Originally Posted by playwrite

Translation - I'm glad I don't have a lot of money to loss.

Sort of like - I'm glad we didn't win the election because we would have to do something.

I'm glad you think this way.

Translation...Taking our money out of play places the bulk financial burben on people like you. Translation...It about time to put your money where your mouth is and watch the results.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Obviously from someone so out of touch that they can't tell the difference between nuclear war with Iran and occasional drone strikes.

You mean, between your imagination and a thing that actually happens? It's not that hard for most adults at all. And decent people recognize that the very phrase 'occasional murders', in the dismissive tone you give it, is a big flashing "MONSTER!! DO NOT FEED!!!" sign.

I echo Indy's appreciation to you for continuing to act as clear archetype here. Nobody would believe such a thing actually existed if you weren't there to put it right in front of their eyes.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Spoken like a true sociopath.

No, they're the sociopaths and people like you are their sheeple.

They're not happy with you all today.

I suppose no-one is going to congratulate me on my correct prediction, so it's left for me to crow. I could hardly have called it better. I predicted Obama would win, and he did. Not only that, but I predicted that he would probably carry Florida, giving him 332 electoral votes to 206. He has probably carried Florida. I said a gain of 10 seats for Democrats in the House, and it looks like it will be 7 (EDIT: 8). Democrats also gained 3 and probably 5 seats in the Senate, and I called that one right too. Chalk up another big one for astrology and my crystal ball. I called everything about this election right, all year long. I guess you guys had better pay attention to my predictions from now on.

Here's the best web map for all the results.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/

Another good map:
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...resident/2012/

Nate Silver came the closest among the pundits to being right. He even predicted he would win the popular vote by better than 2%, which he did; while the other poll averages had it at about 0.6%

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's what it all comes down to you folks - money.

Like I said, I thank God nightly he didn't make me like you.

Wake up you dipshit. Money means just as much to a Democrat as it does to a Republican.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Wake up you dipshit. Money means just as much to a Democrat as it does to a Republican.

Wake up yourself. Pay attention to the fact that not only do the Big Money Twits give MORE money to Republicans, but the Democrats want to reform the system and You Republicans fiercely resist all reform. By re-electing so many Tea Party extremist Republicans to the House, Americans like you have guaranteed that there won't be reform any time soon.

Originally Posted by playwrite

At one level, Michelle Bachmann eking out a win was my big disappointment of the night (but very happy that Allen West’s ugliness will now be confined to some backwater in Florida - I pity those people).

However, on a deeper level, I’m glad Michelle is still around. She and the t-baggers' idiocy has been paying off like broken slot machines starting with the baggers forcing Arlen Specter to switch parties and make the ACA filibuster proof. And look what they did for us just last night in Indiana and Missouri, possible even a help in Virginia and Florida.

The world is filled with nothing but duality - we need "bad" to help point to "good." And, the baggers, are awfully bad - God love them.

I find it encouraging that Bachmann's race was as close as it was, her district is gerrymandered to be very conservative.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Now you're adding the sub-sub-category of cultural hegemony in to the mix, which is barely even tangential to the original topic at hand.

Gah, increases in money supply might cause one type of inflation. It is a subset of.. oh god, nevermind. You're right. About everything. Always.

The "sub-sub" was a joke that you obviously are slow on the uptake.

The real problem with your definitions is you confined hegemony to only empires. That is something that is just factually wrong (see Websters), but more importantly, betrays a prejudice against the subject, i.e. your worldview is that the US is an empire so all its behavior on the world stage, hegemonic or otherwise, is, by your definition, of empire. To think otherwise would betray your worldview.

It's magic pony thinking - see Justin for expansion or Austrian School for even more.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I suppose no-one is going to congratulate me on my correct prediction, so it's left for me to crow. I could hardly have called it better. I predicted Obama would win, and he did. Not only that, but predicted that he would probably carry Florida, giving him 332 electoral votes to 206. He has probably carried Florida. I said a gain of 10 seats for Democrats in the House, and it looks like it will be 7. Democrats also gained 3 and probably 5 seats in the Senate, and I called that one right too. Chalk up another big one for astrology and my crystal ball. I called everything about this election right, all year long. I guess you guys had better pay attention to my predictions from now on.

Here's the best web map for all the results.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/

Another good map:
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...resident/2012/

Nate Silver came the closest among the pundits to being right. He even predicted he would win the popular vote by better than 2%, which he did; while the other poll averages had it at about 0.6%

Two thumbs up!

How's that?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I suppose no-one is going to congratulate me on my correct prediction, so it's left for me to crow.

I'm sorry I missed that, Eric. Congratulations are certainly in order, and I offer them to you.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

No, I came to the conclusion that Democrats care more about their petty social issues than the fiscal strength of their state, their nation and their own economic futures. Good luck making a living working at Walmart or McDonalds.

Democrats know arithmetic; Republicans don't. You have to raise taxes in order to spend money. Republicans refuse to face that fact. They think they can cut their way out of the deficit by cutting valuable programs and investments that the country desperately needs, and yet STILL spend trillions on useless wars and defense boondoggles so America can be #1.

