Latest Look at the 2012 U.S. Elections

08/29/2012 06:21:15 PM · #51

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

"Republican interests" - I stand semi-corrected. I have not enough hairs to split with you.

Referring to the Koch brothers and Fox News as Republican interests is splitting hairs the same way referring to ExxonMobil as an energy interest is splitting hairs.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

gotta go "build something" without gov't assistance. :P

Ah, so not the Olympics, jobs or Massachusetts health care, and without the use of roads, bridges, electricity or the internet. Carving bird houses, perhaps? Enjoy!

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

08/29/2012 07:54:39 PM · #52

Bulverism rears its ugly head regularly on these threads...

K3Master

Pentax K-3

08/29/2012 08:38:51 PM · #53

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Bulverism rears its ugly head regularly on these threads...

Mostly from you, too.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

08/29/2012 11:45:57 PM · #54

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bulverism rears its ugly head regularly on these threads...

Mostly from you, too.

I dunno. I honestly think that's not a type of argument I tend to make. I could lack insight into my shortcomings however...

K3Master

Pentax K-3

08/29/2012 11:52:52 PM · #55

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bulverism rears its ugly head regularly on these threads...

Mostly from you, too.

I dunno. I honestly think that's not a type of argument I tend to make. I could lack insight into my shortcomings however...

From my point of view, it's about the ONLY type of argument you make. Considering a good majority of the time you'll only argue in order to "even up" an "attack" on a side of an argument you deem to be uneven, you're almost never arguing from the point of proving an argument wrong. You just always feel a need to protect some arbitrary interest.

08/30/2012 01:59:41 AM · #56

Now that is probably true. :) but I don't think that's what I was talking about. Bulvarism is a specific ad homenim attack where you assume someone is wrong and give the purported explanation of why they are being fooled into believing it (without actually addressing the argument)

The specific example that caused me to bring it up would be as follows.

The tea party believes in an anti corporate tax position.
We can understand why they are duped into this position because they are the unwitting dupes of Fox news and other puppet masters who are the real people that want less corporate taxes.
Therefore the tea party is wrong in their position.

Now, I happen to also believe the tea party is misguided, but the validity of their position has nothing to do with Fox news being or not being behind their movement. Too often in Rant we have the lazy arguments where the rebuttal is nothing but, "oh, you are just a corporate shill" which is merely an ad homenim attack.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/30/2012 08:01:33 AM · #57

Pointing out a direct line from source of misinformation to a position based upon that misinformation isn't Bulverism. It's arguing from evidence. If you're screaming in fear of invading Martians in 1938, then it's likely because you personally heard or were told about the War of the Worlds radio broadcast. Likewise, if you're ranting about Shirley Sherrod's racsim, it's because you were suckered by Breitbart's distorted video or the coverage thereofâ�� a pretty obvious deduction. A Bulverism would be something like, "You would think that because it's your worldview"... your signature argument.

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 08:05:43.

08/30/2012 10:02:30 AM · #58

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Same argument can be made for the Occupy movement.

Of course. Occupy was crafted by a Canadian activist group, while the Tea Party was cultivated by the Koch Brothers and Fox News. Both are examples of astroturfing. A movement does not need to be composed OF activists or CEOs to be orchestrated BY them for the sake of populist appearance, but at least the Occupy protests were grounded in some semblance of fact. The Tea Party is based on calculated misinformationâ�� everything from birther nonsense to the quotes they chant to co-opting the Tea Party name itself for the opposite purpose. Whereas the original Boston Tea party was a protect against a corporate tax cut, the modern version calls for exactly that. This sheer ignorance and blatant disregard of fact is the most frustrating aspect. It becomes starkly apparent when somebody expresses hatred for Obama, the reason they give for that hatred is pointed out as completely untrue, and they go right on without the slightest care that their opinion is based on an utter falsehood. Now Mitt Romney, the same guy who said we couldn't trust a man who lies to be president, has declared that his campaign won't be dictated by fact-checkers.

The Koch Brothers backed the Americans for Prosperity group. Not the Tea Party. Now, there are some loose ties between Americans for Prosperity and the Tea Party, however the Tea Party's true beginnings were much more grass-rooty than Americans for Prosperity. If you want to be technical, CNBC was the source of the beginning of the tea party movement, not Fox. The video of Santelli's rant went viral, which led to this idea of a Tea Party.

Saying that the original Tea Party was against a corporate tax cut is not very accurate. It was against a type of corporate bailout, for a single "too big to fail" British corporation that was failing financially. The British enacted effectively 0% tax on the tea exports to the Americas, and in the colonist viewpoint, further enforcing the Townshend Acts which was a taxation imposed upon the colonies without elected representation - the crux of the American Revolution.

