2012 Elections: Results MegaThread™

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by bradl

It's a statement like this that brings up yet another tangent, to the point where a blogger for the Omaha World-Herald finally got fed up with it and posted something on their site.

http://blogs.momaha.com/2012/11/26347/



Something to think about the next time we talk about single mothers with kids on welfare.

BL.

Who said anything hateful? If you are looking for a reason why single women vote Obama theres likely some welfare payments tied up in it.

Now if I said everyone I had ever met on welfare was lazy self entitled *******s... that would be hateful.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Who said anything hateful? If you are looking for a reason why single women vote Obama theres likely some welfare payments tied up in it.

Now if I said everyone I had ever met on welfare was lazy self entitled *******s... that would be hateful.

My point isn't about the women.. They have their reasons for voting the way they did, and the blogger is correct: she doesn't care how they voted, but just that they voted.

The point here is bringing the kids into it, when they don't have a choice in the matter. Talk about and, if need be, ridicule the parents to your heart's content..

But the children should be off limits.

BL.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Lets just let them continue to think this so they can continue their downward spiral into irrelevancy while the rest of the country moves forward into the 21st century.

Surely a healthy democracy is best served by the effective framing of alternatives, not the absence of any useful opposition?

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by skunk

Surely a healthy democracy is best served by the effective framing of alternatives, not the absence of any useful opposition?

A healthy democracy is one where both sides are willing to compromise for the good of the nation. Current congressional republicans have shown a complete unwillingness to compromise.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

they are delusional.

it is more likely that pandering to the ultra-right is what cost the GOP the elections, as it energized people that might have sat this one out to vote against them.

Twice now they've rushed to conclude that the problem was that they just weren't conservative enough. They're in for one hell of a reality check in the decades to come.
I was born in '68 so I'm not an old geezer just yet, but I sure feel like it when I think about what a radically different world we live in now. I grew up with input from the outside world via newspapers and a couple of TV channels. 1994 was the year I first got on the internet and bought my first cellphone. There are first time voters now who were born that year, into a globalized world with a global economy. Information spreading with the speed of light to pocket devices. Countless openly gay celebrities and a few openly gay politicians too.
In 25-30 years, those 18 year-olds will be the middle aged people who run the planet.
YOU CANNOT SELL MOLDY OLD SOCIAL CONSERVATISM TO THAT GENERATION. What's the sales pitch? "Son, remember the good old days of Reagan?" "Umm... who? Oh, that guy. He left office 6 years before I was born. Would you mind? I'm on Skype with my lesbian goth friend in Japan."
Young people won't buy it, and people migrating to the US certainly won't buy it. To them, far right republicans appear like bizarre pod people from some alien civilization. Those kooks are outer fringe in all other civilized countries.
Free market capitalism and that whole thing, sure, that stuff will always appeal to some voters, but the birther/anti-gay/closet racism stuff... well, just look at what happened to the 9 weirdos who spoke their minds on rape/incest vs. abortion... they were all sent back home in tar and feathers.

[Tilpots]

Originally Posted by skunk

Surely a healthy democracy is best served by the effective framing of alternatives, not the absence of any useful opposition?

"Useful" being the key term...

[steve knight]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Single women with kids probably don't want their welfare payments cut.

Or they don't want wands shoved up inside them, forced to carry and support a rape child Not have insurance pay for birth control when it will pay for Viagra. Raped and then blamed . that's just for starters. Or treated like 3rd class citizens and not get paid fairly or treated as a lesser person. Lets no forget lied to about their pregnancy and other health concerns.
Or some christian that thinks the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus rode a dinosaur make health decisions for them.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by steve knight

Or they don't want wands shoved up inside them, forced to carry and support a rape child Not have insurance pay for birth control when it will pay for Viagra. Raped and then blamed . that's just for starters. Or treated like 3rd class citizens and not get paid fairly or treated as a lesser person. Lets no forget lied to about their pregnancy and other health concerns.
Or some christian that thinks the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus rode a dinosaur make health decisions for them.

