Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,595 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>

TheWhiteknife wrote:
If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists.

And while this part is sort of true, it's only true in the context where Congress has authorized the President to use military force against those terrorists. You could just as well say: If I hire someone to fly over a city and drop bombs on it, it's murder, if the President does, it's war.

Governments have different powers and responsibilities than citizens. This is suddenly horrible?


When misused, it truly becomes horrible.


TheWhiteknife wrote:


Im not sure if we have the same definitions then. To me, if the rule of law only applies to me and not the political class, then yes, they are rulers and we are subjects.

It's often harder to convict the rich and powerful, I'll grant you. Though that applies to corporate CEOs as much as politicians.

That said, the rule of law applies to the political class. There is no blanket immunity. (Presidents and governors can pardon, Congressmen can not be prosecuted for speech on the floor.)
Being in general rich powerful and connected, they do have an advantage, better lawyers if nothing else, but plenty of politicians have been prosecuted and convicted.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists.

And while this part is sort of true, it's only true in the context where Congress has authorized the President to use military force against those terrorists. You could just as well say: If I hire someone to fly over a city and drop bombs on it, it's murder, if the President does, it's war.

Governments have different powers and responsibilities than citizens. This is suddenly horrible?

First about the secret kill list, he does approval to fight terrorists. (i dont agree with the use of military authorisations, technically the law is that war must be declared by Congress, but whatever.) But should he not have to prove that he is only targeting terrorists? And not say, just areas and people who kinda look like and may possibly be terrorists? I am allowed to kill someone in self-defense.

About the war analogy. No, I could not say that. The rule of law states that the President may initiate hostilities for 90 days (30 of which is designated for withdrawal) without any approval. (once again, neither here nor there, but I doubt the Constitutionality of this law.) If I recall correctly, the President had neither Congressional approval nor did he stay within the War Powers Act's timeframe in Libya. Once again rule of law is subverted.

EDIT
About government have differing responsibilities and such. They already do have different laws that govern them. I have no problem with this due to the fact, as you pointed out, they have different functions than us. But they continously break those laws. That qualifies them as rulers, not leaders, in my opinion.

Also note that I did originally say political-corporate class.


Icyshadow wrote:
When misused, it truly becomes horrible.

Yeah. Agreed. Depending on the nature of the misuse.

What's the solution?
If we're talking about the military, do we dissolve the military entirely and remove the government's ability to start and wage war? Or do we allow any citizen to start and wage wars?
Either would give citizens and the government the same powers and responsibilities as far as war goes and thus solve that problem.

Or do we accept the different responsibilities and attempt to prevent the misuse? Which does not necessarily mean voting against a President doing the misuse, if that means helping to elect a candidate who has shown no signs of doing better and has campaigned for even more militarization.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

I mostly reject that Im a monster because I refuse to condone the police state that will increase with either major candidate or the secret killings that will increase with either major candidate. If Im a monster because those are most important to me, so be it. I think that anyone who doesnt consider those to be the most important to be a monster, as well.

Edit- this is the last I'll be posting here. Its devolved into each of us calling each other monsters. The election will be over soon. Nothing will change.

Although, Scott, you might have convinced me to not go third party. I might go Romney just so that the democrats can go back to pretending that they want to end these wars, demanding that we stand up for civil liberties, and feigning disgust over corporate welfare. But no, not really.

You have the patience of a saint, TheWhiteknife, but reason is wasted on some people.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Yeah. I mean really. We are subjects, they are rulers, but voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything.
If it's all as much of a con game as some seem to think, if the two major parties are in cahoots to just keep swapping power back and forth with the same agenda, then at best they only allow the third parties to exist because they know they won't affect anything. At worst, they're part of the scam too.

Please point out to me where I said that voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything. Please, please do so. Please tell me where Ive said that the two parties are in cahoots. Please, I beg you, tell me where. (although they are in cahoots over who gets into debates, but that really has nothing to do over policy.)

You just admitted they were in cahoots just now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:


Im not sure if we have the same definitions then. To me, if the rule of law only applies to me and not the political class, then yes, they are rulers and we are subjects.

It's often harder to convict the rich and powerful, I'll grant you. Though that applies to corporate CEOs as much as politicians.

That said, the rule of law applies to the political class. There is no blanket immunity. (Presidents and governors can pardon, Congressmen can not be prosecuted for speech on the floor.)
Being in general rich powerful and connected, they do have an advantage, better lawyers if nothing else, but plenty of politicians have been prosecuted and convicted.