Republicans thought Mitt Romney would win too. That's a fact confirmed by pollsters. Their predictions were disappointed, but this was not at all surprising. Republicans are not interested in facts-- not even about the fortunes of their own man in an election. Nor are they interested in facts when it comes to the economy or climate change. They were wrong about the election; they are wrong about everything. Republicans are the party of wrong.

I was right on this election all year long. Cynical Xers like you and The Rani would also be wise to heed the Boomer Prophet's prediction about the economy, on which I have a better record over the years even than elections. The economy was going to do well the next couple of years NO MATTER WHO won the election. Did you read my prediction on this, or not? If you did, you'd be wise to heed it and not worry too much. The modest recovery will continue, FISCAL CLIFF OR NO FISCAL CLIFF!

I was interested in the fact that New Jersey voted for Obama with a greater margin than 4 years ago. Unlike voters in Florida in 2004, voters in New Jersey recognize the impact of climate change on their lives, which could not be more obvious, and voted for a better climate yesterday.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Krugman points out something that is now obvious in the stock market today -



Live by your excessvie donations, die by your excessive donations.

Their tears make me smile.

.

Live by the bailout, die by its debts. Live by the market, die by the market. Live by the T-bill, die by the T-bill. BTW, your smiles don't bring tears to my eyes and your sides eventual demise won't bring tears to my eyes either.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Two thumbs up!

How's that?

Surely, we can do better than that !!!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm sorry I missed that, Eric. Congratulations are certainly in order, and I offer them to you.

Well thank you much, Justin

and playright and Aramea!

What an interesting outcome. It seems the power of patronage coupled with the civil war heating within the Republican party gave the 'soft' voters the idea that the status quo was preferable to change.

From the standpoint of the forum's subject matter this finally puts an end to the faux culture wars, thankfully. One of the biggest factors in the failed Republican platform has been their stance on social issues. They need to get it through their heads that it's over and stop trying to refight abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc. The struggle for dominance in that party could be interesting to watch. Then again they may just double down on stupidity and try harder than ever to eject the reformers. (Does anyone else think that Rience Priebus looks like a smart-assier version of Gary Sinise?)

It also seems to put an end to blind partisanship, or at least begins the end of it for a large portion of the electorate. Generations are changing, and with them the driving force of politics. One commenter made the observation that you can't give up every last 'single issue voter' before you even start and expect to win. That's what Republicans have done by their continued so-con platform. Can they swap out the christian right for a libertaranish position on social issues, thus gaining all those votes? That's going to be the crux of the struggle in that party. People are going to be less and less content to simply follow a team's banner as time goes on.

A lot of political junkies seem to actually despise is the so-called single issue voter. I think that this is a mistake because they are not analyzing quite deeply enough. Single issue voters may have even carried the day this time around, and the concepts of undecideds and independent voters will need more examination in the future, as the current political understanding of these non-team players is lacking.

I don't think that its a matter of apathy, but rather the idea that people tend to want things bottom lined for efficiency. Most people don't want to worry about a lot of things they find tangential to their everyday lives, or spend endless hours looking for every nuance when they are confronted with the periodic interruption of an election.

A lot of people believe you can distill a the essence of a candidate by examining their stance on a particular issue that is important to the person doing the deciding. I think this was a big factor for a lot of women who looked at the abortion issue and made the assessment that this stance of Romney's said a lot more about his priorities than political experts generally acknowledge, for example. If he can't even try to understand my fears and concerns over this issue that is so important to me, what else will he do that I won't like?

There may be some that believe abortion is in danger, but the vast majority who vote on this issue may look at it as a sort of broad gauge for how much a given candidate cares about them. There is also the visceral factor of dealing with the idea that some man thinks he gets to have an opinion on my life and decisions, which is never going to be overcome for the Republicans. They just need to drop it.

This sort of thing is how many people judge a politician; how much will the candidate do for (or to) me personally? When for is greater than to, they get the vote. This is the false choice that many Americans are now comfortable with for the time being.

This idea that a politician can or will solve your personal problems seems troubling from the standpoint of a healthy democracy. I think that as time goes on, and the realization sets in that there is no real safety net, a lot of people will re-evaluate their beliefs on this account. (We're all still waiting for our free government stuff aren't we?) If there are no jobs, and no safety net, what are we to do? We just haven't hit bottom yet, and so people hold out hope that some politician is going to perform magic. Status quo (desperate hope) for the win.

This is the result of decades of people looking to government and authority for answers. But it will change overnight when things finally hit the fan. That will be the paradigm shift of the crises.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The "sub-sub" was a joke that you obviously are slow on the uptake.

The real problem with your definitions is you confined hegemony to only empires. That is something that is just factually wrong (see Websters), but more importantly, betrays a prejudice against the subject, i.e. your worldview is that the US is an empire so all its behavior on the world stage, hegemonic or otherwise, is, by your definition, of empire. To think otherwise would betray your worldview.

