Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Where are your data? Where are your empirical results? Talk, or a stream of IP packets, is cheap. Evidence on the other hand, is not.

There are a lot of people who would like to see the data and empirical results behind AGW. Unfortunately, as we now know, that data has been hidden and/or destroyed by the "scientists" who crafted the hoax. We do have their computer models, which have been shown to produce the same result when fed any set of random data.

Originally Posted by Weave

An AP Poll...yes the notoriously left slanted AP poll shows Obama has only 43% support for re-election and 52% are opposed. Only 26% think the USA is headed in the right direction

This sort of datum is what makes this such a weird election. With stats like that, any potential Republican nominee would, under normal circumstances, be plowing the field with Obama in a head-to-head matchup poll. But that's not the case; the president is well ahead of Romney, Gingrich, and Paul.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that a lot of people are becoming severely disenchanted with BOTH parties, and no longer think of the Democrats and the GOP as left-right bookends of American political thought. For that reason, a low opinion of Democrats does not translate into support for Republicans (or vice-versa).

Another way of saying the same thing is that a lot of the disenchantment with Obama is coming from the left, not the right. That is likely to mean that the number of people who "support Obama's reelection" is lower than the number of people who will in the end vote for him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There are a lot of people who would like to see the data and empirical results behind AGW. Unfortunately, as we now know, that data has been hidden and/or destroyed by the "scientists" who crafted the hoax. We do have their computer models, which have been shown to produce the same result when fed any set of random data.

Here is a story to back your claim....

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...oe-under-fire/

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This sort of datum is what makes this such a weird election. With stats like that, any potential Republican nominee would, under normal circumstances, be plowing the field with Obama in a head-to-head matchup poll. But that's not the case; the president is well ahead of Romney, Gingrich, and Paul.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that a lot of people are becoming severely disenchanted with BOTH parties, and no longer think of the Democrats and the GOP as left-right bookends of American political thought. For that reason, a low opinion of Democrats does not translate into support for Republicans (or vice-versa).

Another way of saying the same thing is that a lot of the disenchantment with Obama is coming from the left, not the right. That is likely to mean that the number of people who "support Obama's reelection" is lower than the number of people who will in the end vote for him.

I agree with some of this, however in all the polls I have seen (including this one) many show Romney/Obama tied and Obama only slightly ahead of Gingrich (this one show it more than slightly).
A third party could win in 2012. You might even see a crazy 4 way election (like 1860) with two left parties and 2 right parties...anything is possible at this point.

It appears that the new Justice Party presidential candidate, Rocky Anderson, is a former Democrat.

Here's a bit more about him and the new third party.

A new political party has entered the fray as an alternative to Democrats and Republicans ahead of the 2012 elections. On Monday, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson announced he will run for president with the newly formed Justice Party. Although hailing from a solidly red state, Anderson has been known as one of the most progressive mayors of any major U.S. city in recent years. During his two mayoral terms from 2000 to 2008, Anderson was an outspoken champion of LGBT rights, environmental sustainability and the antiwar movement in opposition to the war in Iraq.

Vowing to fight the influence of money over politics, Anderson kicked off his campaign Monday with a pledge to limit individual donations to $100 a person. He and the Justice Party say they hope to build a grassroots movement heading into the November 2012 elections.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/...rocky_anderson

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This sort of datum is what makes this such a weird election. With stats like that, any potential Republican nominee would, under normal circumstances, be plowing the field with Obama in a head-to-head matchup poll. But that's not the case; the president is well ahead of Romney, Gingrich, and Paul.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that a lot of people are becoming severely disenchanted with BOTH parties, and no longer think of the Democrats and the GOP as left-right bookends of American political thought. For that reason, a low opinion of Democrats does not translate into support for Republicans (or vice-versa).

Another way of saying the same thing is that a lot of the disenchantment with Obama is coming from the left, not the right. That is likely to mean that the number of people who "support Obama's reelection" is lower than the number of people who will in the end vote for him.

Different polls produce different results, but in predictable ways when you look at history. Presidential job approval, right track/wrong track, unemployment and the performance of the economy are perpetually reliable indicators of the eventual outcome. Head-to-head polls between a sitting president and hypothetical opponents who have not yet secured their party's nomination are far more unreliable.

In addition, the head-to-head polls almost never show Obama over 50%, and they are almost always polls of Adults, not Registered Voters or Likely Voters. When it comes time to actually vote, feelings about the sitting president's job performance and the economy will have a massive impact on who goes out to vote and who stays home, and will be decisive in the final decisions of swing voters, as was the case in 2008, and in 2010.