As I understand it the new Tea Party is against the similar preferential treatment of the large corporations during the recent 'bailouts', which is one of the many things they tend to stand for.

For the record, I also dislike when people state that they hate Obama, especially when based on misinformation. Sadly that kind of thing gets shown all too often on our news because controversy sells viewership. So many people don't want to see or hear sound argument. Probably because a vast amount of America (and probably the world) are idiots.

I'd like to see a link to the declaration that you say Romney has made about ignoring fact-checkers. I'm guessing it has something to do with interpretations of proposed tax policies? I'm interested to find out.

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 10:03:40.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/30/2012 10:55:19 AM · #59

Why is either party having a convention? The candidates have been identified. The platforms, such as they are, are written. Why not just post the information on the Web or sponsor a one hour TV broadcast to let the Chosen One provide the party line? Why spend all that money?

08/30/2012 11:06:41 AM · #60

This about sums it up:

Officially, the party conventions are still in place because they serve the purpose of healing party divides that may have occurred during the primary season, such as those that took place during the bitter struggle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In addition, they also offer the opportunity to gain a national spotlight for the party's up and coming stars, at least in the case of the Democratic Party. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both got their first national exposure as their party's conventions. (In the case of the Republicans, this element is less important because they are structured in a hierarchical manner in which even a candidate who is disliked still can get nominated because it is "his turn" as in John McCain. ) Of course, it also never hurt any party to be seen as the one responsible for shooting millions of dollars into the local economy of the city in which the convention takes place. It doesn't hurt at all.
//voices.yahoo.com/the-purpose-national-political-party-conventions-1664079.html

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 11:06:50.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/30/2012 11:10:18 AM · #61

So it is, literally, just a big party. Do those attending pay their own way? I honestly don't know how the conventions are funded.

08/30/2012 11:30:09 AM · #62

It seems yes, the delegates for both parties pay their own way.

The conventions themselves are funded by federal tax monies ($17.7 million for each party).

//washingtonexaminer.com/reminder-taxpayers-are-funding-these-conventions/article/2505971#.UD-GY9VI29s

08/30/2012 12:57:06 PM · #63

Originally posted by scalvert:

The problem with your analogy is we know a priori that War of the Worlds is fiction. We cannot, with honesty, just a priori claim it of Fox. We have to do the work to show they are false.

I do often point out that a view is understandable because it's part of a larger worldview. It is only a Bulverism if I then make the claim this, in itself, explains why it is wrong. (well, I can understand why you think that because you are an atheist and that's why you are wrong.)

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 12:58:04.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/30/2012 01:08:23 PM · #64

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

I got the impression from that article the rooms at least are paid for with the tax dollars. And what about potential third party candidates? No tax dollars, no fancy parties for them, huh? Whole thing is appalling to me.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/30/2012 01:57:23 PM · #65

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
It seems yes, the delegates for both parties pay their own way.

The conventions themselves are funded by federal tax monies ($17.7 million for each party).

//washingtonexaminer.com/reminder-taxpayers-are-funding-these-conventions/article/2505971#.UD-GY9VI29s

I got the impression from that article the rooms at least are paid for with the tax dollars. And what about potential third party candidates? No tax dollars, no fancy parties for them, huh? Whole thing is appalling to me.

It probably depends on who's room you're talking about. I'm sure it covers speaker's and worker's rooms. I do not believe it covers delegate's rooms.

I have no idea if third parties are given any federal tax dollars. Something to look up!

Edit: here's your answer: //www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 13:58:55.

scarbrd

Leica M10

08/30/2012 02:09:28 PM · #66

Interesting Rolling Stone article about the Fed bail out of Bain

08/30/2012 02:19:59 PM · #67

Is it hijacking to take a moment to mention voter ID laws?

This is what voter suppression looks like.

Democra...whhaa the fu....?

ETA: I don't care what side you are on, this is wrong.

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 14:20:26.

08/30/2012 02:35:15 PM · #68

I still don't see how having ID is a big issue... (probably more to it, but I was having trouble getting to the bottom of the new law's content).

I also don't understand why anyone needs to have a voter registration drive... if someone's too lazy to sign up to vote the normal way, they shouldn't.

Either way, the new laws were ruled unconstitutional, so it doesn't really matter what I think.

08/30/2012 02:47:13 PM · #69

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Really? I'm only seeing those laws blocked in Texas. Which... hurray but not enough.