Or they are gay women who can't get married.

My mom was on welfare for a few months after my father decided to leave her for another woman. She was a stay at home mom so she didn't have income of her own. Anyway, within a few months, she found not one, but two full time jobs (day shift and night shift) so she went off welfare. She worked 2 full time jobs for years while my father dodged any alimony/child support payments. I'd say give women a break, if the system is abused, it needs to be fixed, not look at women who are in the system as the bad guys.

[Coleman2010]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Who said anything hateful? If you are looking for a reason why single women vote Obama theres likely some welfare payments tied up in it.

Now if I said everyone I had ever met on welfare was lazy self entitled *******s... that would be hateful.

Single educated White working women also vote overwhelming for Obama. You're saying they're on or want welfare to?

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Who said anything hateful? If you are looking for a reason why single women vote Obama theres likely some welfare payments tied up in it.

More likely it's the fact that they didn't want Mittens making the government control what happens with their vaginas.

Originally Posted by Anuba

Twice now they've rushed to conclude that the problem was that they just weren't conservative enough. They're in for one hell of a reality check in the decades to come.
I was born in '68 so I'm not an old geezer just yet, but I sure feel like it when I think about what a radically different world we live in now. I grew up with input from the outside world via newspapers and a couple of TV channels. 1994 was the year I first got on the internet and bought my first cellphone. There are first time voters now who were born that year, into a globalized world with a global economy. Information spreading with the speed of light to pocket devices. Countless openly gay celebrities and a few openly gay politicians too.
In 25-30 years, those 18 year-olds will be the middle aged people who run the planet.
YOU CANNOT SELL MOLDY OLD SOCIAL CONSERVATISM TO THAT GENERATION. What's the sales pitch? "Son, remember the good old days of Reagan?" "Umm... who? Oh, that guy. He left office 6 years before I was born. Would you mind? I'm on Skype with my lesbian goth friend in Japan."
Young people won't buy it, and people migrating to the US certainly won't buy it. To them, far right republicans appear like bizarre pod people from some alien civilization. Those kooks are outer fringe in all other civilized countries.
Free market capitalism and that whole thing, sure, that stuff will always appeal to some voters, but the birther/anti-gay/closet racism stuff... well, just look at what happened to the 9 weirdos who spoke their minds on rape/incest vs. abortion... they were all sent back home in tar and feathers.

You make a good point. I read a good op/ed piece on CNN actually written by JFK's grandson that talks about this.

(CNN) -- It wasn't supposed to happen. America's youth were supposed to be apathetic and disheartened. We weren't supposed to be at the polls.

The word was that we had fallen out of love with President Obama, the man who inspired us four years ago. Big money would silence our voices and make our efforts inconsequential. Two-thousand-twelve would be nothing like 2008; the youth vote wouldn't be the decisive force it was four years ago.

We saw it differently. In two consecutive elections, more than half of my generation voted: It is clear now, if it wasn't before, that we recognize our responsibility to our country. In fact, this time we made up an even larger percentage (19%) of the electorate than we did four years ago (18%).

We still support the man who has stood up for us: Sixty percent of voters age 18-29 chose President Obama on Tuesday. I don't think any young person was surprised, however, that older Americans had no idea what we were thinking.

My generation has been burdened by a misguided war that damaged our credibility abroad. We've been told the national debt is so large that we'll never be able to pay it back.

We have experienced an economic crisis unlike any since the Great Depression. We have watched our environment head toward disaster and our government stand at an impasse. We have been told over and over that America is no longer the great country it once was.

But our participation in the election and our overwhelming support for the president are indicative of our hope for the future and our compulsion to start tackling these problems now.

We don't support the president just because he's "cool," plays basketball or listens to Jay-Z. Instead, we recognize that he, too, is ready to meet these great challenges. And we want to help him build a stronger, safer, more just America.

The next time someone claims that my generation doesn't care and won't help, remind them that we showed up, voted for change and are ready to get to work.

