Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
Fair enough.
![]()
Its funny because it's true.
Michele Bachmann's Gay Stepsister Helen LaFave 'Stunned' By Bachmann's Homophobia.
edited 14th Oct '12 2:34:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I realized that it's hard giving concrete evidence for a political argument, when every source has a political agenda or lean and some degree of unreliability.
For example, if I ask for someone to give a source to show that "the US's military is more expensive than the next 13", I can question the source based on many different factors, and ask for more.
I remember when I took Sociology, my teacher told the class that once you get into political sciences, it is incredibly difficult, if not down right impossible to not have a bias on something or another.
Its true if you're studying it in a classroom, with other scientists, or with forum goers.
edited 14th Oct '12 2:53:32 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."The US military budget is 711 billion. The 13 countries under us have a combined military budget of 693.2, and the 14 countries under us have a combined military budget of 711.1, so we're bigger than the 13 below us, but not the 14 below us, though only barely.
Generally speaking, I think it's best to not just dismiss a source on the basis of its ideological slant. Instead, it's important to consider the context of the info.
For example, while the US spends a shit ton on its military, the US is also a fairly large country. That being said, population size wise, China is much better, and yet spends a lot less-but then again, they pay their soldiers less. So, raw spending may or may not be a good explanation.
The person who I showed the statistics too said he would have to know "what the organization is, what their political standing is, how they're measuring the statistics, and then what other sources (some on the opposite side of the political spectrum) say."
Yeah, it's hard supporting an argument on statistics alone.
And then there's China, who may or may not be reporting their spending reliably.
And as Tomu said, there's also context. We need to see how the military is spending it's money.
edited 14th Oct '12 3:06:06 PM by chihuahua0
In fact, the bias of the source, once identified, can actually end up adding information into the pot, as you take it into account. That's one of the wonders about Historical evaluation and re-evaluation.
Politics is the History of the now, basically. So, you need to pretty much use the same tool-set.
Koch Industries warns of layoffs if Obama is reelected.
Instilling fear and threats to gain political power? Pretty sure that's terrorism in a nutshell.
Moar terrorists: CEO Of ASG Software Solutions wants workers to vote for Romney if they don't want to be fired
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/arthur-allen-romney-email_n_1963965.html
edited 14th Oct '12 5:01:35 PM by NoName999
Haha, no, the rest of the world hates Romney.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Re US Military spending: The numbers are pretty accurate, but they're being interpreted wrongly. The US spends vastly more money on our military than other nations, but there are good reasons for that that are ignored: first, the US is a very large nation, so our proportionate share is not as bad as our absolute share. Second, we have an enormous economy, so our military as a share of our GDP is only about twice that of most other civilized nations. Third, we provide the military backbone of NATO and thus our military protects not only us but also other nations that might otherwise have to maintain larger forces of their own. Fourth, we treat our troops much better than most armies, paying them 10 times what Chinese soldiers make and providing them with massive amounts of benefits.
So all in all, it's not really reasonable to compare spending figures directly.
<><![]()
![]()
Uh, it isn't legal. We have laws against voter intimidation
for a reason.
edited 14th Oct '12 5:27:00 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.![]()
They probably believe there's enough uncertainty as to whether this constitutes "voter intimidation" to prevent proper prosecution. That, and they have lots and lots of money and armies of lawyers to defend their interests. Of course, if the relevant legal authorities wanted to demonstrate that they believed in the rule of law, they'd at the very least launch an investigation.
edited 14th Oct '12 5:37:43 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.But half of the legal authorities agree with their political stances and think preventing the election of their opponent is a good thing.
It doesn't really matter which party is doing it (though Romney is notoriously pro-rich, so it's currently Republicans). Unless the Greens try to pull this stunt, there's just no way to get them persecuted.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.So.
FiveThirtyEight
seems to show Romney's debate bounce eroding, without him ever getting a lead over Obama.
Of course he never got a lead. Problem is, about two months ago before the debates/party conventions, those figures used to be about 75% to 25%. Now it's 63.1% to 36.9%.
According to that site, it's -15.3% for Obama in about a week. Just look at how much advantage he lost in October; all the graphs sharply converge that month. Unless the Obama campaign reverses this tend now, the president is at risk.
RealClearPolitics
shows that Obama lost almost all leaning states to tossup status, indicating that those states are now doubting their preference to Obama. His advantage hasn't recovered from that yet. Though HuffingtonPost
still gives Obama about 50 points lead in electoral votes, 253 not enough to win and according to that map, Romney has far fewer "leans" and many more solids.
edited 14th Oct '12 6:41:12 PM by Trivialis

Now you must know what Grizzly feels like.