Having ID is only a big issue if you don't have it. And those that don't have it are usually the young, the old, and minorities. Which in general are democrats. It's a power play. Anyone who tries to pass this off as unimportant doesn't know much about human behavioral sciences, and the people that are passing this law DO. Not to mention, can our ID offices even handle a mass influx of people needing IDs before the election? Think of the DMV on a normal day and then... yea. Not pretty.

Republicans aren't even hiding this plan.

Just listen to Pa. House Republican Leader Mike Turzai:

"Voter ID which is gunna allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done." *CLAP CLAP CLAP* Hurray rigging democracy so that it's unrecognizable!

08/30/2012 02:53:10 PM · #70

Rick Scott's voter laws ruled unconstitutional: //blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/08/rick_scotts_voter_registration.php

Why is it difficult for anyone to obtain ID? What does that have to do with human behavioral sciences? I'm asking because I honestly do not know.

DMV - another example of why the idea of Obamacare/social medicine scares people.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/30/2012 03:07:05 PM · #71

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Well for example, there was a test to see if people were generous. They had a food drive and asked folks that knew the people targeted to rate their likelyhood of donating to the food drive. According to perception, the nicest people will donate the most. This seems like common sense. But in reality that made little to no difference. The biggest factor on whether people donated was if the flyer for donation included a map. Donation rates leapt up regardless of if friends/peers thought a person was generous or not.

In other words, we vastly overestimate personal traits in decision making and vastly underestimate environmental factors. It seems common sense people that care will vote no matter what. But whether someone votes probably has much more to do with the ease of the process than the persons patriotism. Set up a few road blocks and people won't go. The republicans know exactly what they are doing, and that's the part that pisses me off the most. Because they can orchestrate this whole thing with one hand, and claim with the other that it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, they wouldn't do it. It does matter. There will also be confusion about the rules and the person designated to educate the public in PA about the new laws? Major Romney supporter. Look at that...

Jon Stewart does a great piece on this whole issue. C*ckblock the Vote

Again, I don't care who you support, rigging the system is wrong.

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 15:09:16.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/30/2012 03:21:53 PM · #72

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

I still don't see how having ID is a big issue... (probably more to it, but I was having trouble getting to the bottom of the new law's content).

The issue I have with the laws are 3 fold.

1. It is a law in search of a crime.
In-person voter fraud is, according to a report of election fraud in the last decade, "virtually non-existent". With 600 MILLION votes cast, there were 10, yes 10, cases of alleged in-person voter fraud: this is a .000000001 incidence of alleged in-person voter fraud.

2. It is a partisan attempt to disenfranchise.
It is a partisan attempt to use the legal system to suppress the turnout of the opposing party. All of the initiatives to require ID were done in states with Republican legislatures, and followed the wording suggested by Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative organization which has pushed this round of ID laws. The shocker to me is the number of politicians who have admitted in speeches that eliminating the voting rights of supporters of the opposite party is the only reason for these laws. It is just so shocking to hear these folks telling the truth.

3. The required IDs are cherry picked.
In Texas (struck down) and Tennessee student IDs are not usable at the polls, while a gun permit is. Those of us who drive and have always had a licence might be shocked how hard it is to get a licence or ID Card these days. In California If I applied today I could get an appointment at the DMV in 42 days, and show up with a certified copy of your birth certificate, and then you would just have to wait 60 days until you could expect your state issued ID in the mail. I could get my ID in late December if everything goes smoothly. The last time I renewed my licence there was a small issue and it took 6 months for my renewal to come.

If you didn't have a car, would you go through all that hassle to get a state sponsored ID, just to vote? One day at the DMV, one day at city hall, about $50 in fees to get an ID that you don't need for anything else ?

Message edited by author 2012-08-30 15:24:46.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/30/2012 03:31:56 PM · #73

Originally posted by escapetooz:

voter ID laws? ...

Again, I don't care who you support, rigging the system is wrong.

And showing that you are who you say you are is a problem why? The young don't have identification? Minorities don't have identification? The old don't have identification? Who are these people who don't have identification? No social security card? No drivers license? No credit/debit card? No passport? Maybe one of two of these but NONE? Absolutely no identification to show you are who you say your are? No bank book? How do you cash a check? How do you bank? How do you buy something? How do you get something notorized like retirement papers.

Guess I'm way too old to understand this. Truly it boggles my mind that anyone of voting age would have zero identification. Not even a report card from public school or a record of attending?

To vote in a given precint you need to be a resident and register. The voting card letting you know which precinct to vote in is a form of identification. I don't see what the rub is - unless it is accountability. And if it is accountability, then I would wonder why anyone would have a problem with accountability?