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

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,595 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

Don't think the polls are working on current political data. They are using voter turn out and stuff from 2008, when Dem registration was up, Dem early voting was record making, and turnout was very high.
This season, it's benn Repub registration that's been high, Dem early voting has been way lower, and Repub voter turnout is expected to be way higher than in 2008.

If they're wrong, thats' where it will be. In interpreting what their polls told them.

Dan Rather has already suggested a Romney win today.

Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts 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.
That's not really what the Republican party has been since about 1980 or so.

Fixed.


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,

Im well aware of that. Thats why they should lose for continuing to nominate these POS's. By being monsterous delusional third party voters.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Don't think the polls are working on current political data. They are using voter turn out and stuff from 2008, when Dem registration was up, Dem early voting was record making, and turnout was very high.

This season, it's benn Repub registration that's been high,

No, it hasn't.

Quote:
Dem early voting has been way lower,

No, it hasn't.

Quote:
and Repub voter turnout is expected to be way higher than in 2008.

By whom? Republicans?

Quote:
Dan Rather has already suggested a Romney win today.

Is that important, somehow?


Scott Betts wrote:


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.

There will be little uproar among Democrats and among the stats people. There are a lot of Republicans out there who don't expect that. A lot who are convinced Romney has it sewn up. Real Americans couldn't possibly elect someone like Obama again. He only won the first time because of Acorn cheating and maybe some backlash against Bush.

This time will be like 2010. Real Americans will rise up and drive out the Kenyan Socialist Muslim. Etc. Etc.
There's crazy out there.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:


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,
Im well aware of that. Thats why they should lose for continuing to nominate these POS's. By being monsterous delusional third party voters.

They also need to stop being considered the party of "limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the honoring of the Constitution".

They still get votes for that, when the record is strongly against them.


And I think they should stop getting votes, too. We are in agreement, then. If you want limited government, fiscal responsibility, and honoring the Constitution, third party is the way to go.

And it only took 2 threads to get here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

And I think they should stop getting votes, too. We are in agreement, then. If you want limited government, fiscal responsibility, and honoring the Constitution, third party is the way to go.

And it only took 2 threads to get here.

Except for the whole part about third parties being ineffective.

And that I don't really want limited government and fiscal responsibility, in the sense those are usually used in political discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


And that I don't really want limited government and fiscal responsibility, in the sense those are usually used in political discussion.

Ditto. Both seem chiefly to be codewords for an agenda almost perfectly opposed to anything I actually do want in government.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

And I think they should stop getting votes, too. We are in agreement, then. If you want limited government, fiscal responsibility, and honoring the Constitution, third party is the way to go.

And it only took 2 threads to get here.

Except for the whole part about third parties being ineffective.

And that I don't really want limited government and fiscal responsibility, in the sense those are usually used in political discussion.

Hey thats fine. Dont vote for limited government and fiscal responsibility, then. But dont ridicule those who do for voting third party. (since that is their only option.)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Hey thats fine. Dont vote for limited government and fiscal responsibility, then. But dont ridicule those who do for voting third party. (since that is their only option.)

Hmm...perhaps the problem is differing definitions of fiscal responsibility. To me at least, austerity is the opposite of fiscal responsibility...


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


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.

There will be little uproar among Democrats and among the stats people. There are a lot of Republicans out there who don't expect that. A lot who are convinced Romney has it sewn up. Real Americans couldn't possibly elect someone like Obama again. He only won the first time because of Acorn cheating and maybe some backlash against Bush.

This time will be like 2010. Real Americans will rise up and drive out the Kenyan Socialist Muslim. Etc. Etc.
There's crazy out there.

There's always been crazy out there. 2010 wasn't that bad. That's not what widespread endorsement of real crazy looks like. That was crazy-lite. The Miracle Whip of crazy. The Tea Party wishes they could mobilize that many actual crazy people, but they can't. Actual crazy tends to be way too disorganized to matter in the long run. Crazy-lite is what you need to worry about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Hey thats fine. Dont vote for limited government and fiscal responsibility, then. But dont ridicule those who do for voting third party. (since that is their only option.)

Hmm...perhaps the problem is differing definitions of fiscal responsibility. To me at least, austerity is the opposite of fiscal responsibility...

I agree. But so is sinking TRILLIONS of dollars on wars. Building schools gives a way bigger return on investment than building drones.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Hey thats fine. Dont vote for limited government and fiscal responsibility, then. But dont ridicule those who do for voting third party. (since that is their only option.)

Hmm...perhaps the problem is differing definitions of fiscal responsibility. To me at least, austerity is the opposite of fiscal responsibility...

I agree. But so is sinking TRILLIONS of dollars on wars. Building schools gives a way bigger return on investment than building drones.

Yeah. And yet somehow those preaching fiscal responsibility always seem to want to spend more on wars and less on schools and other social goods. And less taxes. Really it's all about less taxes. Cut taxes and the spending will take care of itself.

