Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.
Posts
There are a lot of voters out there (in both parties) that vote almost completely based on projected imagery and a candidate's propensity to live a lifestyle familiar to those voters.
A lot of Palin supporters, especially female conservatives, were (are?) quick to point out how "she's a hard-working mom who puts her family first and upholds the same Christian values as I do." Which is pathetic of course, because A) turns out she's really a job-shirking idiot who will leverage her family for political gain at the drop of a hat, and not to mention her family is a total mess, and B) that has absolutely no bearing on her ability to govern.
Not that people care all that much about the latter, sadly.
Hell, I voted for Hill in the primary over obama for that reason alone.
Now I voted for Obama over Mccain because that shit wasn't equal.
You should be, that's stupid. Gender shouldn't come into it.
Or that 43 of the last presidents are basically interchangeable?
Having a woman be president would be a huge deal to me. But whatever. it's the internet.
This, too,
Obama vs Palin wouldn't stir me.
What?
I've always wondered how different the results would be if we did our elections through a blind. Like, you never physically see them speak, or know who exactly they are before election day. Just run the elections based on positions and policy.
Obviously there are massive problems with that, you want the face of the nation to be able to speak really well and you'd like them to be not on deaths door, but it's interesting to think about.
You also want to know their actual record, which is impossible to do through a blind.
That is interesting. I imagine if we had such a system we could put in clauses where the candidate has to be healthy and such if that was a real concern.
Reminds me of how most Americans support liberal policies until they find out that they're liberal.
Or how there's a bunch of overlap between the Reagan and Obama administrations but Republicans think Obama is a worse Hitler.
yet
"And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"
If I have a choice between two candidates who support the issues in a similar (not same) vein to my personal beliefs, I'm going to vote for the woman, or non-white, because I feel like we need more positive examples of diversity in our leadership at the highest levels of politics.
Pissed my wife off because she hates her and hates even more that there is a resemblance between both of them. I told her that once and she got mad at me, then someone else told her that and she was even more pissy when I laughed.
Let's Play Mass Effect - Set 6 Updated 9/8/2012
I would point out that there were bigger differences than their genitalia between Obama and Clinton. Though perhaps not in their administration (since Obama's was full of Clintonians.)
I get what you're saying, and I'm probably the same way. How about phrasing it like this, "If my personal choice between two candidates is virtually a tie, the fact that one is a non-white or non-male would sway my decision in their direction." That should pretty much cover all the pedantry. The point is that if you'd be equally happy with either candidate (not necessarily because there aren't any differences between them, but because as a whole they're equally appealing), the choice that would bring more diversity to the White House would get the edge.
STEAM: Gasman1220 | My Backloggery
It's like picking a side dish that won't distract from the main entree of plain white bread.
Agreed about that.
Unit President! What are you going to do about the nationwide flywheel shortage? And what is your response to the allegation that you are actually a member of the Church of Lugnut?
Right, I think your general philosophy is similar to mine. I want to pick the best person for the job I can, if they happen to be a non-traditional candidate, fantastic! But getting it right is more important than diversity purely for diversity's sake.
There really weren't in terms of policy proposals. Some minor differences in terms of legislative history (notably Clinton's AUMF for Iraq vote).
Meh
According to a specialist I heard speak about Israeli politics at the local university lately noted that Israelis also tend to vote based on identity politics, except he noted that Israeli media is similar in rabid attacks on politicians and pettiness to Britain's media, so that most people who aren't in it for some personal gain, too stupid to realize how miserable it is, or zealots (heredi and kibutzniks are especially big on public service) avoid public office like the plague. He cites this as the reason why the "octet" (the oldest people in the knesset) are the only current office holders who aren't fucking terrible. He gave special attention to comparing Avigdor Lieberman to a similarly far right predecessor from roughly ten years ago, noting that the current crop's stupidity crossed partisan bounds.
Believe it or not I think that would be a fairly big step back. For one, what a candidate says and what they'll do are different things. For another, its almost impossible to anticipate everything that will come up in the next 4/8 years. You want some one who shares your general philosophy, but also someone who is smart, adaptable, capable, a capable manager and someone who can lead the country and, in a way, arguably the world. You can't get that from a simple list of position statements.
Similar instances come up in Congress. Is the member influential with other members? Is she an ideologue or pragmatic? A partisan or a "maverick"? Does he see his responsibility to the district or nation as paramount?
Rasmussen finally kicked the dirt and yelled "Fine!" and has Obama up 1, mostly to make their Florida Romney +1 poll not look ridiculous by having Obama outperforming his national numbers in every polled state. Gallup has Obama +7
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Love these videos.
So where are they?
Arizona is (probably) not a swing state
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You forgot one important thing.
Magic Underwear
edit: Wait, no. Bill Pullman playing Bill Compton? The Big Love guy I mean...
editedit: oh lord. Bill Paxton playing Bill Henrickson.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Yeah, I read that earlier. But I don't really agree with his definition of a swing State. For all intents and purposes, "swing State" refers to s State which could swing either direction in the election. Giving it a different, and much more specialized and limited, definition seems pretty useless.
STEAM: Gasman1220 | My Backloggery
A good post, but Nate doesn't really get to redefine terms like that. Nobody else uses that definition for swing state.
And to borrow some more of Nate's data: If Obama loses 4% of the vote in every state compared with 2008, the map looks like this:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jMd