Hope is the denial of reality
Dude, I know what I said. I know what my point was. I had to requote it to you to remind you.Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Didn't help it seems. Why don't you, instead of telling me what I said, quote what I actually did say.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
...
Let me see if I am following, because I really don't think this exchange is helping either of us.
You attempted to rebut something Lewk said with an argument I disagreed with. I asked you for supporting data to back your claim. You respond with something that not only doesn't support your point but also raises questions about your understanding of the Executive branch. You back off your claim and then get get pissy about people not getting your larger point when they called you out.
Fine.
Let me hopefully clear it up for you. I don't doubt that Congress's approach to Obama's presidency has something to do with why they are considered obstructionist. I also don't consider it novel. Democrats likewise aren't keen on helping Republicans get elected.
Now, just because you can make a valid assertion, (the interaction between Congress and the President help shape the public's view of who is and isn't being obstructionist) doesn't mean you can use irrelevant data points, (the number of times Obama has issued Executive Orders) to make your case. It's bad logic. If I took issue with everything you said I probably would have said something by now, no?
And, because I'm just a swell guy who wants to do what is asked of him:
Promising common ground to start with.
And off track already. I attempted at an explanation for Lewk's statement. An explanation which I backed off. I even pre-empted it with "it may be"You attempted to rebut something Lewk said
No, I backed off, and then got irritated when people kept nagging me about a claim I backed out off when I got called out. I don't think you can read any pissiness in my admittance there.with an argument I disagreed with. I asked you for supporting data to back your claim. You respond with something that not only doesn't support your point but also raises questions about your understanding of the Executive branch. You back off your claim and then get get pissy about people not getting your larger point when they called you out.
Well good thing I made the claim in response to Lewk's comment. And then made a point of my own without needing that claim. Mind you Lewk's comment was directed towards the media reporting. Executive Orders are typical media talking points and are compatible to your statement: the interaction between Congress and the President help shape the public's view of who is and isn't being obstructionist.Let me hopefully clear it up for you. I don't doubt that Congress's approach to Obama's presidency has something to do with why they are considered obstructionist. I also don't consider it novel. Democrats likewise aren't keen on helping Republicans get elected.
Now, just because you can make a valid assertion, (the interaction between Congress and the President help shape the public's view of who is and isn't being obstructionist) doesn't mean you can use irrelevant data points, (the number of times Obama has issued Executive Orders) to make your case. It's bad logic. If I took issue with everything you said I probably would have said something by now, no?
So I even suspect there might be agreement here.
And because I in turn aren't the stinker either I'll point out the reasoning in that point and my special party trick is not to include the claim I backed out of.And, because I'm just a swell guy who wants to do what is asked of him:
Without said claim:
If the opposition has voiced that it's main goal is to make you a one term president, instead of aiming to cooperate and git things done, maybe raising congress to be an equal branch of government after it was sidelined for so many years wasn't a productive idea.
In red you'll find the argument for the conclusion in yellow. There is a short intermission on an alternative route which is in whatever colour you have your standard text.
Now I'm even very open to the idea of me having a lacking understanding about the Executive branch. And I have no issues to be corrected in that regard. It does become tiresome when the reason I get corrected is a claim I either miss-remembered, miss-read or cannot support and have admitted as such. This claim of mine did not originate from any reasoning I made using my understanding of the working of the executive branch. It originated from memory. Do you see the logic about media reporting about obstructionism
I'll be more succinct. If the opposition is aiming to block you all of the way, screw 'em. If they are open to striking deals and making compromises, cheers!
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 11-14-2012 at 11:41 AM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Yellow on white is unreadable. Yuk.
Again it is the primary objective of all parties to win so it doesn't matter that they've said its a primary objective. It'd be unsettling if it wasn't.
I realized this was a gamble. I have black background. This I can be scolded for.
We disagree about this.Again it is the primary objective of all parties to win so it doesn't matter that they've said its a primary objective. It'd be unsettling if it wasn't.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
IIRC your local system is less adversarial by nature than the US/UK one so it might be a cultural difference.
Can you demonstrate a time when the Democrats have not been trying to win the subsequent election? Or Labour/the Conservatives here? Its what the big parties do in a 2-party system.
.....
