US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Ian]

Sure, economic recovery would help Obama. The problem is, there are no signs of a recovery right now

Apparenty you've only been focusing on the negative stuff. You're really good at focusing only on the negative stuff! But the notion that there are no signs of recovery (your words) is simply false. I hear about them and I read about them, so either 1) you aren't aware of any good news, or 2) you second-guess everything that sounds like a recovery. I have a good feeling that it's #2 with you, and that is probably because you seem pre-disposed towards assuming that Obama's policies are just never going to work. You're perfectly entitled to be a total pessimist, of course. And I'm entitled to second-guess those reasons why you feel we're not going to climb back out of the toilet.

You made about a dozen other points on my last post, but I'm not going to address them. Why not? Because of the format you use. You itemize pretty much every sentence other people write and then give your quick response, which means that we can't counter each individual point without making the whole post very long and very messy. Very clever of you. Also very annoying and very pussy. But I'll give a succinct summary of my whole point:

Obama vs Generic Republican Candidate in 2012 = Who the heck knows? Two years is a long time!
Obama vs either Palin or Huckabee = Virtual guarantee of an Obama victory. Independents and GOP moderates (including a great many like you) despise those two too much.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure, economic recovery would help Obama. The problem is, there are no signs of a recovery right now

Apparenty you've only been focusing on the negative stuff.

Well, when I hear supposed positive stuff, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If it's out there, though, I'd love to see it.

[
You're really good at focusing only on the negative stuff!

I would be happy to focus on positive economic stuff, but I don't see it. I'm sure you could provide it, though.

[

But the notion that there are no signs of recovery (your words) is simply false. I hear about them and I read about them,

Then post them.

[

so either 1) you aren't aware of any good news,

Quite possible. Like all humans, my awareness is finite, and a purpose of forums like this is to raise everyone's awareness.

[

or 2) you second-guess everything that sounds like a recovery.

I second guess everything. Period. It's called being skeptical. I especially second guess things that are self-interested statements by those who gain by the truth of the assertion, and I want evidence.

[

I have a good feeling that it's #2 with you,

It should be with everyone. When I read an article about an economic item, I try to access the underlying data to see whether it makes sense, who is making the assertion, what their bias is, etc. For example, when the guy who came up with the Hindenburg Omen (economic indicator of a collapse) has pulled all of his money out of the stock market, and the numbers are the numbers, then I take that fairly seriously. When Biden says "we're headed in the right direction," I like to second guess that a bit more. Don't you?

[

and that is probably because you seem pre-disposed towards assuming that Obama's policies are just never going to work.

I don't see evidence that they are working, do you? If so, what is that?

[

You're perfectly entitled to be a total pessimist, of course. And I'm entitled to second-guess those reasons why you feel we're not going to climb back out of the toilet.

I think we will eventually. However, whether I am a pessimist or an optimist does not change reality.

[

You made about a dozen other points on my last post, but I'm not going to address them. Why not? Because of the format you use. You itemize pretty much every sentence other people write and then give your quick response, which means that we can't counter each individual point without making the whole post very long and very messy. Very clever of you. Also very annoying and very pussy. But I'll give a succinct summary of my whole point:

Huh - actually - it's the opposite of pussy since I (a) actually address points people make, take them seriously and rebut them where I disagree, and (b) try not to gloss over what people actually say. What's pussy is to skip the issues. If you care to rebut anything, you can. All you have to do is respond. You can respond in one full paragraph if you like. I think the point/counter-point method makes sense because then I don't have to repeat what you say in order to make sure it's known what issue we're talking about.

For the record - I don't fear any issue. You want to debate? Let's go. I'll start with pointing out that despite your general assertion to being privy to boatloads of positive information about the economy, you cited not-a-one.

[
Obama vs Generic Republican Candidate in 2012 = Who the heck knows? Two years is a long time!
Obama vs either Palin or Huckabee = Virtual guarantee of an Obama victory. Independents and GOP moderates (including a great many like you) despise those two too much.