(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that's you Whiteknife. That's the Republican plan. And some libertarians too. At least as far as the government shouldn't be involved in education and the military is one of the few things it should do.)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

thejeff wrote:
...That's the Republican plan. And some libertarians too. At least as far as the government shouldn't be involved in education and the military is one of the few things it should do.

That matches my understanding as well, hence the comment about austerity.


as well as mine. Which is why I said I agree and voted third party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the influence of education privatizers in the Dems, the upcoming sequestration, the possibility of a budget cutting "grand bargain" and Obama's promise to not allow cuts in military spending during the third debate (or so I read--I didn't watch it), it sounds a lot like the Democrats' plan, too.


Well, since the Redskins lost this past Sunday, we shouldn't have to worry about Obama much longer.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Hey thats fine. Dont vote for limited government and fiscal responsibility, then. But dont ridicule those who do for voting third party. (since that is their only option.)

Hmm...perhaps the problem is differing definitions of fiscal responsibility. To me at least, austerity is the opposite of fiscal responsibility...

I agree. But so is sinking TRILLIONS of dollars on wars. Building schools gives a way bigger return on investment than building drones.

You and I agree on this. There is NO greater investment we can make than in education. Period. Appropriate allocations need to be made, but none of them should cannibalize a world-class education for every single one of our children capable of benefiting from it. It's a damned shame that there is such an insane resistance to the improvement of public education in this country that progress on this front is so unlikely. I'd love to see a Republican candidate make competitiveness of education the cornerstone of their campaign. Seriously. It would make my decade.

We need to make it clear to our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers - anyone that we can influence - that education for all who wish it needs to be a priority in deciding who to support. You don't win elections or votes starting at the top. You win them starting with the people, and those people live next door to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Well, since the Redskins lost this past Sunday, we shouldn't have to worry about Obama much longer.

Yeah, but they were cheated out of the victory. Which is the only way that Obama is going to lose.

Liberty's Edge

Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.

He has employers. Too bad idiots forget they're supposed to work for us.


pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Well, since the Redskins lost this past Sunday, we shouldn't have to worry about Obama much longer.
Yeah, but they were cheated out of the victory. Which is the only way that Obama is going to lose.

Don't worry Pres, every election that's been held in the same year that the Olympics have been held in a city which has previously hosted the Olympics has been won by the incumbent. It's looking very good for Obama.

And don't you Republicans worry: every year the Olympics have been held in a city that's a first time host, the challengers have won. I'm voting Rio de Janeiro in 2016!

Third party candidates? Sorry, those numbers still fall within the margin of error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually hope the prop 37 passes, if for no other reason than to set a precedent.
Even living in a state that grows GMOs, I don't like the idea that we can't have a choice in the matter with plainly marked food.
It should go on the same label that's already there for nutritional value.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
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.

Let me know when the Dems become part of the general liberal community. Quite a few of us on the left think you're closet non-religious Republicans. Keep bombing brown people, that's quite "liberal".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I actually hope the prop 37 passes, if for no other reason than to set a precedent.

Even living in a state that grows GMOs, I don't like the idea that we can't have a choice in the matter with plainly marked food.
It should go on the same label that's already there for nutritional value.

Obama appointed a Montsano lawyer to the FDA counsel position. Don't hold your breath.


True I had forgotten that.
So I guess best option is for a new administration then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:


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.

The only thing holding the Democratic party together the last decade has been rational pushback against the Republican platform and how huge it is. If the elephant is split in two, either the Democratic party will move back to the left, no longer needing to fight for a middle that is neutered, or will fall from within, since voters won't be choosing between D and R.

Look at even this thread. If it weren't for fear of a Republican controlled...everything, most of the people voting D in this thread would probably vote Green or Socialist or some manner of Progressive. Without that fear, I think that the Democratic party will similarly dissolve into a centrist D, and progressive/green, as well as some libertarians who have held their nose all this time.

In other words, without a need to compromise to defeat a powerful conservative agenda, the voters will vote their conscience, and a new wave of progressivism will flow. At least that's my hope.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Name calling is not OK.


houstonderek wrote:
Let me know when the Dems become part of the general liberal community. Quite a few of us on the left think you're closet non-religious Republicans. Keep bombing brown people, that's quite "liberal".

Another No True Scotsman. I don't care what the fringe left thinks of what we refer to as liberal America. We know we don't fall into the same category as liberals from other countries. American liberalism is far more moderate. But it's where the support is. Over time, we'll move it to the left. For now, we'll take domestic progress where we can get it, and moderation in foreign policy (agree with it or not, that's what the Obama administration has represented; you won't get anything like it if Romney is elected).

Democrats may not fit into your personal mold of what is and isn't a "liberal", but we're most certainly miles to the left of what the modern Republican party wants to turn the country into.