This election also revealed that my generation has moved past many of the debates of our parents and grandparents: The youth vote was imperative to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maine and Maryland, the rejection of constitutional discrimination in Minnesota and the election of a president who supports equal pay, reproductive rights and fair immigration reform. For us, these issues are a matter of common sense.

We may have been disenchanted with politics over the past few years, but this election proves that it's not because we don't care. Rather, we reject petty posturing, partisan gridlock and inaction.
Voting is great, but it's not an accomplishment. It's a responsibility.

We recognize that going to the polls is the easiest thing we are going to have to do. In August, I wrote that in this election, young people would display a deep commitment to our country and its ideals, and provide a preview of the America we intend to build. We accomplished the first two, and that gives me hope that we will succeed in building a future of which we can be proud.

The next time someone claims that my generation doesn't care and won't help, remind them that we showed up, voted for change and are ready to get to work.

The bold part is most telling IMO. America's youth now have all grown up in the 21st century, and things that people actually thought were a debate in the 20th century are just common sense to us now. The GOP is going to need to realize this because they are never going to win another election if they keep trying to propose ideas that the younger generations are so against it's ingrained in to them as common sense.

[Prof.]

President Obama has finally won Florida! 332 v 206.

[darkplanets]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Sorry you missed my point. My question remains: what right does the US have to arbitrarily become involved in any foreign country that is not an active, direct threat? Who made the US the arbiter of nuclear weapons, to decide who ought or ought not have them? And finally, is it not evident that a great many of the threats to the US are the result of the US becoming embroiled in things better left alone?

Three reasons to become involved:
1) widespread human rights violations; genocide.
2) direct threat or building threat
3) Incumbent government seeks help against an invader

1) - Syria
2) - Iran
3) - Somalia

I think you missed my point -- when I say "become involved," I first mean diplomatic measures, if applicable. I'm not war hawking for the hell of it. As per the nuclear weapons -- it's not just us. While those countries that are developing nuclear weapons are not part of the NNPT, it's stupidly obvious that nuclear weapons should not be proliferated. I think it's safe to say that NO ONE besides those countries developing nuclear weapons wants MORE countries with nuclear weapons. It's already bad enough as is. So yes, we could just ignore it, and let every country get nuclear weapons. What then? What's going to happen when a state uses them? Your assumptions are that people won't, and that everyone is going to behave responsibly.

For example, during the Iran-Iraq wars chemical weapons were used. What makes you think for a second that Iran won't use nuclear weapons? Or that their militant Revolutionary Guards which have connections to terrorists won't? I think you're being naive. The world is not a peaceful place. Your logic echoes of the pre-WWII peace at all cost sentiment.

Syria is a "Kobiyashi Maru", there is no way in, then no way out that will not be bad for the US. No matter whom we help, they will ultimately still not be grateful. My point is, for instance, we watched as the Hutus and the Tutsis tried to wipe each other out, brutal, senseless slaughter, and did not thing one, yet, somehow, going into Syria because people are being slaughtered, for very similar reasons makes sense?

Two wrongs does not make a right. We should have been there in Rwanda. How can you even begin to justify NOT caring about genocide just because people didn't before? How utterly asinine. Whether they're grateful or not -- who cares? This isn't some popularity contest -- when it comes to genocide it's about doing whats right.

There are plenty of ways in and out of Syria, however. All your presumptions are that we go in solo. When did I ever say that? Diplomatically, you never go in without at least some international consensus.

I understand that you perceive your lines to be quite clear. Reality also sometimes presents you with illusions, mirages, and chimeras.

Speak for yourself. You're the one whos implying that ignoring ethnic violence is okay, just because people have prior.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Even in Libya the foreign intervention killed a lot of people - I've seen estimates for 50 thousand dead - and that's a successful case.

North Korea is being talked to by the US, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

Unfortunately, whenever there is a military intervention, there will be deaths. Hence why it's diplomacy first, but that often doesn't work. Keep in mind the foreign intervention was a no fly zone -- not ground troops. The rebels were left to grind against government forces for a few months.