I am fine with your opinion on Obama and Huckabee/Palin - I disagree with it, but we're both just opining based on our feeling of where the voters are and may be at election time. I fully expect that my predictions may be wrong - it's simply the vibe I'm getting.

On the economy, though - I have provided evidence. You haven't.

[Robert_S]

Plus, people are really souring on Obama. Big time.

I agree with you that Obama is being injured pretty badly, but it's the result of a hell of a lot of money being spent to push a lot of misinformation. The people spending the money to take down Obama can do that right now, but they can't easily do so during the Presidential election.

I'm sure they'll try, and find ways. They always do.

Misinformation --- I've found that word is generally used by Obama supporters to refer to any "negative information," and not necessarily "false information."

I've tried a few times to get the daily show video you linked to to play, but it keeps hanging. So, I haven't seen it. But, dude, it's the Daily Show.....it's a comedy and fake news show.

It's up front about being satiric, but I think Jon Stewart has a higher than average standard of journalistic ethics.

What are specific examples of "misinformation?"

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

I like Jon Stewart and his show is hilarious. But, he says himself it's fake news and comedy bits. It's not a compliment for one to get their news from Comedy Central. In a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed. "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe". Pew. Retrieved 2006-10-24. http://people-press.org/report/200/cabl ... s-universe

[Robert_S]

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

I like Jon Stewart and his show is hilarious. But, he says himself it's fake news and comedy bits. It's not a compliment for one to get their news from Comedy Central. In a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed. "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe". Pew. Retrieved 2006-10-24. http://people-press.org/report/200/cabl ... s-universe

True, but it's loads better than Fox. But I guess that's not saying much since sitting in a windowless room with no access to any media will leave you better informed than Fox.

My point is that while The Daily Show might not be sufficient as your only news source, I have yet to see them mislead.

[Warren Dew]

The fact that Sarah Palin could muster 42% of the vote astounds me.

Here's one that has them running even:

Obama ... trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com ... obama.html

PPP polling results seem to tilt slightly Republican, though. Still, the fact that the Republican choices are polling so close together suggests that the specific candidate chosen isn't going to make a big difference in terms of which party wins.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

I like Jon Stewart and his show is hilarious. But, he says himself it's fake news and comedy bits. It's not a compliment for one to get their news from Comedy Central. In a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed. "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe". Pew. Retrieved 2006-10-24. http://people-press.org/report/200/cabl ... s-universe

True, but it's loads better than Fox.

More entertaining, sure. More newsworthy? Not.

But I guess that's not saying much since sitting in a windowless room with no access to any media will leave you better informed than Fox.

Actually, it won't. That's a gross overstatement. Yes, Fox is slanted, but it is still informative, like MSNBC is in the other direction.

My point is that while The Daily Show might not be sufficient as your only news source, I have yet to see them mislead.

It's just not a source to cite when one is making an allegation that the negative information about Obama is "misinformation." I realize it wasn't you who made that assertion, but we still need to see the source he's relying on for the misinformation allegation.

[Ian]

For the record - I don't fear any issue. You want to debate? Let's go. I'll start with pointing out that despite your general assertion to being privy to boatloads of positive information about the economy, you cited not-a-one.

Exactly!

I didn't cite any particulars because I don't want to debate economics with you. You'll notice that I haven't said much in your "other economic shoe falling" thread. The reason is because I know exactly how you're going to address every single fact I might bring up. And like you just did, yet again, you're going to do it by itemizing every data point and sentence one by one, and make retorting with you and incredibly annoying experience. So to hell with that Mr. Grumpy Pants, I ain't gonna do it.

I only wanted to point out that there are, in fact, a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place. Sure there's lots of lousy news too. But if you honestly don't know of any good information, then I suggest you re-examine your sources of information.

