting future Latino voters than a Republican president making it the centerpiece accomplishment of his second term? And at least in terms of immediate impact there's the difference between Bush in 2004 winning 44% of the Hispanic vote running on an agenda that included overtures to the Hispanic community while winning 51% of the overall vote and John McCain's reversal of his previous immigration position in 2008 which resulted in winning 47% of the popular vote but only 35% of the Hispanic vote. While there's certainly more to it than that, it's at least one data point more than you presented.
   4321. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4220326)
Bush's immigration "reform" would have created new Democrats at a rate of about 10 to 1.

You do know that when in Texas Bush managed to pull down 50% of the hispanic vote? No of course you don't know that.
   4322. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4220328)
That seems pretty unlikely - it would start to need bipartisan support in state governments to get that in the next 8 years. Without bipartisan support, the compact would have to convince a number of swing states to join and intentionally reduce their own importance. And with bipartisan support, the compact ends the first time the results would be different - the citizens of non-swing states will find that they like the idea of the compact a lot less once it gives the presidency to the other guy.


Getting states to join is a big hurdle, but unless we have a Bush v. Gore repeat within a few elections I don't see states pulling out after the fact. Once people get used to a system, they tend to not want to get rid of it. So I am not sure they'd trash it if 32 years after the NVP Compact goes into effect an election ends up changing the outcome.
   4323. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4220329)
Do people think that getting rid of the EC might gain traction if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the EC this time?


Yes that's the ONLY way I see it getting traction near term.
   4324. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4220332)
I'm just surprised people remain so fascinated by polls.

They don't work very well. The electorate is always missampled (e.g. Rep/Ind/Dem breakdown of pop. is constantly in flux, turnout varies, etc.), a huge % of people either don't answer or don't have home phones anymore, and people flat out lie to pollsters.


That said, they still do a reasonable job for the most part. A lot of them are within their margin of error, but in a close election that means either candidate could be leading. I do think that even as polling methodology and techniques have become more sophisticated, the public has become less cooperative. Thirty years ago, I suspect those responding thought their opinions were carrying additional weight and possibly influencing others by being included in a political poll. Now, many find unsolicited phone calls of all kinds to be annoying. Living in a swing state, not only am I bombarded by political TV ads, but I've received more than a dozen calls this year that purport to be some pollster or opinion researcher. I believe most aren't really public opinion polls, but efforts to ascertain my political leanings to target me for more political mailings and solicitations, or to sell my info for others to do so. No thanks. I just hang-up on them all, including one purporting to be from Gallup. I doubt I'm the only one reacting this way, and I'm not sure that the curmudgeonly non-cooperators tilt right or left, but they could overlap with the supposedly conservative Get Off My Lawn Demographic.
   4325. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4220335)
The future prospects for people on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve are terrible and all trends indicate things will only get worse for them.


There is a bunch in this sub-thread: Education. Skilled. IQ.

These are not all the same thing. They are very very different things. Of course no one is worried about the currently well off and well connected (no matter their skill or IQ), because they will always do well.

How important is it for a society to have career opportunities for low education workers? Low skill workers? Low IQ workers? To what degree? On some level everyone should have a chance, but I also hear people trumpeting about meritocracies. If skill, education or IQ are linked to merit, shouldn't those workers be at a disadvantage in the market place?

If those things are important then what kind of policies can be enacted to help the low education, low skilled, or low IQ? Some kind of affirmative action? Government control to push hiring in industries offering those opportunities? Other?

I don't have answers, I am just curious about the statments on this because it does not fit into the typical discussion here and I am not sure what folksare getting at.

   4326. McCoy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4220336)
You do know that when in Texas Bush managed to pull down 50% of the hispanic vote? No of course you don't know that.

Isn't being the governor of Texas like being the mascot of the state or something? Dubya and Teddy Longhorn get to fire off the cannon on homecoming weekend.
   4327. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4220338)
2: Assuming you know # 1, what you meant to say is that you do not trust Nate BECAUSE he's a liberal, well Joe, that's only considered "rational behavior," in wingnut circles.

No, that's not what I meant to say. Thanks for playing, though.
   4328. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4220340)
Bush's immigration "reform" would have created new Democrats at a rate of about 10 to 1.


The GOP in a nutshell. The policy must fit the aims of the party, not the good of the nation.
   4329. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4220345)
Once people get used to a system, they tend to not want to get rid of it. So I am not sure they'd trash it if 32 years after the NVP Compact goes into effect an election ends up changing the outcome.

Considering the states would have recently changed a 230-year-old system, I'm not sure they would have such reverence for a 32-year-old one. And remember, not everybody has to agree to go back to the old system to return to it - only a combination of states that would leave the compact with under 270 electoral votes would have to prefer the old system.
   4330. zonk Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4220348)
The idea of a 3rd party President is, I think, silly.

3rd party proponents across the ideological spectrum are foolish to focus their energies on the White House. It's symbolic nonsense - a 3rd party President with absolutely no power over either party (and congress) is doomed to 1)get nothing done he wants to do, and 2)face an unending series of battles over everything he's even supposed to do.

You want to see real bipartisanship? Find this fantastical method to elect a non Republican/non Democrat - and watch how quickly the two parties find ways to work together to thwart a common enemy.

People that truly believe a 3rd party ideology would be much better served focusing on getting appreciable chunks of legislature in their hands. There are areas that would be amendable to have a Green or Libertarian (or whatever) congressman. There are even states that will gladly go outside the 2 main parties. They'll never build a majority, of course, but what they can become is power brokers that could trade caucusing and votes for main issues they care about.

I understand why they focus on the WH -- that race just gets all the oxygen in a cycle -- but smart 3rd party proponents would be wise to find districts and good candidates to snag handfuls of house seats here and there, over multiple cycles, until they can build a number has real value in increasingly party brokered votes.
   4331. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4220349)
And at least in terms of immediate impact there's the difference between Bush in 2004 winning 44% of the Hispanic vote running on an agenda that included overtures to the Hispanic community while winning 51% of the overall vote and John McCain's reversal of his previous immigration position in 2008 which resulted in winning 47% of the popular vote but only 35% of the Hispanic vote. While there's certainly more to it than that, it's at least one data point more than you presented.

Sure, but those numbers also show that Bush's "overtures" to Latinos only netted Bush an extra 9 percentage points in that demographic, and it's an article of faith that the 9 percent was due to immigration rather than the excellent 2004 economy (or something even simpler, such as Bush's likability).

Bottom line, politicians like winning elections. If the GOP thought immigration was a net win for them, they'd be pandering like crazy. But the polling has shown for years that for every Latino possibly won over to the GOP due to immigration, at least one white voter is turned off.

The whole immigration issue is something of a political paradox. GOPers typically welcome cheap labor, while Dems typically dislike cheap labor because of their various constituencies (unions, blacks, etc.). But both sides are now arguing from non-traditional angles.
   4332. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4220350)
Do people think that getting rid of the EC might gain traction if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the EC this time? In that case, both major parties will have seen the EC cost them an election. Or in that case, do both parties focus on the fact that the EC gave them an election that they (might have) lost otherwise and suddenly everybody becomes a fan of the EC?


That's a mighty interesting question, but I think yes. The memories of 2000 and 2012 would both be fresh and frustrating to each side, and right now a big problem is that a state with no reason NOT to enact the NPV like Texas hasn't because Republican elites are very cool to the idea given the result in 2000.

That seems pretty unlikely - it would start to need bipartisan support in state governments to get that in the next 8 years. Without bipartisan support, the compact would have to convince a number of swing states to join and intentionally reduce their own importance. And with bipartisan support, the compact ends the first time the results would be different - the citizens of non-swing states will find that they like the idea of the compact a lot less once it gives the presidency to the other guy.


My understanding is that the NPVIC goes live the moment that 270 EVs or more of states sign on. The states all pledge to direct their EVs to whoever won the national popular vote, making that candidate the winner regardless of whether the swing states have signed the compact into law. Thus, it wouldn't matter if the swing states decided that they didn't like it, because they wouldn't have any power to stop it. However, I probably have to downgrade "decent" chance to "plausible" chance now that I've played around with what combination of non-swing states would sign on. NPV states are in blue. As stands, however, there's already 134 EVs committed to the NPV. The big problem will be getting red states to sign on more than anything. But hey, it's a good idea and it's made good progress since first being introduced in 2007.

The future prospects for people on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve are terrible and all trends indicate things will only get worse for them.


Meh, if they're born to the right family they'll be fine.
   4333. zenbitz Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4220356)
Ah interesting about the little belt of blue there. Probably should have dug up the US map before I posted.
   4334. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4220358)
Thus, it wouldn't matter if the swing states decided that they didn't like it, because they wouldn't have any power to stop it.

The courts might have something to say about that.
   4335. zonk Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4220361)
The problem with the NPVIC as I see it is that technically - it's awfully hard to actually 'bind' delegates. Do all the signed on states have laws that bind their delegates? Even in 2004 - there was a single 'faithless' EV elector who gave his vote to John Edwards for President rather than John Kerry.

I think that if you want to get rid of the EC effectively, you'll have to actually get rid of the EC - otherwise, I just think you'd be headed for a bevy of elections that plagued the early Republic... 'corrupt bargains'... elections that wouldn't actually be decided until the EC votes - and those votes actually NOT exactly mirroring the NPVIC intent, etc. I see a recipe for disaster.

...and I say this as someone living a urban district fully aware that our entire system ensures that someone in nowhere, Wyoming or Snowbank, Alaska has a lot more theoretical electoral power than I do.
   4336. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4220363)
People that truly believe a 3rd party ideology would be much better served focusing on getting appreciable chunks of legislature in their hands.


When Ventura was Gov of MN he had an opporuntity to build (or at least try to build) a third party. Instead he wasted* the chance. Which agrees with your point I guess.

Anyway that was a fun election, talk about your terrible candidates. Jesse was easily the best** of the bunch.

* Not that I mind, because I am not convinced a third party really helpd my political goals. I am not sure though I admit.

** Best in the sense of charisma and campaigning. Norm Coleman and Skip Humphrey collectively have negative charisma.
   4337. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4220364)
My understanding is that the NPVIC goes live the moment that 270 EVs or more of states sign on. The states all pledge to direct their EVs to whoever won the national popular vote, making that candidate the winner regardless of whether the swing states have signed the compact into law.

I'm talking about the election after, assuming for the sake of argument that none of the roadblocks in the court system happen to stop the initial election.
   4338. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4220365)
But the polling has shown for years that for every Latino possibly won over to the GOP thanks to immigration talk, at least one white voter is turned off.


My point being that we're getting to a period where you can't win without huge margins among white voters unless you do decently among minorities; at some point the GOP is going to have to become more inclusive to win elections; and it would have been easier if the party hadn't discarded some of their fairly strong inroads into the Hispanic community. And that's not to say that they've discarded all of those inroads, but even Susanna Martinez lost the Hispanic vote by 23 points in 2010. That's better than the 39 point drubbing Romney is taken, but still isn't where you want to be. And of course, caveats and all about the Latino community not being monolithic.

Also, where are those white voters going to go? The Democrats? I mean, I guess they might stay home.

while Dems typically dislike cheap labor because of their various constituencies


Northern Dems rose out of immigrant political machines, and there's a long history of the party supporting immigration (e.g. Kennedy and the 1965 Immigration Act). And unions don't have a whole lot of juice anymore in the Dem party.
   4339. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4220369)
Even in 2004 - there was a single 'faithless' EV elector who gave his vote to John Edwards for President rather than John Kerry.


Oops. I think we can all agree now that was a bad decision. And I say that having liked Edwards in 2004 and think he would have had a better chance of winning the election in 2004 if he was on top of the ticket. The guy is a horrible creep though.
   4340. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4220376)
Northern Dems rose out of immigrant political machines, and there's a long history of the party supporting immigration (e.g. Kennedy and the 1965 Immigration Act). And unions don't have a whole lot of juice anymore in the Dem party.


Unions are the bogeyman that can't be let go of. The evil power of unions is equivalent to the myth of a liberal media on the mouthbreathers' side of things.
   4341. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4220378)
People that truly believe a 3rd party ideology would be much better served focusing on getting appreciable chunks of legislature in their hands.


If you could somehow get Instant Runoff Voting, that'd make this second task vastly easier. Otherwise you just end up like Canada, where a Conservative Party with 40% support wins central Toronto ridings because the NDP and Liberals killed each other. A third party with first past the post voting is either going to be completely ineffectual or see the party furthest from their ideological perspective win a lot of elections.

I'm talking about the election after, assuming for the sake of argument that none of the roadblocks in the court system happen to stop the initial election.


My mistake. I misread you originally. That's entirely possible.

eta: Though given the rarity of elections where one party wins the EC and the other the PV, it might only become an issue after decades of use where 1) more states have joined the compact thus requiring more withdrawls to take the compact out of force, and where 2) norms have sprung up after a couple generations of elections have occurred that would make withdrawl more politically expensive than it would be if the NPV affected the outcome of the election in it's first couple uses.
   4342. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4220382)
Bottom line, politicians like winning elections. If the GOP thought immigration was a net win for them, they'd be pandering like crazy.


I think this overstates the impact of people's genuine beliefs. Not all of politics is cynical pandering and poll watching. There is much of that, but usually that is built on a foundation of whatever beliefs are present. Right now the GOP is pretty nativist* and much of the activist base would not put up with a strong pro-immigration effort no matter how it polled with the general population.

Additionally how things poll is not truly exogenous. Advertising and message discipline can very much influence polling. If the GOP had decided to be pro-immigration and the Dems were pro-immigration it most likely would have become a non-issue, much like the other spots where the parties agree. Even when there is a strong percentage against something both parties agree on it is somewhat irrelevent - look at many of the Libertarian issues which have pretty good general support but go nowhere.