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
The election is decided by how good a job a ruling party is perceived to have done. Economics model that use changes in economic conditions over the last 4 years do a remarkably good job of predicting which party's candidate will get elected president.
Hope is the denial of reality
I responded to that already. It is the role of the electorate to determine who's done a better job, not the parties. It is the role of the party to push their own successes and stymie the opposition.
I'm out of this. Whatever the reason, I cannot seem to get my point across. I don't think my feeble attempts are riveting reading material.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Can't we all just get along.
I think that's pretty much ZIggy's point about American politicsCan't we all just get along.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Which is about up there with "won't someone think of the children"
In that regard I don't expect them to get along. I expect them to behave like adults. I think running a country is a bit too important.I think that's pretty much ZIggy's point about American politics
Edit: that is if I lived there. Which I don't so as it stands, I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the entertainment and enjoying a sense of superiority about our own morons.
In response I am indeed asked to think of the children.
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 11-14-2012 at 05:35 PM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
No you can't. It's people using the default that need to be scolded. Yuck.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Thanks.
I may not be able to communicate a simple thought, I may not understand the workings of America's executive branch, but I can pick an acceptable background colour, damnit.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
My mistake. Often times I read ulterior motives into those who respond to Lewk that often aren't generous.
I think we are dangerously close to an understanding here. I suggest we stop.So I even suspect there might be agreement here.
And because I in turn aren't the stinker either I'll point out the reasoning in that point and my special party trick is not to include the claim I backed out of.
I can absolutely see your logic there.Do you see the logic about media reporting about obstructionism
I'll be more succinct. If the opposition is aiming to block you all of the way, screw 'em. If they are open to striking deals and making compromises, cheers!
Cheers!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
People with a white background aren't worth catering to.
That's now an outdated model that needs some tweaking. Nearly every political scientist or economist declared 2012 would be a "referendum" on the economy, and/or the unemployment rate, and Obama wouldn't be re-elected with GDP growth of 1-2% or unemployment at or around 8%.
What needs tweaking is your understanding of those models. The successful models don't look at the absolute economic conditions; they look at the changes in economic conditions over the previous x years. The economy has marginally improved in the last 1-2 years, which is why Obama defeated Romney by a relatively small margin (in terms of popular vote).
Hope is the denial of reality
Riiight, I just don't understand the models.Between this and the "Election Predictions" thread, you're talking out both sides of your head. Does this mean you're just another Talking Head? Probably.
Considering Loki (and I) were saying all election long that Obama would be re-elected, I don't think his prediction was remotely flawed.Riiight, I just don't understand the models.
I have to wonder though how people's goldfish-memories influence their perception of the ruling party's competence come election-time.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
744. Manipulation in Mother Nature’s guise (11/7/2012)
The Feds like to play theGod’s role to control people. In 2004, when they planned to keep a proved liaron chair for his second term, they said it was the “God’s will”.
Pat Robertson predicted"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk, I really believe I'mhearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It'sshaping up that way."
Eight years later, the Fedswant to shape up the way for Obama. They play the God’s will in another way –in Mother Nature’s guise.
If you still remember howstorm Issac had disturbed the GOP Convention and suppressed Republican’sspirit.
GOP fears ghost of Katrina at RNC 2012
It was so coincident that Limbaughalleged:
Rush Limbaugh SaysObama Manipulated Isaac Storm Track To Delay GOP Convention: ‘The HurricaneCenter Is … Obama’
Then another coincidencecame:
Conspiracy TheoristsSay Obama Engineered Hurricane SandyBy Elizabeth Flock October 29, 2012
As Hurricane Sandy blaststhe eastern seaboard just over a week before Election Day, a number ofconspiracy theorists have decided President Barack Obama engineered themega-storm to secure his re-election.
InfoWars.com,TheIntelHub.com, and ConsfearacyNewz all posted stories over the last severaldays alleging that the The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, orHAARP, helped the president engineer Sandy.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/29/conspiracy-theorists-say-obama-engineered-hurricane-sandy
Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 05:28AM PDTSo what does Romney do now?
If the hurricane freezes thepresidential race in place, it's not good news for the GOP nominee
By Steve Kornacki
For Romney, the downside isobvious: Sandy has for now frozen the race in place – and where the race isright now isn’t good for him. If the election were held this moment, BarackObama would probably be returned to office for a second term. The president isat best tied with Romney in the national horserace and at worst behind by apoint, but he holds clear advantages in the most important battleground statesand is much better-positioned to reach 270 electoral votes.