Obama is in terrible shape. He is bolstered by one factor: his base remains very dedicated to him. He appears to have about 40-45% of the vote completely locked up, which is better than some incumbents in the past in similar situations. But the degree to which he will be able to motivate them to go out and vote is questionable, and his ability to win over the independents he needs to win a majority is extremely doubtful. Once again, that's where the first set of polls is the best indicator. When people have a negative view of the economy and the president's job performance, independents and swing voters almost always break heavily for the opposition.

We already have a third party. There is no need to dilute support for it by adding more third parties.

A justice party would have to join the green party and progressive democrats to have any impact. I am of two minds about 3rd parties, but this year I am thinking it is probably better to support Democrats where possible, though not DINOs.

It is true that Democrats often sell out and often get support from corporations. Many are forced to play the game even though they would support reform; keep that in mind. Many others don't feel a progressive wind at their backs, but a reactionary wind. In the real world, the facts are that the Republicans are the ones keeping us shackled to the problems we are concerned about, and the trickle-down ideology is what keeps many politicians and voters from doing the right thing. The first priority has to be getting the tea party and reaganoid nuts out of office. Nothing can be done until the right-wing in this country is defeated utterly, and for good. Then the work continues, no doubt about it.

A constitutional convention will not happen either now, since the tea party and reaganoids control state legislatures, as they also do the right-wing congress.

We are stuck supporting Obama now, I think, with all his flaws; though I am keeping my Green Party options open.

The fact about sitting presidents is that you need a more-charismatic candidate to beat an incumbent during a bad economy. That was the case when Clinton beat Bush and Reagan beat Carter; and even when Carter beat Ford. FDR beat Hoover; Cleveland beat Harrison under these conditions. Wilson had help from TR to beat Taft. Bush, Carter, Ford, Hoover, Harrison, Taft; not an inspiring group. Obama is better; his opponents are worse.

Obama is articulate and competent, though not brilliant. The economy is slowly improving. Neither Gingrich nor Romney are good enough to beat Obama; the voters will not have confidence in these candidates. Increased turnout in the general election will ensure a more progressive electorate than in 2010.

The president will have to show he is willing to act on his own outside congress on the economy, and convince people that the right-wing's current control of congress and the Bush presidency are responsible for our economic problems and frequent inability to act. He will need to get congress back to have any chance at all of real accomplishment during the rest of his term. Even then, it won't happen unless the Senate feels pressure from the people to act on behalf of the people instead of on behalf of a few rich people in the hopes that enabling them will allow benefits to trickle down.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It appears that the new Justice Party presidential candidate, Rocky Anderson, is a former Democrat.

Here's a bit more about him and the new third party.



http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/...rocky_anderson

This is bad news. We will not be served better by electing a Republican for president. If this gets anywhere, then my prediction that Obama will win could be upset. How would adding more justices to the supreme court just like those who decided the Citizens United case, help reform??

Maybe I'll take a look at Anderson astrologically though.

Well so far, I see one "presidential" aspect in his chart, and one aspect that usually doesn't bode too well. There is nothing outstanding in his chart that suggests he could win, but that doesn't mean he can't do damage.

One writer notes: "In a world where Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann have both been seriously considered as presidential contenders, anything could happen."

Anything bad, I guess.

I know, I know, I have really been touting Gingrich as the true savior of our country, but I have now come to realize how much more Ron Paul has to offer!

With Ron Paul, maybe we could really put some issues on the line such as how federal deficit spending and the Fed beefing up the money supply has been really really bad - like Zimbabwe or Weimar Republic kind of hyperinflation bad!

Here's another Paul that's jumping on the R. Paul bankwagon -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/op...=3&ref=opinion

G.O.P. Monetary Madness
.
.
.

Mr. Paul identifies himself as a believer in “Austrian” economics — a doctrine that it goes without saying rejects John Maynard Keynes but is almost equally vehement in rejecting the ideas of Milton Friedman. For Austrians see “fiat money,” money that is just printed without being backed by gold, as the root of all economic evil, which means that they fiercely oppose the kind of monetary expansion Friedman claimed could have prevented the Great Depression — and which was actually carried out by Ben Bernanke this time around.

O.K., a brief digression: the Federal Reserve doesn’t actually print money (the Treasury does that). But the Fed does control the “monetary base,” the sum of bank reserves and currency in circulation. So when people talk about Mr. Bernanke printing money, what they really mean is that the Fed expanded the monetary base.