* I used this term to try an not sate they are racist. I don't know what percent are or are not. They are, however, very against immigration for whatever reason.
   4343. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4220384)
My point being that we're getting to a period where you can't win without huge margins among white voters unless you do decently among minorities; at some point the GOP is going to have to become more inclusive to win elections; and it would have been easier if the party hadn't discarded some of their fairly strong inroads into the Hispanic community. And that's not to say that they've discarded all of those inroads, but even Susanna Martinez lost the Hispanic vote by 23 points in 2010. That's better than the 39 point drubbing Romney is taken, but still isn't where you want to be. And of course, caveats and all about the Latino community not being monolithic.

I don't disagree in theory, but the problem is the one I mentioned earlier (which 'Bitter Mouse' quoted in #4312). It's very difficult for the GOP to attract Latino voters on principle when the Dems are attracting them with money. The only way immigration can become a net positive for the GOP is if chain migration is ditched and the focus shifts to a skills-based system.

And unions don't have a whole lot of juice anymore in the Dem party.

Come on. Stop pulling my leg.
   4344. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4220385)
The GOP *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to old, racist white people.
   4345. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4220386)
The GOP *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to old, racist white people.

The Democratic Party *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to people who want other people's stuff.

If you want to make a stupid generalization based on your own, extremist, biases, don't expect others to play the shrinking violets.
   4346. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4220391)
The GOP *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to old, racist white people.

The Democratic Party *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to people who want other people's stuff.


The Libertarian Party *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to people who don't believe in personal responsibility.

EDIT:
If you want to make a stupid generalization based on your own, extremist, biases, don't expect others to play the shrinking violets.


This was added after my post. And a fair point to make to Sam(which is also the point I was going to make to Dan).
   4347. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4220393)
So the GOP convention has begun. I want to go on record as saying that the split between Romney and Ron Paul forces won't amount to much. Though I admit I hope I am wrong.
   4348. McCoy Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4220394)
BTF *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to people who want to talk about baseball and other stuff.
   4349. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4220397)
The Democratic Party *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to people who want other people's stuff.


I'll take the "panders to sometimes nebulous interpretations of social justice" over "panders to racists, misogynists and homophobes" every day of the week and twice on Sunday, Daniel.
   4350. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4220400)
The Libertarian Party *is* pandering like crazy. They're pandering to people who don't believe in personal responsibility.

Sam's the one bringing up the extremist rhetoric. I'm just pointing out how two can play that game.
   4351. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4220403)
So the GOP convention has begun. I want to go on record as saying that the split between Romney and Ron Paul forces won't amount to much. Though I admit I hope I am wrong.


Ron Paul has already been sequestered in another venue and lost his attempt to end-around the delegate process. His continued existence in the GOP is nothing but window dressing to keep the Lib-Con alliance going on the failed assumption that Libertarians have any actual voice in the GOP/Teaper plans.
   4352. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4220406)
Sam's the one bringing up the extremist rhetoric.


There's nothing I've said that is "extremist" Cornholio.
   4353. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4220407)
So the GOP convention has begun. I want to go on record as saying that the split between Romney and Ron Paul forces won't amount to much. Though I admit I hope I am wrong.


It'll get papered over with some meaningless concession. Both sides have to save face.
   4354. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4220409)
So what percentage of Democrats "get other people's stuff"? How different is it from everyone else?

If we are claiming "get other people's stuff" includes Social Security and such then I don't know that the GOP is not "getting more stuff" than the Democrats. Which maybe makes Democratic voters foolish, or perhaps they are voting on other criteria.
   4355. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4220410)
Sam's the one bringing up the extremist rhetoric. I'm just pointing out how two can play that game.


Yeah, my addition after the edit should have been more clear. Also should have been tagged with an EDIT (as it is now)
   4356. The Good Face Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4220411)
These are not all the same thing. They are very very different things. Of course no one is worried about the currently well off and well connected (no matter their skill or IQ), because they will always do well.


They're not, although low IQ also correlates strongly with poor educational achievement. Not familiar with any data regarding job skills, but I'm guessing the same factors that cause the correlation with education would come into play there as well. Low IQ folks born into wealth don't really merit our concern, but are probably not statistically significant anyway.

How important is it for a society to have career opportunities for low education workers? Low skill workers? Low IQ workers? To what degree? On some level everyone should have a chance, but I also hear people trumpeting about meritocracies. If skill, education or IQ are linked to merit, shouldn't those workers be at a disadvantage in the market place?


Most of those questions are values judgements, but right now low IQ people are at a significant disadvantage in the jobs marketplace. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I anticipate a near future where automation essentially renders unskilled or semi-skilled labor virtually obsolete. Heck, we're not all that far away from cars and trucks being able to drive themselves autonomously. A disadvantage is very different from a world where the labor of 30-40% of the population is utterly worthless.

If those things are important then what kind of policies can be enacted to help the low education, low skilled, or low IQ? Some kind of affirmative action? Government control to push hiring in industries offering those opportunities? Other?