Romney needs to shore upstates like Virginia and Colorado and erase stubborn gaps in Ohio or Wisconsinand Iowa before next Tuesday. Momentum alone doesn’t seem like it will get himthere. He surged in the wake of the first debate in Denver, but the race hassettled into place since then. For lack of a better term, Romney is in need ofsome kind of jolt that would fix his swing state problem.
Sandy severely complicatesthis task. For one thing, it has overtaken the presidential campaign as the topnational story and will continue to do so for several days. Obama, as thepresident, has an obvious place in this story. The actions of the White Houseand the response of the federal government are integral to the clean-up, andObama has a platform to showcase his presidential leadership. Romney, though,has no official role, and really can’t force his way into the story. There’salso the matter of unseemliness – it wouldn’t look too good for Romney to keepright on campaigning as the rest of the country takes stock of a natural disaster.Thus did Romney cancel events yesterday and again today.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/so_what_does_romney_do_now/
745. Manipulation the election (11/12/2012)
Boeing Announces BigLayoffs in Defense DivisionPublished: Wednesday, 7 Nov2012
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998
Watch the date of theannouncement. The day next to the election day. Big lay off took some time toplan. Boeing is a big firm that under the control of the Feds. They don’t wantto hurt Obama’s campaign so they sealed the bad news until he is re-elected.Same tactic was seen in other areas.
Record-High FoodStamp Enrollment Data Released After ElectionNovember 10, 2012
Nearly 421,000 newparticipants were added in just one month from the July 2012 figure of46,681,917. Almost 2 million moreparticipants were added in the last year when compared to the August 2011figure of 45,794,474. There were about32 million Americans on Food Stamps when President Barack Obama took office inJanuary 2009.
The U.S. Monthly Data reportis typically issued at the end of the following month, or pushed slightly intonext week if there is a weekend or holiday at the end of the month. For example, July 2012's numbers werereleased on September 28, 2012 (See below). However, the August 2012 report was released unusually late on November9, 2012, well after the U.S. Presidential Election had taken place.
http://government.brevardtimes.com/2012/11/record-high-food-stamps-data-released.html
Unemployment generallycorrelates with food-stamp enrollment. The Feds made it a sharp drop two monthsbefore the election day from 8.3% to 7.8%. I alleged the figure was rigged(see#743). It’s a big conflict to the Food Stamp Enrollment data. How the sharpdrop of unemployment could cause a record high food stamp enrollment? Toprevent the contradiction to hurt Obama’s election, we saw an unusual delay ofFood stamp enrollment data releasing.
Record-High Food Stamp Enrollment DataReleased After ElectionNovember 10, 2012
Nearly 421,000 newparticipants were added in just one month from the July 2012 figure of46,681,917. Almost 2 million moreparticipants were added in the last year when compared to the August 2011figure of 45,794,474. There were about32 million Americans on Food Stamps when President Barack Obama took office inJanuary 2009.
The U.S. Monthly Data reportis typically issued at the end of the following month, or pushed slightly intonext week if there is a weekend or holiday at the end of the month. For example, July 2012's numbers werereleased on September 28, 2012 (See below). However, the August 2012 report was released unusually late on November9, 2012, well after the U.S. Presidential Election had taken place.
http://government.brevardtimes.com/2012/11/record-high-food-stamps-data-released.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/attachments/breaking-news-mainstream-media/67137854d1352742299-food-stamps-reach-record-47-1-million-foodstamps912.jpg
So Kat is a Romney supporter?
Well, schizophrenics think the government is after them, so it's not unreasonable that they'd always be anti-incumbent...
Hope is the denial of reality
Loki had his moments of Hope, when certain polls called the race an even tie. After Bloomberg gave his endorsement to Obama, Loki said "crap", knowing that some undecided voters would follow that lead.Considering Loki (and I) were saying all election long that Obama would be re-elected, I don't think his prediction was remotely flawed.
But it's not his (or your) predictions I'm dissecting...but Romney's and the larger GOP strategists. They were horribly wrong, and are still busy licking their wounds, as if they were blinded by science.
When the polls showed a tie, I still said Obama was more likely than not to win...
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote