Senate The U.S. Politics thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    Haha! Look at how stupid and poor the south is! This makes me feel better and superior!

    Also. New Mexico - 38, not in the bottom three. Woohoo!
  2. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    lmao that you got beat by arizona, dawg
  3. DantheJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2009
    star 5
  4. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    OZK seems oddly defensive about the South.
  5. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    His schtick is considering white Southerners an unfairly stereotyped group. He's right to some extent. People make fun of Appalachia ("hillbillies") for being poor, white farmers/ranchers/sharecroppers ("rednecks") for being poor, city dwellers ("white/trailer trash") for... well... yeah. Their ignorance and bigotry and social conservatism come from systems set up by the wealthy-- plantation owners historically and now their modern heirs.

    To some extent. Not acknowledging that blacks comprise huge portions of the populations of the lowest-ranked states (Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, D.C.) is... inappropriate. Poor whites in the South have always taken comfort in the fact that blacks are generally worse off.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jan 24, 2014
  6. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    its a more defensible schtick than his usual MRA fare
  7. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
  8. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
  9. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Well he was flat out accusing heels of being a smug northerner for posting an article.
  10. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Who are you even responding to Lord of Vivec?
  11. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
  12. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    . . .they didn't disagree with you?
  13. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    My family goes back several generations in North Carolina and I'm not as defensive about the South as OZK is. :oops:
  14. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Oh, I didn't know we had new rules in the JCC that you only reply to people that are fully disagreeing with you.
  15. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    By starting your remark with "Well he was," you gave the post an explanatory tone. I didn't and don't see why that tone was merited since we had neither expressed confusion with your original post nor contested the truth of its sentiment. Why would you reiterate something in that fashion given the circumstances?
  16. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
  17. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Today was a curiosity to me as to why the right wing all of a sudden has Putin love. This morning Huckabee said (lol) Steven Segal did something Obama has never been able to do and became friends with Putin. Mitt Romney just recently said Putin has been a better President that Obama. I thought perhaps it was an Olympics thing. Be friends with the Olympics and therefore Putin and bad mouth Obama over it. Then it hit me. the anti gay policies of Russia. The Right loves it.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  18. duende Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2006
    star 5
    sure milquetoasty repubs love putin. he is a statist douche who, as you point out, reaffirms their generally anti-gay sentiment.
  19. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  20. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Approval polls are stupid. They're too generalized. They don't ask people why they "approve" or "disapprove," so they could be easily answering out of ignorance or have stupid reasons for their feelings. It also has no relevance in the middle of a lame duck president's term.

    And it doesn't mean anything. Congress always has rock-bottom approval ratings, yet incumbents are overwhelmingly reelected.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jan 27, 2014
    Juliet316, RC-1991 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  21. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    At this point due to gerrymandering.
    Juliet316 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Not necessarily. California isn't gerrymandered and I don't think the chances of incumbents winning are much lower than average, if at all. There are more than one factor, such as incumbents having more resources by default (the ability to send out ostensibly non-campaign-related newsletters to their constituents, for example), incumbents being more experienced campaigners, incumbents being able to play the "experience" card to contrast with their opponents, incumbents having the full party apparatus behind them from the start instead of having to face an opponent in a primary (incumbents getting "primary'd" is rare), the opposing party not devoting much resources in solidly "red" or "blue" districts and running bad candidates as sacrifices, third party or "independent" alternatives being rare, the voters being lazy/apathetic/comfortable with the status quo...
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jan 27, 2014
  23. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    I disagree. I think it's useful as a generic metric, especially regarding perception -- who's winning the 24/7 media war and who's framing the public debate better. It's not useful for electoral terms, but the question isn't "will you vote for this person," now is it? Otherwise statistics like cross-party approval would be of even more limited utility.
  24. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I don't think it's a useful metric of who's "winning." I, for example, don't "approve" of President Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm siding with John Boehner or Fox News or something. I suppose I'm something of an anomaly, though.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jan 27, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian and MrZAP like this.
  25. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    In that vein, I once read a very strange letter in the letters section of some political periodical(I can't remember which one). It was from someone who was asked by a pollster whether Mitt Romney was "likable". The person said her dilemma was that she thought that he was, indeed, likable, but that she knew if she said yes, it would positively affect Mitt's public "likability" rating, and since she didn't actually support Mitt Romney for President, she didn't want to do that. So her answer to the pollster was that he wasn't likable.

    How meta.

    But yes, binary approval ratings are problematic, specifically in that they don't show to what end of the spectrum people disapprove of a given politician/policy. For instance, Republicans often breathlessly wield the percentage of people who disapprove of Obamacare, when a significant portion of that disapproval comes from people who felt that the legislation wasn't liberal enough.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Jan 27, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.