As per NK; I do realize that, but I don't think enough is being done diplomatically. The six party talks historically go nowhere because it's essentially 4v1 with China as a moderator. I would like to see more one one one discussions.

Originally Posted by Happybunny

Your lines are very clear. You are a real fighting man, WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO THE FIGHTING & DYING.

Har har. I'm certainly not a fighting man, and if you read my previous posts, I'm always an advocate of diplomacy first. In some situations however, diplomacy alone is not a feasible solution. This is the reason we have a military after all -- if only all disputes could be solved over tea. You do realize that those who signed up to the military know what they're getting into, right? They joined with free will. Especially nowdays. If there was a draft, I'd agree entirely with your sentiment.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by darkplanets

Three reasons to become involved:
1) widespread human rights violations; genocide.
2) direct threat or building threat
3) Incumbent government seeks help against an invader

Good reasons indeed, but unfortunately they don't appear to be the primary ones.

In 1999, a NATO operation that lasted for 78 days ended the war in Yugoslavia. That particular war actually ended. It's just that the war had been going on for 9 years, with elements of genocide.

What was the response time when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990? Operation Desert Shield commenced 5 days later.

Difference? Oil.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Good reasons indeed, but unfortunately they don't appear to be the primary ones.

In 1999, a NATO operation that lasted for 78 days ended the war in Yugoslavia. That particular war actually ended. It's just that the war had been going on for 9 years, with elements of genocide.

What was the response time when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990? Operation Desert Shield commenced 5 days later.

Difference? Oil.

Ah.

While oil certainly had an effect on the relative rapidity of the (western) response to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, (it is worth repeating a quip from that time: "if Kuwait exported carrots do you really think the western invasion would have taken place?"), there were other reasons, too; not least the western fear that Saddam Hussein (whom the west had ever so discreetly supported in the days of the Iran-Iraq war; 'a pity both sides can't lose' lamented a British diplomat at the time; well, they can and, to a certain extent, they did, in the fullness of time....) had become less tractable.

I really doubt that the lack of oil was the real reason for the failure to intervene earlier in 'Yugoslavia'. The Dayton Accord of 1995 saw the main part of the Yugoslav war[s] conclude, the wars in BiH (Bosnia i Herzegovina).

Personally, (and I have worked quite a lot in the former Yugoslavia), I have long thought the western (i.e. US/NATO) intervention in 1999 was prompted by deep guilt over the fact that the west had failed to intervene in time to prevent the earlier massacres in places such as Srebenica; it is the usual nonsense - that one responds to the problems of the previous war. It didn't help that the then Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, couldn't believe that the west would go to war over Kosovo, when it didn't over Bosnia; likewise, I suspect that there was a sort of mad death wish driving him and his actions by then.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Personally, (and I have worked quite a lot in the former Yugoslavia), I have long thought the western (i.e. US/NATO) intervention in 1999 was prompted by deep guilt over the fact that the west had failed to intervene in time to prevent the earlier massacres in places such as Srebenica; it is the usual nonsense - that one responds to the problems of the previous war. It didn't help that the then Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, couldn't believe that the west would go to war over Kosovo, when it didn't over Bosnia; likewise, I suspect that there was a sort of mad death wish driving him and his actions by then.

Yeah, I guess Clinton wasn't too keen on getting the US dragged into a war, which is what one would expect from a DEM president (and one of the reasons why those of us outside the US always root for whoever the DEM candidate happens to be). But to his credit, at least he ended a war rather than start new ones, and the operation was everything that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't: Fairly quick, zero NATO fatalities (officially, but apparently two AH-64 crewmen were killed), and peace ensued.

[darkplanets]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Good reasons indeed, but unfortunately they don't appear to be the primary ones.

In 1999, a NATO operation that lasted for 78 days ended the war in Yugoslavia. That particular war actually ended. It's just that the war had been going on for 9 years, with elements of genocide.

What was the response time when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990? Operation Desert Shield commenced 5 days later.

Difference? Oil.

No doubt about that. Same reason why Rwanda was left alone. Doesn't for a second make it right, however.