And there has, indeed, been a huge expansion of the monetary base. After Lehman Brothers fell, the Fed began lending large sums to banks as well as buying a wide range of other assets, in a (successful) attempt to stabilize financial markets, in the process adding large amounts to bank reserves. In the fall of 2010, the Fed began another round of purchases, in a less successful attempt to boost economic growth. The combined effect of these actions was that the monetary base more than tripled in size.

Austrians, and for that matter many right-leaning economists, were sure about what would happen as a result: There would be devastating inflation. One popular Austrian commentator who has advised Mr. Paul, Peter Schiff, even warned (on Glenn Beck’s TV show) of the possibility of Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation in the near future.

So here we are, three years later. How’s it going? Inflation has fluctuated, but, at the end of the day, consumer prices have risen just 4.5 percent, meaning an average annual inflation rate of only 1.5 percent. Who could have predicted that printing so much money would cause so little inflation? Well, I could. And did. And so did others who understood the Keynesian economics Mr. Paul reviles. But Mr. Paul’s supporters continue to claim, somehow, that he has been right about everything.

Still, while the original proponents of the doctrine won’t ever admit that they were wrong — my experience is that nobody in the political world ever admits to having been wrong about anything — you might think that having been so completely off-base about something so central to their belief system would have caused the Austrians to lose popularity, even within the G.O.P. After all, as recently as the Bush years, many Republicans were all for printing money when the economy slumps. “Aggressive monetary policy can reduce the depth of a recession,” declared the 2004 Economic Report of the President.

What has happened instead, however, is that hard-money doctrine and paranoia about inflation have taken over the party, even as the predicted inflation keeps failing to materialize. For example, in February, Representative Paul Ryan, who is somewhat inexplicably regarded as the party’s deep thinker on matters economic, harangued Mr. Bernanke on how terrible it is to “debase” a currency and pointed to a rise in commodity prices in late 2010 and early 2011 as evidence that inflation was finally coming. Commodity prices have plunged since then, but there is no sign that Mr. Ryan or anyone else is having second thoughts.

Now, it’s still very unlikely that Ron Paul will become president. But, as I said, his economic doctrine has, in effect, become the official G.O.P. line, despite having been proved utterly wrong by events. And what will happen if that doctrine actually ends up being put into action? Great Depression, here we come.

I mean why just have "zany" when we can have complete and utter "madness" and become "greatly depressed."

Whooo-weee, let's go for it!!!!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We already have a third party. There is no need to dilute support for it by adding more third parties.

A justice party would have to join the green party and progressive democrats to have any impact. I am of two minds about 3rd parties, but this year I am thinking it is probably better to support Democrats where possible, though not DINOs.

It is true that Democrats often sell out and often get support from corporations. Many are forced to play the game even though they would support reform; keep that in mind. Many others don't feel a progressive wind at their backs, but a reactionary wind. In the real world, the facts are that the Republicans are the ones keeping us shackled to the problems we are concerned about, and the trickle-down ideology is what keeps many politicians and voters from doing the right thing. The first priority has to be getting the tea party and reaganoid nuts out of office. Nothing can be done until the right-wing in this country is defeated utterly, and for good. Then the work continues, no doubt about it.

A constitutional convention will not happen either now, since the tea party and reaganoids control state legislatures, as they also do the right-wing congress.

After this horrible Defense Authorization Bill, I'm tempted to abandon the two party system ship for good. I'm amazed that just a handful of people have commented about that give away of our rights. We are headed in the direction of a police state and there is no major discussion about that. Very sad.

Third parties are good for bringing up issues that the two party system will want to shy away from. Democrats have made a extreme turn to the right and the Republicans want to drive us off a cliff. Either way, they are both in the hands of the corporations. They are arms of the corporations now and we best own that or we will be silent while they continue to run over our Constitutional rights and stay in cahoots with the Robber Barons.

Yeah, Newt would be an atrocious president. But Obama is proving himself to be just as bad, only he is an eloquent speaker of Orwellian language.

Another party on the left?

Whooo-weee, let's go for it!!!!

James50

I've read a couple of posts here where people are saying that the economy is getting better. But for whom?

Congress cuts winter heating aid for the poor while boosting the defense budget.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...efense-budget/

Originally Posted by playwrite

So here we are, three years later. How’s it going? Inflation has fluctuated, but, at the end of the day, consumer prices have risen just 4.5 percent, meaning an average annual inflation rate of only 1.5 percent.

You and Krugman lose credibility when you say consumer prices have risen just 4.5 percent in three years. Well, what else could one expect when using the most superficial numbers of the less-than-credible federal government?

The reason why headline CPI numbers don't reflect the reality for most people is right there in the CPI.


First you might notice that the actual headline number from Nov '10 - Nov '11 is 3.8%

Then one might notice that the categories experiencing the highest price increases are those that are not optional to most households: food at home, transportation, energy, and clothing.

Some of the numbers are questionable on the face. For example, medical care. CPI says it went up 3.5%. Kaiser did their own study and found premiums went up 9%. The Milliman Medical Index says all health care costs increased by 7.3% when more than premiums are calculated.

The other problem is how housing is now dragging the CPI down. What does that actually mean for most people? Well, most households own so they won't see a reduction in their mortgage. A few people rent, but rents have been holding steady. What the CPI shows as a price reduction is in all actuality just a loss of wealth for homeowners.

But here's the nail on the coffin of CPI's recent reliability... how they determine the relative weight in a standard basket of goods:

The CPI market basket is developed from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on what they actually bought. For the current CPI, this information was collected from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys for 2007 and 2008.

Got it? They are basing consumer spending patterns on data they got from 2007 and 2008, starting all the way back when retail gas price averaged at $2.35 per gallon and well before the panic of late 2008 hit.

So although aggregate consumer spending data shows us that American households are switching from luxuries and consumption to basic necessities, this is not reflected in the current CPI.

And of course, it is those basic necessities that are going up so much more quickly in price...

I supposed I should be used to this by now, but the idea of bypassing all budget and appropriations committees and throwing together these giant continuing resolutions always strikes me as a complete abdication of responsibility. No one has read them except the lobbyists who wrote them. It puts me in the mood to just throw them all out.

"I rise in strong support of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. None of them have read it.". (video of Steny Hoyer)

James50

Originally Posted by Deb C

After this horrible Defense Authorization Bill, I'm tempted to abandon the two party system ship for good. I'm amazed that just a handful of people have commented about that give away of our rights. We are headed in the direction of a police state and there is no major discussion about that. Very sad.

Third parties are good for bringing up issues that the two party system will want to shy away from. Democrats have made a extreme turn to the right and the Republicans want to drive us off a cliff. Either way, they are both in the hands of the corporations. They are arms of the corporations now and we best own that or we will be silent while they continue to run over our Constitutional rights and stay in cahoots with the Robber Barons.

Yeah, Newt would be an atrocious president. But Obama is proving himself to be just as bad, only he is an eloquent speaker of Orwellian language.

Note James' response.

Obama is not "just as bad." The facts are not simple and clear cut. If liberals or the left cannot look at things clearly and stick behind one candidate, it will make it easier for the atrocious president to get in, and for the House of Reps to remain hostage to the corporations.

The reason Democrats are bad and Republicans are worse, is not because of corporations, the wealthy, the politicians, academia, or anyone else but ourselves. We ourselves are responsible for whom we have elected. We are responsible for allowing the trickle-down theory to rule the roost. We are responsible for making our politicians think the power is on the right-wing. We are responsible for not voting and not voting correctly. We are responsible for not making our voices heard. We are responsible for allowing our politicians to give away our rights, because we fear "terrorism" more than a police state. Our politicians are as bad as we are. America is the creation of the Americans. Our politics reflects who we are like faces in a mirror.

If we don't vote strategically and with an eye to whom is better or worse, we will be sending our nation off the cliff to which it is rapidly approaching. The same will happen if we don't speak out 24/7/365. How many here have used the White House website to write to Obama? How many here have contacted congress? Don't just write your thoughts here. Send them out to politicians and voters.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I've read a couple of posts here where people are saying that the economy is getting better. But for whom?

Congress cuts winter heating aid for the poor while boosting the defense budget.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...efense-budget/

So allow Republicans to keep congress and that's what you'll get more of.

Job claims are declining, and the unemployment rate is falling.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So allow Republicans to keep congress and that's what you'll get more of.

Job claims are declining, and the unemployment rate is falling.

As long as corporations dominate the political process, and they do, it will not matter a ton who gets elected.

The unemployment rate is falling because more people have run out of unemployment benefits, are underemployed, and/or working at mere seasonal jobs.

Just visit a few food pantries or homeless shelters and ask the workers there about their view of the economy. This is where you will get honest employment facts.