I never claimed that they have blanket immunity. Only that they dont have blanket vulnerability, as we do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Yeah. I mean really. We are subjects, they are rulers, but voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything.
If it's all as much of a con game as some seem to think, if the two major parties are in cahoots to just keep swapping power back and forth with the same agenda, then at best they only allow the third parties to exist because they know they won't affect anything. At worst, they're part of the scam too.

Please point out to me where I said that voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything. Please, please do so. Please tell me where Ive said that the two parties are in cahoots. Please, I beg you, tell me where. (although they are in cahoots over who gets into debates, but that really has nothing to do over policy.)
You just admitted they were in cahoots just now.

I sincerely apologise. i was on my phone at the time and didnt want to type out the whole sentence "Tell me where Ive ever said that the two parties are in cahoots to just keep swapping power back and forth with the same agenda."

I realise that many in the democratic party sincerely want to help the common man. I realise that many in the republican party want to help line the coffers of themselves and their corporate sponsors. They dont have the same agenda. But when both want to increase the scope of the Federal government,no matter how altruistic or nefarious the reason, it amkes it an even juicier target for takeover for those who do not wish us well. Somehow this makes me a monster and/or delusional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Except when it's NATO bombing Libyan babies, then it's okay.

You miss the point of my (I thought obviously satirical) rant.

You can't use the reasoning that says:

1)I don't vote for murderers.
2)Obama is a murderer (using cherry-picked rhetorical definition of murder)
3)I won't vote for Obama.

And then vote for Johnson. Johnson is every bit a murderer under a different yet valid rhetorical definition of murder. You can argue "yeah, but..." and examine mitigating circumstances, but to do so and then deny that leeway in moral scrutiny to Obama is unfair.

But this is what absolutist ideologies lead to, this precise sort of reductio ad absurdum argument. If someone wants to say that being anti-murder, and that that is the defining issue of their ballot, it should be clear that even this is a shades of grey issue. You (or TWK) may think Gary Johnson is a stand up fella....

I probably did miss the satirical point.

Mainly because the sentence you had originally quoted wasn't "I don't vote for murderers" but "I have no respect for people who endorse wholesale murder."

I am an opponent of the death penalty. I have no use for the Libertarian Party or Gary Johnson. But executing one pedophilic rapist/killer hardly qualifies as endorsing wholesale murder.

Unlike, say, endorsing drone strikes which have killed between 237-342 children in four countries.

EDIT: Unless there's something I don't know about Clark, I only glanced at the wikipedia page and that was after realizing that I had to distinguish him from Terri Clark.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


I have no use for the Libertarian Party or Gary Johnson.

You Lie!!!!!!!!

spoiler:
shovel storage

That was Ron. This Gary person is a complete stranger to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, it was a lot of fun in here yesterday and that wasn't even Election Day, but I'm going to pass on the "you're a monster"/"you're an idiot"/"you're a [redacted]-guzzling sorority sister" drama for today.

I've got other things to do...

[bubble bubble bubble]


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
That was Ron. This Gary person is a complete stranger to me.

well, hedge clippers, then?


Icyshadow wrote:

Dismissing fears based off historical evidence of mankind's stupidity and the corrupting power of authority is going out of bounds with reality.

The one needing their head checked here is you, Scott. Life is not all sunshine and rainbows, unless you're posting now while completely stoned.

And for all the good a president can do, so too can he or she abuse that power, twist it to his/her own ends and ruin everything for everyone around them.

This doesn't have anything to do with anything we were talking about. Thewhiteknife made the claim that the President doesn't have anything to do with a whole laundry list of issues. That claim is false, and all I was doing was showing that it was false. I'm not sure why you decided to post the above, other than to pile more empty rhetoric on an already rhetoric-crowded thread.


Icyshadow wrote:
If you can't put two and two together, I'll just not bother trying to explain my point.

When multiple people make it clear that they don't have any idea what you were saying, it's courteous to go through the trouble of explaining yourself, even if you think you were crystal clear to begin with.

"If you don't know already I'm not telling you!" sounds a lot like, "Crap, they called me out on it! Time to bail!"