[sandinista]

Not a fan of john stewart at all really. I prefer Bill Maher for "political comedy", but, both entertainers ARE as newsworthy as the "entertainers" on most "news" channels. News, as reported by "the news" is not really news. Just small snippets of information that whatever news channel deemed to be worthy enough to air to get ratings. Murders, disasters, fear mongering, advertising (a fairly new way to advertise...get a "news" channel to "report" on your new product), and straight up propaganda.

[Coito ergo sum]

For the record - I don't fear any issue. You want to debate? Let's go. I'll start with pointing out that despite your general assertion to being privy to boatloads of positive information about the economy, you cited not-a-one.

Exactly!

I didn't cite any particulars because I don't want to debate economics with you.

You're the one who brought it up. You complained that I was good at being negative, and did not post any of the positive stuff. Well, post the positive stuff. I don't think anything substantial, that stands up to scrutiny is out there.

I only wanted to point out that there are, in fact, a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place. Sure there's lots of lousy news too. But if you honestly don't know of any good information, then I suggest you re-examine your sources of information.

I.e. - "go do the research." No thanks. I've done it, and I've scrutinized what purports to be good news. I will not, however, take your general allegation that I am not informed, and go out in search of whatever it is that you claim is out there that I've missed. If I've missed it, it's entirely possible, just as it is entirely possible that whatever you think you've read doesn't really say what you think it said, or you've misinterpreted, or it's not consistent with the facts, or any number of things.

However, it is not "pointing out" anything for you to just say that there are "a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place." That's just a bald assertion, with nothing to back it up. If you have something to back it up, then back it up. Suggesting to others that they need to go out and scour the internet and news sources for whatever it is you think you've seen is ridiculous, and it is Bush League and "pussy" as you put it. It's a cheap tactic to put whatever it is your arguing beyond debate.

[Ian]

However, it is not "pointing out" anything for you to just say that there are "a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place." That's just a bald assertion, with nothing to back it up. If you have something to back it up, then back it up. Suggesting to others that they need to go out and scour the internet and news sources for whatever it is you think you've seen is ridiculous, and it is Bush League and "pussy" as you put it. It's a cheap tactic to put whatever it is your arguing beyond debate.

You misunderstood me. I used the "pussy" term to describe your interrupted point-by-point format of replying to other members' posts, not your economic or political analysis. Find a way of replying to people that lends itself to further replies without making a gargantuan mess out of a thread and I just might want to discuss this stuff with you. Until then, screw that - it's not worth the frustration on my end.

[Coito ergo sum]

However, it is not "pointing out" anything for you to just say that there are "a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place." That's just a bald assertion, with nothing to back it up. If you have something to back it up, then back it up. Suggesting to others that they need to go out and scour the internet and news sources for whatever it is you think you've seen is ridiculous, and it is Bush League and "pussy" as you put it. It's a cheap tactic to put whatever it is your arguing beyond debate.

You misunderstood me. I used the "pussy" term to describe your interrupted point-by-point format of replying to other members' posts, not your economic or political analysis. Find a way of replying to people that lends itself to further replies without making a gargantuan mess out of a thread and I just might want to discuss this stuff with you. Until then, screw that - it's not worth the frustration on my end.

Right, and I'm using it to describe your economic and political analysis.

I've seen many folks here respond point by point - I didn't invent the style. It's fairly common. I've had debates go on for days that way.

You reply your way, I'll reply mine. You, it seems, have simply chosen not to reply, and simply to say that you've seen a bunch of positive stuff. Nothing in my manner of responding prevents you from addressing the point you wish to address. That's your call.

[Ian]

However, it is not "pointing out" anything for you to just say that there are "a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place." That's just a bald assertion, with nothing to back it up. If you have something to back it up, then back it up. Suggesting to others that they need to go out and scour the internet and news sources for whatever it is you think you've seen is ridiculous, and it is Bush League and "pussy" as you put it. It's a cheap tactic to put whatever it is your arguing beyond debate.

You misunderstood me. I used the "pussy" term to describe your interrupted point-by-point format of replying to other members' posts, not your economic or political analysis. Find a way of replying to people that lends itself to further replies without making a gargantuan mess out of a thread and I just might want to discuss this stuff with you. Until then, screw that - it's not worth the frustration on my end.