I'm increasingly coming to believe that the left got it correct (accidentally) the first time around. Isolate the population in subsidized stack-a-prole housing, ply them with cheap, carb-laden food to fatten them up, distract them with dumb spectacles on TV and/or occupy them with video games, while doling out a pittance. The alternatives all seem worse.
   4357. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4220414)
I'll take the "panders to sometimes nebulous interpretations of social justice" over "panders to racists, misogynists and homophobes" every day of the week and twice on Sunday, Daniel.

I'll take "panders to people who value personal responsibility" over "panders to people who value hatred, theft, and vengeance" twice every day of the week and eight times on Sunday, Samuel.

Well, I would, if I couldn't see good and bad in people in more subtle shades than the Falwells, Akins, and Hutchesons of the world and recognized that well-meaning people can disagree and poor-meaning people can agree.
   4358. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4220416)
It'll get papered over with some meaningless concession. Both sides have to save face.


Plus I think much of it is noise being reported on by reporters desperate to report on anythign interesting. And civil war is interesting. Remember the Clinton/Obama wars and how so many Democrats were going to be dissillusioned and vote for McCain?
   4359. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4220417)
The problem with the NPVIC as I see it is that technically - it's awfully hard to actually 'bind' delegates. Do all the signed on states have laws that bind their delegates? Even in 2004 - there was a single 'faithless' EV elector who gave his vote to John Edwards for President rather than John Kerry.


The NPVIC would bind delegates to vote for the winner of the plurality/majority by state law, and the procedure for withdrawal from the NPVIC prohibits doing so from July 20 of the election year through January 20 of the next year. I'm not sure how they're chosen, but I'm guessing the picks are made by the party that won the national popular vote. There's a question about faithless electors still, but we've had all of 8 in the last 100 years and that would still be an issue in any tight election under the EC.

Come on. Stop pulling my leg.


On big issues, they routinely lose. I'm not saying they don't have juice, but they can't even win on the fights they care most about (card check, free trade agreements) much less the ancillary ones.
   4360. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4220419)
There's nothing I've said that is "extremist" Cornholio.

It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Someone has to be to the left of Mother Jones, after all.
   4361. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4220420)
A disadvantage is very different from a world where the labor of 30-40% of the population is utterly worthless.


Time to pull out Player Piano again I guess. Though I am not convinced it will happen, but my future reading skills are not the best I admit.
   4362. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4220425)
"panders to racists, misogynists and homophobes"


This is partly my bias showing, but I think you can accurately describe a lot, but not by any means all, of people who are members in good standing of the GOP elite as actually doing this, whereas you could probably find some Democrats pandering "to people who value hatred, theft, and vengeance" but you'd be much harder pressed to find them high up in the party. Also, I thought a problem with Democrats was that we didn't value hatred and vengeance enough? That's why we were hippy tools?

And I won't be around to read the reply! Hah!
   4363. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4220428)
This is partly my bias showing, but I think you can accurately describe a lot, but not by any means all, of people who are members in good standing of the GOP elite as actually doing this, whereas you could probably find some Democrats pandering "to people who value hatred, theft, and vengeance" but you'd be much harder pressed to find them high up in the party


You have to account for the fact that Dan thinks any policy that levies taxes is "theft, hatred and vengeance" or some such hogwash.
   4364. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4220431)

The NPVIC would bind delegates to vote for the winner of the plurality/majority by state law, and the procedure for withdrawal from the NPVIC prohibits doing so from July 20 of the election year through January 20 of the next year.


Theoretically, that is, if all the court cases land on the side of NPVIC. The NPVIC has a lot riding on the courts deciding a particular way and there's probably no better way for the federal government to find a reason to get involved when states are attempting to compel each other to assign electors a certain way two months before an election.
   4365. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4220433)
You have to account for the fact that Dan thinks any policy that levies taxes is "theft, hatred and vengeance" or some such hogwash.

You have to account for the fact that Sam thinks any policy that differs from his chosen Democratic overlords is "racist, misogynist, and homophobic" or some such hogwash.
   4366. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4220439)
You have to account for the fact that Sam thinks any policy that differs from his chosen Democratic overlords is "racist, misogynist, and homophobic" or some such hogwash.


Then you must account for the fact that I'm more libertarian than Dan, which is what really pisses him off at heart.
   4367. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4220444)
It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Someone has to be to the left of Mother Jones, after all.
what do you define as extremist?

because it seems to me that your definition of extreme is supporting unemployment benefits and food stamps, and meanwhile, the vice-presidential candidate of the republican party believes that rape is just another form of conception, and that any woman who is impregnated by a rapist should be forced to carry the child to term.


   4368. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4220445)
what do you define as extremist?


Anyone who doesn't cower before his GOP overlords, natch.
   4369. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4220448)
You have to account for the fact that Sam thinks any policy that differs from his chosen Democratic overlords is "racist, misogynist, and homophobic" or some such hogwash.

If your official convention platform is expressly against same-sex marriage and against female troops in combat, those are pretty good for two and three, even without any kind of labored interpretation.
   4370. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4220449)
Opposing women in combat is misogynist? Yikes.
   4371. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4220452)
Opposing women in combat is misogynist? Yikes.

Well, I'm a pacifist, I think all dick-swinging club-bearers are ape-like morons, either sex; but if a woman is able to be an effective killer, exactly what else is your compelling reasoning for stopping them at this point?
   4372. Kurt Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4220453)
If your official convention platform is expressly against same-sex marriage and against female troops in combat, those are pretty good for two and three, even without any kind of labored interpretation.

I agree that large swaths of the GOP are homophobic, but was Obama homophobic in 2008? Or three months ago?
   4373. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4220455)
I can give you a detailed reasoning behind all three of my chosen terms there, explaining why it is appropriate to the 2012 GOP/TP alliance.

Any explanation Dan would give about the Dems being "in favor of theft" or whatever would have to begin with him explaining in rational terms why tax policy is "theft." I have little faith that that would happen. (Then he'd have to explain how his preferred GOP tax policy is not "theft" while the Dem policy is, which he could never pull off.)
   4374. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4220456)
but if a woman is able to be an effective killer, exactly what other reason do you have to stop them at this point?

Being an effective killer isn't the only requirement of a combat soldier.
   4375. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4220457)
I agree that large swaths of the GOP are homophobic, but was Obama homophobic in 2008?


Probably not, simply lacking the backbone to act on his personal convictions in the matter. There are tons of GOP pols who are not personally homophobic, but they support policies that pander to their Christianist base, which makes them active homophobes for all practical purposes.
   4376. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4220458)
I agree that large swaths of the GOP are homophobic, but was Obama homophobic in 2008? Or three months ago?

Hey, stop asking relevant questions! That's racist!
   4377. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4220460)
You have to account for the fact that Sam thinks any policy that differs from his chosen Democratic overlords is "racist, misogynist, and homophobic" or some such hogwash.

If your official convention platform is expressly against same-sex marriage and against female troops in combat, those are pretty good for two and three, even without any kind of labored interpretation.

The labored interpretation is equating opposition to women in combat as misogyny and opposition to same sex marriage as homophobia.
   4378. Jim Wisinski Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4220461)
Nvm
   4379. Kurt Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4220465)
Probably not, simply lacking the backbone to act on his personal convictions in the matter. There are tons of GOP pols who are not personally homophobic, but they support policies that pander to their Christianist base, which makes them active homophobes for all practical purposes.

But Obama was expressly against same-sex marriage in 2008. If the argument is that he wasn't personally homophobic but just saying those things to make himself more electable, how was he not by that definition an active homophobe for all practical purposes?
   4380. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4220467)
So what percentage of Democrats "get other people's stuff"? How different is it from everyone else?

I don't know how you could measure that for individuals without knowing everyone's party affiliation, but the red states consistently suck on the federal teat a lot more than the blue states do, while the blue states pay out more in federal taxes than they get back from Washington.
   4381. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4220469)
But Obama was expressly against same-sex marriage in 2008. If the argument is that he wasn't personally homophobic but just saying those things to make himself more electable, how was he not by that definition an active homophobe for all practical purposes?

It's different because Obama is a liberal. That's just how it works around here.
   4382. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4220472)
But Obama was expressly against same-sex marriage in 2008. If the argument is that he wasn't personally homophobic but just saying those things to make himself more electable, how was he not by that definition an active homophobe for all practical purposes?


It is my position that Obama was against same-sex marriage but for civil unions because that was what the polls told him he needed to be. If he were a member of a coalition that continued to propose and pass legislation to oppress and marginalize gays and lesbians he'd be a homophobe for all practical purposes. The evidence suggests he was just a politician unwilling to do what's right for fear of electoral backlash instead.

Barack Obama ended Don't Ask Don't Tell and is part of the following masses on marriage equality. Mitt Romney and the official GOP party platform want to re-instate Don't Ask Don't Tell and pass a federal Constitutional amendment denying marriage equality forever.

It's not even close, and the attempt to make it seem so is just stupid partisanship.
   4383. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4220476)
I don't know who is homophobic, racist or misogynistic. Gays, Minorities and Women do favor D over R, so to the extent they (collectively) have a preference it is pretty clear.

Slightly off topic: What does make a good combat soldier, that women don't have? I see no reason Women shouldn't serve in combat.
   4384. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4220481)
I agree that large swaths of the GOP are homophobic, but was Obama homophobic in 2008? Or three months ago?



Hey, stop asking relevant questions! That's racist!
But Obama was expressly against same-sex marriage in 2008. If the argument is that he wasn't personally homophobic but just saying those things to make himself more electable, how was he not by that definition an active homophobe for all practical purposes?
contrary to what a lot of breeders believe, marriage is not the only issue of importance to gay men.

obama killed don't ask, don't tell. he dragged his feet on it, but he got it done. obama is also a supporter of the employment non-discrimination act, which would make it illegal to fire an employee specifically because he's gay. in addition, obama's refusal to defend the defense of marriage act actually predates his announcement of his support for marriage equality, which means that even when he was allegedly homophobic, he was still supporting marriage equality.


   4385. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 28, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4220482)
Texas' voting districts are again in upheaval after a federal court on Tuesday found evidence of discrimination in new district maps drawn and approved by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature last year.


Source. Good timing for this discussion.
   4386. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4220485)
But Obama was expressly against same-sex marriage in 2008. If the argument is that he wasn't personally homophobic but just saying those things to make himself more electable, how was he not by that definition an active homophobe for all practical purposes?
That's roughly correct. Both parties have pandered to homophobes and opposed marriage equality and gay rights for much of the last several decades. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, have supported anti-discrimination measures and half-measures toward marriage equality, which, however, while better than nothing, were entirely insufficient to earn them much praise - especially since Clinton's passage of DOMA was one of the greatest victories for anti-gay bigotry of its time. Now, though, the Democratic Party has mostly come around to the side of justice, while the Republicans remain the party of anti-gay bigotry.
   4387. Kurt Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4220488)
It is my position that Obama was against same-sex marriage but for civil unions because that was what the polls told him he needed to be. If he were a member of a coalition that continued to propose and pass legislation to oppress and marginalize gays and lesbians he'd be a homophobe for all practical purposes. The evidence suggests he was just a politician unwilling to do what's right for fear of electoral backlash instead.

Barack Obama ended Don't Ask Don't Tell and is part of the following masses on marriage equality. Mitt Romney and the official GOP party platform want to re-instate Don't Ask Don't Tell and pass a federal Constitutional amendment denying marriage equality forever.

It's not even close, and the attempt to make it seem so is just stupid partisanship.


My point was not to argue that Obama is or was homophobic. I agree with you about Obama. My point was that being expressly against same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily* make one a homophobe, which I think you just demonstrated.

*no argument that there's an awful lot of correlation between opposition to SSM and homophobia, and correlation between opposition to SSM and positions on other issues which are actually homophobic.

Edit: I see several people interpreted my question the same way same way Sam did, which suggests that I made my point poorly.
   4388. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4220489)
was Obama homophobic in 2008


There's a rather large gap between supporting civil unions but not gay marriage and supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Further, if Obama had been hiding his real values on gay marriage - which seems entirely possible - in order to seem more electable, that's an act of political cowardice. But, at least to me, it's far less of a sin than knowingly supporting something like the ban on gay marriage not because of any personally held belief but for political gain.

The NPVIC has a lot riding on the courts deciding a particular way and there's probably no better way for the federal government to find a reason to get involved when states are attempting to compel each other to assign electors a certain way two months before an election.


Well, yes. However, this would be a unique intrusion that went directly against both past precedent and the letter of the Constitution. And you can say this about any major law, if 5 justices really want to strike something down, they'll do it. It would still be a pretty unique act on the part of the Court, even more so given that the compact will necessarily have passed via bipartisan means. But if it does fail, then it'll take a constitutional amendment to fix the problem. Which will be unfortunate.

Opposing women in combat is misogynist?


Stepping beyond what's in the GOP platform, which includes another proposed constitutional amendment that would force women to raise their rapist's child, you've got the GOP Senate candidate in PA stating that his daughter having an out of wedlock child was similar to his daughter being impregnated by rape. You've also got the effort, cosponsored by the party's VP nominee, to relable Rape as Forcible Rape. I can't see the need for the changed definition outside of implying that only forcible rapes count and that the woman had the date rape or drug induced rape coming. Like racism, misogyny isn't defined by frothing at the mouth hatred of a group. It's, to borrow Ta-Nehisi Coates's excellent recent line, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others.
   4389. Greg K Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4220491)
Slightly off topic: What does make a good combat soldier, that women don't have? I see no reason Women shouldn't serve in combat.

I don't think the King of Dahomey had many complaints about how his female legions held up against European invaders.
   4390. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4220492)
There's a rather large gap between supporting civil unions but not gay marriage and supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
There is, but opposition to marriage equality is a bad and wrong position, and it's bad that the establishment Democratic Party supported that position for so long.
   4391. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4220493)
Then you must account for the fact that I'm more libertarian than Dan, which is what really pisses him off at heart.

You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot. You're on record as stating that pre-Civil War blacks had no rights violated.
   4392. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4220494)
tepping beyond what's in the GOP platform, which includes another proposed constitutional amendment that would force women to raise their rapist's child

If, in fact, you believe a fetus is a person from conception (I don't), it's irrelevant how the person was conceived - the law would be protecting the person's right to exist. A person born of a loving family is no different substance than a person born of rape.
   4393. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4220495)
But Obama was expressly against same-sex marriage in 2008.


He was also for civil unions, for repealing DOMA, for ENDA, and for repealing DADT. To call that position "homophobic" as compared to the GOPs position to pass a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, for maintaining DOMA (to the point where the house GOP stepped in to defend it when the Justice Department refused to), for maintaining/reinstating DADT, and opposing ENDA, is not a very robust argument and seeks to elide context for the sake of scoring more points than there are to be had in noting Obama's political cowardice on gay marriage.
   4394. Lassus Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4220496)
but was Obama homophobic in 2008? Or three months ago?

This one's for Joe "whee, gotcha" Kehoskie: Yes, IMO. Political cowardice also works, but I'm also in agreement with what he got done for the gay population, stuff the GOP would sooner eat their own vomit than consider.


The labored interpretation is equating opposition to women in combat as misogyny and opposition to same sex marriage as homophobia.

The compelling, logical, bipartisan argument for no female combat troops is? As far as marriage and homophobia, why you get to have what gay people don't get to have simply means you don't like what gay people are. There is no other reason.

And, steagles said it way better than I would have in #4384.


It's different because Obama is a liberal. That's just how it works around here.

Just saw this. Are you practicing for Jr. High Debate Society?
   4395. PreservedFish Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4220498)
You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot. You're on record as stating that pre-Civil War blacks had no rights violated.


Is it necessary to believe in Inalienable Rights in order to be a libertarian?
   4396. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4220499)
My point was not to argue that Obama is or was homophobic. I agree with you about Obama. My point was that being expressly against same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily* make one a homophobe, which I think you just demonstrated.


It is possible, but it is rare. Such a position would require you to begin at the assumption that marriage is only and ever for procreation (which actually leads to a bit of the misogyny elements) and that any marriage that is non-procreative is not a real marriage.

There are about 12 people in the United States who honestly hold that position without having underlying animus to gays and lesbians.
   4397. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4220503)
You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot. You're on record as stating that pre-Civil War blacks had no rights violated.


You know, last time you started just making up #### I never said and attributing it to me anyway, Jimmy dropped your ass in time-out for two weeks. Do you not recognize the causation involved in that?
   4398. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4220504)
If, in fact, you believe a fetus is a person from conception (I don't), it's irrelevant how the person was conceived - the law would be protecting the person's right to exist. A person born of a loving family is no different substance than a person born of rape.
don't you mean that a fetus becomes a person 2 weeks before conception?

because that seems like it may become the new standard for the republican party.
   4399. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4220505)
If, in fact, you believe a fetus is a person from conception (I don't), it's irrelevant how the person was conceived - the law would be protecting the person's right to exist. A person born of a loving family is no different substance than a person born of rape.


This is true. As such, you preference a party that believes in the "natural rights" of a ####### zygote over the natural rights of a living woman. But *you're* the defender of liberty and freedom, right?
   4400. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4220506)
Is it necessary to believe in Inalienable Rights in order to be a libertarian?

Belief you have have dominion of yourself is the core of libertarianism. It's like complaining that believing in God is necessary to be a Catholic or complaining that a grilled cheese sandwich isn't made of tuna, mayonnaise, and bread. You can be agnostic and you can want a tuna sandwich, but you're not a Catholic or eating a grilled cheese sandwich.

here are about 12 people in the United States who honestly hold that position without having underlying animus to gays and lesbians.

Fine, then we can conclude, equally, that only 12 people in the United States that are in favor of gigantically progressive tax systems to not be motivated by underlying animus.

Well, if we were you.
Page 44 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1139 - 2:45am, Nov 27)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(17 - 2:30am, Nov 27)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(9 - 2:30am, Nov 27)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(13 - 2:19am, Nov 27)
Last: Walt Davis

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(31 - 1:23am, Nov 27)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5002 - 1:10am, Nov 27)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-25-2014
(9 - 1:05am, Nov 27)
Last: esseff

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(9 - 1:01am, Nov 27)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(6 - 12:46am, Nov 27)
Last: starving to death with a full STEAGLES

NewsblogBoston Red Sox owner John Henry hopeful on re-signing Jon Lester, says team willing to exceed luxury tax - ESPN Boston
(1 - 12:40am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(31 - 12:31am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(28 - 12:15am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8707 - 11:04pm, Nov 26)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(21 - 10:50pm, Nov 26)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogWendy Thurm on Twitter: "What the hell kinda panda is that?"
(14 - 10:47pm, Nov 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Page rendered in 0.9495 seconds
52 querie(s) executed