Bitter Thorn wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I mostly reject that Im a monster because I refuse to condone the police state that will increase with either major candidate or the secret killings that will increase with either major candidate. If Im a monster because those are most important to me, so be it. I think that anyone who doesnt consider those to be the most important to be a monster, as well.

Edit- this is the last I'll be posting here. Its devolved into each of us calling each other monsters. The election will be over soon. Nothing will change.

Although, Scott, you might have convinced me to not go third party. I might go Romney just so that the democrats can go back to pretending that they want to end these wars, demanding that we stand up for civil liberties, and feigning disgust over corporate welfare. But no, not really.

You have the patience of a saint, TheWhiteknife, but reason is wasted on some people.

You're talking about the guy who literally claimed the President has nothing to do with the budget, and you attack the people arguing with him for being unreasonable?

Good lord.


My point is, despite all the good you speak of Obama, he's been shown to misuse whatever authority he has as president.

There, you happy?


Scott Betts wrote:

You're talking about the guy who literally claimed the President has nothing to do with the budget, and you attack the people arguing with him for being unreasonable?

Good lord.

Don't you know the President's only job is to kill people and he shouldn't do that.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You're talking about the guy who literally claimed the President has nothing to do with the budget, and you attack the people arguing with him for being unreasonable?

Good lord.

Don't you know the President's only job is to kill people and he shouldn't do that.

I loled


Icyshadow wrote:
My point is, despite all the good you speak of Obama, he's been shown to misuse whatever authority he has as president.

Actually, he's used most of the powers granted to him by his office quite reasonably (not to mention well within precedent). You're pointing to a handful of issues that you believe represent abuse of power, and saying that's all he ever does. That's a micharacterization, regardless of whether you think they're actually abuses of power.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You're talking about the guy who literally claimed the President has nothing to do with the budget, and you attack the people arguing with him for being unreasonable?

Good lord.

Don't you know the President's only job is to kill people and he shouldn't do that.

No wonder they want to vote third party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope those die hard supporters of whatever candidate will find calm and a sense of well being in the days/weeks/months to come, if their preferred candidate does not win. I fear too many have put too much emotional energy in whether their candidate wins, and if that candidate loses, the people are going to lose their .... stuff.

No matter who wins, life will go on. Life isn't fair, and we don't always get the world we would wish. Control what you can, and don't worry night after night over what you can't control.


Short, sweet and the the point. Yes.

Icyshadow wrote:

My point is, despite all the good you speak of Obama, he's been shown to misuse whatever authority he has as president.

There, you happy?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You're talking about the guy who literally claimed the President has nothing to do with the budget, and you attack the people arguing with him for being unreasonable?

Good lord.

Don't you know the President's only job is to kill people and he shouldn't do that.

Cmon thejeff, youre better than this. Where was this claimed? The job of the president is to execute the directives of the legislative branch, be in charge of foreign relations, and, when told to do so by congress lead the military in war. Not pass budgets by himself. About the only thing the president is supposed to have near total leeway in doing is the whole foreign diplomacy thing. If you want to influence the budget, your congressional representatives are your best bet. On foreign relations and the whole war thing, Mitt and Obama are pretty close to the same. On only executing what Congress tells them to do, they also agree that they shouldnt be so constrained. But that might be my delusions talking.

Putting words into my mouth does not help me see your point of view.
Although Im kind of looking forward to what you twist this into.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:


If Obama wins, and especially if he is followed into office with a wave of new Democratic blood, I predict it will be the downfall of the Republican party as we know it. There will likely be a split between the "liberty" wing and the social conservative religious reich, once and for all.

Those aren't really separate wings when you get right down to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
If Obama wins, and especially if he is followed into office with a wave of new Democratic blood, I predict it will be the downfall of the Republican party as we know it. There will likely be a split between the "liberty" wing and the social conservative religious reich, once and for all. And the death of the Republican party is the only way I see real progress happening, since the rest of us can then focus on molding the Democratic party to a more progressive bent.

I'm not sure how having a single monolithic party would motivate it to change at all. A single party system would be less diverse than a two party system, and would be even less beholden to the voting public.


pres man wrote:
meatrace wrote:
If Obama wins, and especially if he is followed into office with a wave of new Democratic blood, I predict it will be the downfall of the Republican party as we know it. There will likely be a split between the "liberty" wing and the social conservative religious reich, once and for all. And the death of the Republican party is the only way I see real progress happening, since the rest of us can then focus on molding the Democratic party to a more progressive bent.
I'm not sure how having a single monolithic party would motivate it to change at all. A single party system would be less diverse than a two party system, and would be even less beholden to the voting public.

