2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

Too bad the world isn't voting....it would ALL over

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... s-election

Interesting that Afghanistan and Iraq want Mitt... I have absolutely no idea what to make of that, though.

It should suggest that something in your understanding of their perceptions may be slightly off. Perhaps some of the former "the US is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in their beds" narrative is not quite right?

[Ian]

Too bad the world isn't voting....it would ALL over

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... s-election

Interesting that Afghanistan and Iraq want Mitt... I have absolutely no idea what to make of that, though.

It should suggest that something in your understanding of their perceptions may be slightly off. Perhaps some of the former "the US is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in their beds" narrative is not quite right?

Or maybe the Economist survey wasn't exactly a Gallup poll. According to the map, each of those countries submitted ONE VOTE EACH to the survey.

Or perhaps most people there know very little about American politics. In 1980 the Iranians were absolutely hysterical about 'the' Carter (a common term they used), and they believed the election of a new President would be beneficial to them. They were flabbergasted when, a couple days after the election, Reagan referred to the Iranain regime as "barbarians" and noted that he would not negitiate with such people.

[Coito ergo sum]

Too bad the world isn't voting....it would ALL over

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... s-election

Interesting that Afghanistan and Iraq want Mitt... I have absolutely no idea what to make of that, though.

It should suggest that something in your understanding of their perceptions may be slightly off. Perhaps some of the former "the US is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in their beds" narrative is not quite right?

Or maybe the Economist survey wasn't exactly a Gallup poll. According to the map, each of those countries submitted ONE VOTE EACH to the survey.

that doesn't make sense. You mean -- only one Iraqi and one Afghani got asked? I doubt that, but if it's true, then the whole survey is idiotic and the Economist should be embarrassed...again.

Or perhaps most people there know very little about American politics.

I suppose the same can be said for most other countries, including the ones that are leaning Obama.

In 1980 the Iranians were absolutely hysterical about 'the' Carter (a common term they used), and they believed the election of a new President would be beneficial to them. They were flabbergasted when, a couple days after the election, Reagan referred to the Iranain regime as "barbarians" and noted that he would not negitiate with such people.

Ought to give us pause as to overseas support for Obama, too, then. Either candidate.

[Ian]

Anyway...

So Paul Ryan stopped off at a soup kitchen in Ohio, cleaning some dishes for a photo op, even though the dishes were already clean and there was nobody around waiting to be served. You just can't make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, Romney aired radio ads in Ohio criticizing Obama for no longer wanting to make M1 Abrams tanks at a plant in Lima, OH, even though the Army has declared that it does not need any more tanks and is currently developing the M1A3. For the last 2 years the Army has unsuccessfully tried to convince Congress that it has got all the tanks it needs and then some. Interesting dynamic. Why doesn't the Dept. of Education ever say things like that?

[Coito ergo sum]

Not only do they want to halt the M1 tank production -- they also want to close the Air National Guard base in Mansfield Ohio and stop production of C-27 aircraft and his proposed Budge in 2012 calls for more base closures - a second round of "BRAC." He cut the fantastic F-22 fighter jet. You'll need to do some convincing to make the case that the Democrats don't want to cut defense spending dramatically.

[Ian]

BRAC comes up every five years. And I think cutting production of the F-22 was definitely, definitely, definitely the right thing to do, for the same reason that halting production of the Zumwalt destroyers was the right thing to do. Too much buck for not enough bang, and the wrong kind of bang to boot.

When the military is telling the Congress that they just don't want to buy any more of a kind of weapon, or when experts from within the Pentagon are claiming that excessively high defense budgets are actually counterproductive (at certain points foreign weapon systems which might not otherwise exist are fielded in order to deal with increasing US capabilities), you've got to step back and re-assess your priorities.

Cuts to defense are more than warranted. The question is, in response to your post, how does one define dramatically?

[Coito ergo sum]

BRAC comes up every five years. And I think cutting production of the F-22 was definitely, definitely, definitely the right thing to do, for the same reason that halting production of the Zumwalt destroyers was the right thing to do. Too much buck for not enough bang, and the wrong kind of bang to boot.

Well, I can respect a difference of opinion on that. I think the F-22 was very much needed as an air combat superiority weapon. It would keep the US untouchable in the skies with manned fighters for decades to come. Nothing could touch it. It is also a very good "kick in the doors" weapon which is not a drone.

When the military is telling the Congress that they just don't want to buy any more of a kind of weapon, or when experts from within the Pentagon are claiming that excessively high defense budgets are actually counterproductive (at certain points foreign weapon systems which might not otherwise exist are fielded in order to deal with increasing US capabilities), you've got to step back and re-assess your priorities.

Cuts to defense are more than warranted. The question is, in response to your post, how does one define dramatically?

Cuts are fine. All depends what is cut. Lots of waste in the military. There is plenty of meat on the bone. As usual, our politicians, from both parties, are not up to the task of stripping that meat with out lopping off limbs.

[Ian]

Cuts to defense are more than warranted. The question is, in response to your post, how does one define dramatically?

Cuts are fine. All depends what is cut. Lots of waste in the military. There is plenty of meat on the bone. As usual, our politicians, from both parties, are not up to the task of stripping that meat with out lopping off limbs.

Probably true, and the reverse can also be true (about gains vice cuts). Which is why our politicians really ought to listen to the experts. And when the experts say they just don't want any more M1 tanks for the next few years, that means they shouldn't be made to buy any more.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cuts to defense are more than warranted. The question is, in response to your post, how does one define dramatically?

Cuts are fine. All depends what is cut. Lots of waste in the military. There is plenty of meat on the bone. As usual, our politicians, from both parties, are not up to the task of stripping that meat with out lopping off limbs.

Probably true, and the reverse can also be true (about gains vice cuts). Which is why our politicians really ought to listen to the experts. And when the experts say they just don't want any more M1 tanks for the next few years, that means they shouldn't be made to buy any more.

Trouble is, when one recognizes that it's all politics, it really is all politics, and sometimes the people appointed to high military posts are made aware of what the civilian leaders want to hear, and if they want to keep their jobs, they figure a way to tell them. There are a number of ways to skin a cat, and whether a program is considered necessary by the experts is sometimes a circular affirmation of what the people asking them to make the recommendations want. Again, this occurs with both parties.

[Gerald McGrew]

Not only do they want to halt the M1 tank production -- they also want to close the Air National Guard base in Mansfield Ohio and stop production of C-27 aircraft and his proposed Budge in 2012 calls for more base closures - a second round of "BRAC." He cut the fantastic F-22 fighter jet. You'll need to do some convincing to make the case that the Democrats don't want to cut defense spending dramatically.

Given that we account for 64% of the world's total defense spending, you'll have to define "dramatically".

[Gerald McGrew]

More racial scumbag tactics by conservatives...

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... _inti.html

The appearance, mostly in Cleveland's predominantly black neighborhoods, of billboards warning against voter fraud is constitutionally protected speech.
It is also insulting, demeaning, belittling speech -- coming from people who choose to remain anonymous -- and a despicable election tactic.

The billboards, posted here and in Cincinnati and Milwaukee by what has been identified only as a private family foundation, insinuate that the neighborhoods in which they are found are hotbeds of voter fraud, which, of course, they are not.

The real point of these humiliating billboards is to intimidate voters in poor neighborhoods and to sow confusion.

[Tero]

Ian, most Americans dont understand Am. politics. They just decide between the mormon dude and muslim dude. Which one LOOKS more presidential?

[Coito ergo sum]

Ian, most Americans dont understand Am. politics. They just decide between the mormon dude and muslim dude. Which one LOOKS more presidential?

Well, if Obama really was actually thought of as "the Muslim dude" he'd never get elected.

[Ian]

Tero - You're not wrong.

And Coito, sure he could get elected. It just depends on how many people can see through the crap as opposed to how many cannot.

This is the time of year when I start tearing my hair out over Low Information Voters. Example: Last month a PPP survey of Ohio Republicans found that 38% credit Obama with Bin Laden's death... and 15% credit Mitt Romney for it. The rest said they were "unsure". Maybe there was some kind of polling glitch there, but whatever the kernel of truth is, it's a kernel that exists. And don't even get me started on how many people are still convinced Obama is a muslim or secretly a communist or a Kenyan. Numbers for those people leave that 15% figure in the dust, and some of those people are filthy rich with New York towers and Atlantic City casinos named after them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Tero - You're not wrong.

And Coito, sure he could get elected. It just depends on how many people can see through the crap as opposed to how many cannot.

This is the time of year when I start tearing my hair out over Low Information Voters. Example: Last month a PPP survey of Ohio Republicans found that 38% credit Obama with Bin Laden's death... and 15% credit Mitt Romney for it. The rest said they were "unsure"

This kind of idiocy is common. I saw interviews with Democrats who think Paul Ryan is the Vice President, and think Obama is pro Life and Romney pro-choice.

. Maybe there was some kind of polling glitch there, but whatever the kernel of truth is, it's a kernel that exists. And don't even get me started on how many people are still convinced Obama is a muslim or secretly a communist or a Kenyan. Numbers for those people leave that 15% figure in the dust, and some of those people are filthy rich with New York towers and Atlantic City casinos named after them.

How about the ones that think Bush was behind 9/11?

Look -- this stuff is more about sloppy thinking than anything else. People aren't saying they're sure he's a Muslim. They're saying something scurrilous about the guy they already don't want in office. It's like the willingness of people to believe anything said about George W Bush, too. If you hate the guy, you definitely wouldn't put it past him, so you say to the pollster, "yeah, I think he is X" and what they're saying is they "believe" he is -- which is think without knowing.

People are stupid, and I have news for you, most Democrats are just as fucking stupid. I just read that something like 33% of Democrats believe in astrology. Are we to conclude some "kernel of truth" from that? And, the number is far higher than the 10% or 14% or something like that of Republicans who believed in astrology. Why the difference? Because Republicans are smarter and see through the bullshit of astrology better? Because Democrats are taken in by stuff more easily? No -- people are just fucking stupid, and sometimes certain demographics are stupider than other demographics about certain things. With Democrats, they're stupid about astrology and they think Bush "did 9/11" in alarming numbers -- so fucking what?

There are people around who think Elvis is alive and the Moon landings were hoaxes and that native American nets hung from rear view mirrors catch dreams and that new age crystals have magic powers. FFS dude, give the whole "Republicans are stupid" thing a god damn rest.