Stunning Statistics of the Week:

• $5.6 million: Amount President Barack Obama has raised from business executives this year
• $5.2 million: Amount GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney has raised from business executives this year
• $272,000: Amount GOP presidential contender Next Gingrich has raised from business executives this year

30 corporations spent more on lobbying than taxes

This will make your blood boil: Thirty large corporations analyzed by Public Campaign paid more to lobby Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to a new report. What’s more, those companies received tax rebates totaling nearly $11 billion.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This Harvard study shows Millennials increasingly disengaged from politics. Their approval of Obama is no higher than the rest of the population (low 40s), although their approval of Congress is much lower. 80% of them think the US is headed in the wrong direction. Obama leads a generic Republican by about 8% among 30 and under voters and he leads specific names a little more--but he doesn't get 40% total against any of them! The opportunity to turn Millennials into a Hero generation is rapidly vanishing.

You mean that your, or the lefts, opportunity to turn the Millenials into their Hero generation is rapidly vanishing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This sort of datum is what makes this such a weird election. With stats like that, any potential Republican nominee would, under normal circumstances, be plowing the field with Obama in a head-to-head matchup poll. But that's not the case; the president is well ahead of Romney, Gingrich, and Paul.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that a lot of people are becoming severely disenchanted with BOTH parties, and no longer think of the Democrats and the GOP as left-right bookends of American political thought. For that reason, a low opinion of Democrats does not translate into support for Republicans (or vice-versa).

Another way of saying the same thing is that a lot of the disenchantment with Obama is coming from the left, not the right. That is likely to mean that the number of people who "support Obama's reelection" is lower than the number of people who will in the end vote for him.

I'd say that it clearly shows Obama has lost the swing vote that elected him.

What about this economy?

U.S. Mayors Decry Rise in Poverty, Homelessness By Agence France-Presse December 16, 16, 2011 --WASHINGTON — US mayors sounded an alarm Thursday over deepening economic woes after a survey of 29 cities from Los Angeles to Washington showed worrying rises in homelessness and poverty-related food aid. “Here is the richest country in the world (and) we have people who cannot find a place to live,” said Kansas City Mayor Sly James, who co-chairs a task force on hunger and homelessness for the US Conference of Mayors. “We are failing” to address critical issues of homelessness and the use of food stamps, which is “increasing, not decreasing,” he told reporters on a conference call to discuss the survey. The government has reported that 46.2 million people nationwide were living in poverty in 2010 and that the rate climbed to 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent a year earlier. Of the 29 cities surveyed — all of which have more than 30,000 residents — 25 reported increased requests for emergency food assistance in the past year. In Kansas City, Missouri, the rate of food aid spiked by 40 percent, the highest increase in the survey, followed by Boston and Salt Lake City with a 35 percent increase and Philadelphia with 32 percent. Food aid requests in San Francisco dropped by 11 percent. Unemployment was the primary cause of hunger, according to the cities, whose total emergency food budget as a group last year was $272 million. And the cities are not expecting improvements. All but two predicted emergency food requests will increase next year, with three-quarters of the cities forecasting shrinking food aid budgets. “It is not surprising that the combination of increasing demand and decreasing resources is the biggest challenge that they would face in that effort to address hunger in the next year,” said Mayor Terry Bellamy of Asheville, North Carolina. Homelessness across the surveyed cities rose an average of six percent, according to the report. Especially hard hit was Charleston, South Carolina, where homelessness rose 33 percent, Cleveland, Ohio (21 percent) and Detroit, Michigan (16 percent). Two out of three cities surveyed predicted their homeless numbers will grow in the next year. The report said more than a quarter of homeless adults were “severely mentally ill,” while 13 percent were US military veterans. “We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing veterans who fought for this country… to find themselves living on the street,” said James, the Kansas City mayor. An average of 18 percent of homeless people seeking assistance were turned away, in part because there were not enough beds in homeless shelters.

Originally Posted by Deb C

30 corporations spent more on lobbying than taxes

This will make your blood boil: Thirty large corporations analyzed by Public Campaign paid more to lobby Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to a new report. What’s more, those companies received tax rebates totaling nearly $11 billion.

Gee, I bet GE is/was at or near the top of that list.

Yup, right at the very top. $84 million in lobbying and a handful of news networks can apparently get you a tax bill of negative $4.7 billion.

I think my favorite part of the GE business model is the divide and conquer they play with CNBC and MSNBC.