Well, there won't be a single party for long. The system won't allow it.

Either the Republicans will get their act together, another group will replace them or the Democrats will split.
It might take a couple of cycles to shake out.

I'm still expecting the Republicans to double down on the crazy in the next cycle: Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Completely ignoring that the closest he ever came in the polls was when he morphed himself into a moderate for the debates.


pres man wrote:

I hope those die hard supporters of whatever candidate will find calm and a sense of well being in the days/weeks/months to come, if their preferred candidate does not win. I fear too many have put too much emotional energy in whether their candidate wins, and if that candidate loses, the people are going to lose their .... stuff.

No matter who wins, life will go on. Life isn't fair, and we don't always get the world we would wish. Control what you can, and don't worry night after night over what you can't control.

Well, I'm about 90.9% sure that Obama is going to win this. The swing state polling gives him a definite advantage and the recent momentum has been in his direction.

I am a little concerned about right-wing reaction. There's a lot of crazy talk going around.
Democrats just tend to get depressed when they lose a close one.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You're talking about the guy who literally claimed the President has nothing to do with the budget, and you attack the people arguing with him for being unreasonable?

Good lord.

Don't you know the President's only job is to kill people and he shouldn't do that.
Cmon thejeff, youre better than this. Where was this claimed? The job of the president is to execute the directives of the legislative branch, be in charge of foreign relations, and, when told to do so by congress lead the military in war. Not pass budgets by himself. About the only thing the president is supposed to have near total leeway in doing is the whole foreign diplomacy thing. If you want to influence the budget, your congressional representatives are your best bet. On foreign relations and the whole war thing, Mitt and Obama are pretty close to the same. On only executing what Congress tells them to do, they also agree that they shouldnt be so constrained. But that might be my delusions talking.

There was some snark in that :)

I completely disagree that Romney and Obama are close on foreign policy/war, despite Romney suddenly agreeing with everything Obama said in the foreign policy debate. Everything else he's said has been far more bellicose, from the massive military spending increases, to being against a withdrawal date for Afghanistan, to a harsher stance on Iran. Looking at his foreign policy advisers doesn't reassure me either.

As for passing budgets himself, obviously not. That doesn't mean he has nothing to do with budgets. There is also a good deal of leeway in "executing the directives of the legislative branch", most of it built in by Congress. And of course, there are always vetoes. And judges.

You might not agree with Obama or think Romney is the same, but the claim the President has nothing to do with the issues really reflects either ignorance or willful misunderstanding of the way the government works. Nor is this a recent change.


Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.

Oh please, ScottBetts is entirely too wrapped up in political rhetoric and partisan ideology to be confronted by something as obvious and reasonable as this...

By his thinking, Republicans are barely human. ( ) that guy.

I'll edit myself here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps I should amend it to: They mostly agree about the things that they directly have control over then. Lets look at some of these issues: they both agree that we should still be in Afghanistan, even though everybody involved in 9-11 is long dead or captured. Sure they might disagree on withdrawal, but they agree that we should still be there. They both agree that Iranians should be starved to death and have their finances crippled for having the gall to want energy independence (they really lack refining capabilities). Sure they might disagree on the "redline" for (probably unconstitutional) military intervention, but they both agree that we have to "stand up" to Iran. The budget? they both agree that we should increase spending. They might disagree with the specifics, but they both agree that the debt should most definitely be increased. Vetos? They are both for not vetoing some of the most insidious legislative acts. (in Obama's case, the NDAA and the extension of the Patriot Act, Mitt Romney agrees) Judges? I predict that both will appoint judges based by how much they align with their party, rather than their impartiality and adherence to the Constitution.

I think I understand pretty well. I think you are whitewashing things. I'll be voting third party because of what the two agree upon, not the nuances that set them apart. If that makes me a monster, so be it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


I'm still expecting the Republicans to double down on the crazy in the next cycle: Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Completely ignoring that the closest he ever came in the polls was when he morphed himself into a moderate for the debates.

While there may be conservative pundits already looking to do a post mortem on a body that hasn't stopped breathing yet, I think it's a bit premature to call the election at this point. In fact I think it may be weeks before the Supreme Court gives it to Romney just yet.


First, I don't think I've ever called you a monster.