Right, and I'm using it to describe your economic and political analysis.

I've seen many folks here respond point by point - I didn't invent the style. It's fairly common. I've had debates go on for days that way.

You reply your way, I'll reply mine. You, it seems, have simply chosen not to reply, and simply to say that you've seen a bunch of positive stuff. Nothing in my manner of responding prevents you from addressing the point you wish to address. That's your call.

Okay, that really is Busch Leage then.

Seriously - your way of responding to people really sucks. It doesn't matter that others have done it as well - I tend to avoid those annoying posts too. Maybe I'm just the first to say so, or maybe I take issue with it more than most, but that's the way it is.

I also think your analysis suffers from some very severe biases, but I'm not going to quantify that assessment - not because you'll respond by disagreeing, but because of the way you'll do it. So fugheddaboutit.

Now go find another snarky 'demotivational' poster of Obama and slide it in among all the other posts that we put into the demotivator thread, you objective analyst you.

[Santa_Claus]

My prediction is that folk will vote in............another Messiah

But unless he (or she!) really is the Messiah and has a magic wand then doesn't really matter - US is financially f##ked. I don't think most of the US folks realise quite how the world has changed economically over the last 20 years - US won't turn into Haiti - but can't afford to be No.1 in the world anymore. Hopefully the penny will drop before the money runs out.


And that new Messiah may even be Obama. again Certainly seems keen to run again, given that new $100 million campaign HQ he's building at ground zero................

[Coito ergo sum]

However, it is not "pointing out" anything for you to just say that there are "a number of reasons to see a recovery already taking place." That's just a bald assertion, with nothing to back it up. If you have something to back it up, then back it up. Suggesting to others that they need to go out and scour the internet and news sources for whatever it is you think you've seen is ridiculous, and it is Bush League and "pussy" as you put it. It's a cheap tactic to put whatever it is your arguing beyond debate.

You misunderstood me. I used the "pussy" term to describe your interrupted point-by-point format of replying to other members' posts, not your economic or political analysis. Find a way of replying to people that lends itself to further replies without making a gargantuan mess out of a thread and I just might want to discuss this stuff with you. Until then, screw that - it's not worth the frustration on my end.

Right, and I'm using it to describe your economic and political analysis.

I've seen many folks here respond point by point - I didn't invent the style. It's fairly common. I've had debates go on for days that way.

You reply your way, I'll reply mine. You, it seems, have simply chosen not to reply, and simply to say that you've seen a bunch of positive stuff. Nothing in my manner of responding prevents you from addressing the point you wish to address. That's your call.

Okay, that really is Busch Leage then.

Seriously - your way of responding to people really sucks. It doesn't matter that others have done it as well - I tend to avoid those annoying posts too. Maybe I'm just the first to say so, or maybe I take issue with it more than most, but that's the way it is.

I also think your analysis suffers from some very severe biases, but I'm not going to quantify that assessment - not because you'll respond by disagreeing, but because of the way you'll do it. So fugheddaboutit.

Now go find another snarky 'demotivational' poster of Obama and slide it in among all the other posts that we put into the demotivator thread, you objective analyst you.

Here we go again - you just simply avoid the issue. You make some general pronouncement, and then run off with a "do the research" comment as your sole basis.

Hey - we all have biases. That's what discussion in a forum is all about. There's quite a load of bias on your end, and many others in this and other forums.

You're right, of course - Obama should be free from any jokes. If it's not a crack at Palin or Bush, then it's just beyond the pale. I, of course, have been so biased that I have also posted joke items about Bush, and Palin and other Republicans. I've even had a conversation quite recently on my extreme distaste for Palin and Huckabee. That's because I'm so "biased."

But, do go ahead with your unbiased whining about how a couple of demotivational posters appeared before your eyes, injuring your delicate constitution with their snarky mocking of the President....because after all...you have no bias....