And, quite frankly, we're your best allies in the fight to move the country further along to the left. You literally can't do it without us.

Liberty's Edge

Oh, we can most definitely do without you. There isn't anything liberal about the Dem party but the rhetoric. With friends like you, who needs enemies? Seriously.


houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
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.

Let me know when the Dems become part of the general liberal community. Quite a few of us on the left think you're closet non-religious Republicans. Keep bombing brown people, that's quite "liberal".

Is bombing white people a liberal stance on bombing? Just saying, if you don't get to bomb anyone, that won't be a very popular candidate. I don't get paid much and I still have to pay taxes; Someone should be bombed!


houstonderek wrote:
Oh, we can most definitely do without you. There isn't anything liberal about the Dem party but the rhetoric. With friends like you, who needs enemies? Seriously.

Then you're not going anywhere. The Democratic party is at least substantially receptive to liberal ideas, and you'll come nowhere near a plurality without us. If you keep deluding yourself into believing that you can accomplish your goals without compromise, you will never make any progress whatsoever.

Your call.


houstonderek wrote:
Oh, we can most definitely do without you. There isn't anything liberal about the Dem party but the rhetoric. With friends like you, who needs enemies? Seriously.

So once you kick all the Democrats out, who's left among liberals?

Good luck accomplishing anything that small a chunk of the country.

When you're done with the purity thing, you're welcome to come back to work on shifting the Democratic party leftwards.

Liberty's Edge

Nope, trying to get people to leave them. I have no need for them.


Then what DO you want? International Proletarian Worker's Revolution, or something else?


TheWhiteknife wrote:
as well as mine. Which is why I said I agree and voted third party.

I'm glad you voted.


houstonderek wrote:
Nope, trying to get people to leave them. I have no need for them.

Modern Democrats are pretty pleased with the progress that the party has made against Republican opposition. As long as the Republican party continues to put forth the sort of candidates and arguments it has for the last couple decades, the Democratic party will be nigh unassailable from the left.

Work with us instead of against us, or you will accomplish very little, if anything. We agree on the end goal, if not the path to it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, apparently, by voting for them, your goal is to eat GMO food every day (without labeling), kill lots of people overseas who don't need killing, and making rich people richer. Oh, and not getting single payer for another generation so insurance companies can line their pockets (that was a REPUBLICAN plan, think about that).

Seriously, stop cherry picking the two or three differences to bury the hundreds of similarities.


Don't you understand? Ideological purity is more important than actually affecting change.


houstonderek wrote:

No, apparently, by voting for them, your goal is to eat GMO food every day (without labeling), kill lots of people overseas who don't need killing, and making rich people richer. Oh, and not getting single payer for another generation so insurance companies can line their pockets (that was a REPUBLICAN plan, think about that).

Seriously, stop cherry picking the two or three differences to bury the hundreds of similarities.

Good points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
No, apparently, by voting for them, your goal is to eat GMO food every day (without labeling),

The California Democratic party endorses Yes on proposition 37 - in other words, the Democractic party favors GMO food labeling.

Quote:
kill lots of people overseas who don't need killing,

Discussed ad nauseum elsewhere in this and other recent threads in this forum.

Quote:
and making rich people richer.

To nothing like the extent that the opposition party does. You can argue that we keep the wealthy entrenched, but man do we scale it back from the Republican nonsense.

Quote:
Oh, and not getting single payer for another generation so insurance companies can line their pockets (that was a REPUBLICAN plan, think about that).

Please, explain to us how single-payer health care reform could have passed under the current political environment of the United States.

This country is about compromise. You need to accept that. Democracy is not about getting everything you want all the time.

Quote:
Seriously, stop cherry picking the two or three differences to bury the hundreds of similarities.

No one is doing that. "Two or three differences" is a falsehood. "Hundreds of similarities" is a falsehood, as long as each is a significant policy. Pretending otherwise means you aren't interested in the truth but rather in rhetoric. Don't head down that path.


houstonderek wrote:
Nope, trying to get people to leave them. I have no need for them.

Let us know how that works out.

Maybe if we can clean the place up a bit without you, you'll be willing to come back and pitch in. Maybe not.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Nope, trying to get people to leave them. I have no need for them.

Let us know how that works out.

Maybe if we can clean the place up a bit without you, you'll be willing to come back and pitch in. Maybe not.

Please. Stow it. When the Dems stop swinging on Wall Street nuts get back to me.


Just a crazy question, and totally doesn't have anything to do with anyone around here that's for sure but...

How many times can direct insults be levied in a thread before its locked?
How many times can an individual name call in a thread before they're banned?

What are the magic numbers?

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
Don't you understand? Ideological purity is more important than actually affecting change.

Wow, all that positive change in four years. I want more of that. Uh-huh.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it hilarious that y'all think voting for the same old crap will change anything. They have a word for that.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,595 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 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.