I think you're wrong. I think you're whitewashing significant differences into mere nuances, largely by drawing a line and claiming everything on one side of it is equally bad.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:

I hope those die hard supporters of whatever candidate will find calm and a sense of well being in the days/weeks/months to come, if their preferred candidate does not win. I fear too many have put too much emotional energy in whether their candidate wins, and if that candidate loses, the people are going to lose their .... stuff.

No matter who wins, life will go on. Life isn't fair, and we don't always get the world we would wish. Control what you can, and don't worry night after night over what you can't control.

Well, I'm about 90.9% sure that Obama is going to win this. The swing state polling gives him a definite advantage and the recent momentum has been in his direction.

I am a little concerned about right-wing reaction. There's a lot of crazy talk going around.
Democrats just tend to get depressed when they lose a close one.

I'm guessing Obama wins the Electoral College, but Sandy sunk his chances at the Popular Vote. NY and NJ are still going to go blue, but will do so with significantly depressed voter turnout. With his 2-1 advantage in those major states reduced, it will translate to what I'm guessing will be more than Romney's margin of victory in the Popular vote. Its actually a good argument against going to straight popular vote (personally, I advocate proportional state voting).

Dedicated Voter 2013

There is still more than 5 hours before the Virginia polls close. The lines have been long all day so far, everyone is being civil to one another and no idealogues are getting into each other's faces.

See you after 11 or 12 pm Eastern time.

Bills still have to be paid after all. :)


thejeff wrote:

First, I don't think I've ever called you a monster.

I think you're wrong. I think you're whitewashing significant differences into mere nuances, largely by drawing a line and claiming everything on one side of it is equally bad.

First, I thank you for that. But I also realise that you arent the only person reading this.

Theres some truth to that, but you realise that if you dont want something done and both major candidates do, (but want to do it in different ways), they look functionally the same.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I'm still expecting the Republicans to double down on the crazy in the next cycle: Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Completely ignoring that the closest he ever came in the polls was when he morphed himself into a moderate for the debates.

While there may be conservative pundits already looking to do a post mortem on a body that hasn't stopped breathing yet, I think it's a bit premature to call the election at this point. In fact I think it may be weeks before the Supreme Court gives it to Romney just yet.

It's always possible and I was a lot less hopeful a few weeks ago, but Romney's got a much harder path to 270 electoral votes than Obama does. There would have to have been a systemic bias in the polling for him to win. Obama's needs less of the swing states and he's ahead in more of them and the polling has been trending his way for weeks now.


thejeff wrote:


It's always possible and I was a lot less hopeful a few weeks ago, but Romney's got a much harder path to 270 electoral votes than Obama does. There would have to have been a systemic bias in the polling for him to win. Obama's needs less of the swing states and he's ahead in more of them and the polling has been trending his way for weeks now.

Good. The party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the honoring of the Constitution deserve to lose for nominating Mitt Romney.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's always possible and I was a lot less hopeful a few weeks ago, but Romney's got a much harder path to 270 electoral votes than Obama does. There would have to have been a systemic bias in the polling for him to win. Obama's needs less of the swing states and he's ahead in more of them and the polling has been trending his way for weeks now.
Good. The party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the honoring of the Constitution deserve to lose for nominating Mitt Romney.

Republicans talk about such things, but they haven't actually been that party in my lifetime. They've got good PR going though. For my lifetime they've been (in varying proportions) the party of racism, tax cuts/deficits and government intrusion into your sex life,

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's always possible and I was a lot less hopeful a few weeks ago, but Romney's got a much harder path to 270 electoral votes than Obama does. There would have to have been a systemic bias in the polling for him to win. Obama's needs less of the swing states and he's ahead in more of them and the polling has been trending his way for weeks now.
Good. The party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the honoring of the Constitution deserve to lose for nominating Mitt Romney.
Republicans talk about such things, but they haven't actually been that party in my lifetime. They've got good PR going though. For my lifetime they've been (in varying proportions) the party of racism, tax cuts/deficits and government intrusion into your sex life,

Don't forget, they also historically increase federal spending by greater percentages and are less likely to pay off debt.


pres man wrote:

I hope those die hard supporters of whatever candidate will find calm and a sense of well being in the days/weeks/months to come, if their preferred candidate does not win. I fear too many have put too much emotional energy in whether their candidate wins, and if that candidate loses, the people are going to lose their .... stuff.

No matter who wins, life will go on. Life isn't fair, and we don't always get the world we would wish. Control what you can, and don't worry night after night over what you can't control.

I don't think it's going to be a real issue. Republicans had to deal with it four years ago and the worst that came of it was the birther movement. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing the Republican party try something like that again, given how well it turned out last time.

As for Democrats, we've gotten really, really good at losing elections.


Solwynn bint Khalsim ibn Abdul wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.

Oh please, ScottBetts is entirely too wrapped up in political rhetoric and partisan ideology to be confronted by something as obvious and reasonable as this...

By his thinking, Republicans are barely human. ( ) that guy.

I'll edit myself here.

Yeah...you should probably keep reading this thread, especially the part where I said that there are definitely good examples of Republican politicians who have experienced real hardship.

I'm a Democratic partisan, but that doesn't mean I believe all Republicans are awful. The problems of the current Republican party are fairly recent, and a lot of current politicians have been around a lot longer than that.


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:

I hope those die hard supporters of whatever candidate will find calm and a sense of well being in the days/weeks/months to come, if their preferred candidate does not win. I fear too many have put too much emotional energy in whether their candidate wins, and if that candidate loses, the people are going to lose their .... stuff.

No matter who wins, life will go on. Life isn't fair, and we don't always get the world we would wish. Control what you can, and don't worry night after night over what you can't control.

Well, I'm about 90.9% sure that Obama is going to win this. The swing state polling gives him a definite advantage and the recent momentum has been in his direction.

I am a little concerned about right-wing reaction. There's a lot of crazy talk going around.
Democrats just tend to get depressed when they lose a close one.

That is cool, and you probably are right. Still, looking at just the reactions after the 1st debate, I'm not sure if Dems are emotionally prepared, just in case that other 9.1% occurs (that's more than rolling a 1 on a d20, and we know how those happen a seemly often number of times).


[toast]Here's to a continuing trend![/toast]


Caineach wrote:
I'm guessing Obama wins the Electoral College, but Sandy sunk his chances at the Popular Vote. NY and NJ are still going to go blue, but will do so with significantly depressed voter turnout. With his 2-1 advantage in those major states reduced, it will translate to what I'm guessing will be more than Romney's margin of victory in the Popular vote. Its actually a good argument against going to straight popular vote (personally, I advocate proportional state voting).

From a statistical analysis standpoint, Obama has received a significant (2-3%) bump in popular vote percentage since Sandy. The storm is generally seen as being handled well by the Obama administration. Current simulations predict that Obama will receive 50.8% of the popular vote, to Romney's 48.3%. It will be interesting to see if that bump is balanced out by the decreased voter turnout you anticipate from NY and NJ in the wake of Sandy.


thejeff wrote:
Well, I'm about 90.9% sure

Oh, you!


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's always possible and I was a lot less hopeful a few weeks ago, but Romney's got a much harder path to 270 electoral votes than Obama does. There would have to have been a systemic bias in the polling for him to win. Obama's needs less of the swing states and he's ahead in more of them and the polling has been trending his way for weeks now.
Good. The party of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the honoring of the Constitution deserve to lose for nominating Mitt Romney.

That's not really what the Republican party is.


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:

I hope those die hard supporters of whatever candidate will find calm and a sense of well being in the days/weeks/months to come, if their preferred candidate does not win. I fear too many have put too much emotional energy in whether their candidate wins, and if that candidate loses, the people are going to lose their .... stuff.

No matter who wins, life will go on. Life isn't fair, and we don't always get the world we would wish. Control what you can, and don't worry night after night over what you can't control.

Well, I'm about 90.9% sure that Obama is going to win this. The swing state polling gives him a definite advantage and the recent momentum has been in his direction.

I am a little concerned about right-wing reaction. There's a lot of crazy talk going around.
Democrats just tend to get depressed when they lose a close one.
That is cool, and you probably are right. Still, looking at just the reactions after the 1st debate, I'm not sure if Dems are emotionally prepared, just in case that other 9.1% occurs (that's more than rolling a 1 on a d20, and we know how those happen a seemly often number of times).

One thing is certain - if Obama wins, there will be very little uproar because that's the expected result at this point.

If Romney wins, the Democratic party and the liberal community in general (not to mention stats people like Nate Silver) will spend a long time trying to figure out exactly how they could have been so wrong.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,595 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.