It's magic pony thinking - see Justin for expansion or Austrian School for even more.

Excuse me for assuming you were talking about political or economic hegemony in the Politics & Economics sub-forum.

I look forward to your thoughts on cultural hegemony in the Culture & Values sub-forum!

Oh wait, we've already established that you have a problem with categorization. Do you need help finding it, sir? I'll even help you cross the street!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I dunno man, you're either a would-be Messiah, or you're not as secure in your own predictions as you'd like yourself to think.
I'm not worried, either. But thanks for your, um, concern.

I'm a prophet, not a messiah. And if I were insecure in my predictions I wouldn't make them-- put them out there to be chewed up if I'm wrong. On the other hand, you seem a bit too insecure to admit that I was right.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

What an interesting outcome. It seems the power of patronage coupled with the civil war heating within the Republican party gave the 'soft' voters the idea that the status quo was preferable to change.

The status quo was returned to power. The people will now have to live with the consequences of at least 2 more years of frustration and stalemate.

This sort of thing is how many people judge a politician; how much will the candidate do for (or to) me personally? When for is greater than to, they get the vote. This is the false choice that many Americans are now comfortable with for the time being.

Even Obama pointed out this problem in his victory speech last night. Democracy is not something that is done FOR us, but BY us.

This idea that a politician can or will solve your personal problems seems troubling from the standpoint of a healthy democracy. I think that as time goes on, and the realization sets in that there is no real safety net, a lot of people will re-evaluate their beliefs on this account. (We're all still waiting for our free government stuff aren't we?) If there are no jobs, and no safety net, what are we to do? We just haven't hit bottom yet, and so people hold out hope that some politician is going to perform magic. Status quo (desperate hope) for the win.

This is the result of decades of people looking to government and authority for answers. But it will change overnight when things finally hit the fan. That will be the paradigm shift of the crises.

No, exactly opposite. The delusion that we can do without government has been the shibboleth of the last 32 years. Republicans have run the country on this idea since the 1980s. But their margin of victory has shrunk. I hope it will shrink to fit inside a bathtub.

The safety net is necessary, and it does protect us. There is absolutely no need to throw our fortunes to the winds of the financial gamblers and monopolists. We need to be protected from them and the results of their activities. If we don't do this, we can kiss our country as we have known it goodbye, and say hello to America the Banana Republic. We can kiss a liveable planet goodbye too. It is the trickle-down, "free"-market, libertarian economics ideology that failed last night, even more than single-issue culture wars. The demographic changes mean that there are fewer and fewer old white dudes around, and the other people recognize the need for government help for them, and for society. No doubt both failed ideologies will still be around, but they have to be defeated if we are going to move forward and prosper. That's going to require more than the re-election of a rather mediocre president. It's going to require sweeping the House and the Statehouses clean of the Republican garbage once and for all. We'd better get about doing it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In my experience, the really smart and knowledgeable people in this world don't go around telling everyone else how smart and knowledgeable they are.
But if that works for you in some way, feel free.
P.S. I don't actually care if your predictions (about any issue) are right or wrong. It's not all about YOU, Mr. Prophet.

Still insecure I see! It's not about me, but it IS about me to the extent that my predictions have proven right again. Smart people DO go around doing that, in fact, if they want to be heard. If you believe in results and a track record, then it is wise to pay attention to me instead of psychoanalyzing me instead. But then, that's who you are I guess.... and it's OK.........

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yep. I know a few people on the Christian Right, and I'm not sure what they will do if the Repubs do go more libertarianish. Perhaps they will stop voting altogether, or more likely shift their energy from national efforts to local ones.

Home owners' associations. Thousands of nosy home owners' associations and condo committees.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You couldn't -- or, more accurately, wouldn't -- do it back when there was at least the theoretical threat of no-second-term. You put him back now, without even that hope-of-a-lever.
.

I have consistently held Obama accountable. And I didn't vote for him.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Democrats know arithmetic; Republicans don't. You have to raise taxes in order to spend money. Republicans refuse to face that fact. They think they can cut their way out of the deficit by cutting valuable programs and investments that the country desperately needs, and yet STILL spend trillions on useless wars and defense boondoggles so America can be #1.

Republicans thought Mitt Romney would win too. That's a fact confirmed by pollsters. Their predictions were disappointed, but this was not at all surprising. Republicans are not interested in facts-- not even about the fortunes of their own man in an election. Nor are they interested in facts when it comes to the economy or climate change. They were wrong about the election; they are wrong about everything. Republicans are the party of wrong.

I was right on this election all year long. Cynical Xers like you and The Rani would also be wise to heed the Boomer Prophet's prediction about the economy, on which I have a better record over the years even than elections. The economy was going to do well the next couple of years NO MATTER WHO won the election. Did you read my prediction on this, or not? If you did, you'd be wise to heed it and not worry too much. The modest recovery will continue, FISCAL CLIFF OR NO FISCAL CLIFF!

I'm not worried about myself, my family or the bulk of my friends and I've completely dropped the little bit of concern there was for WORKING DEMOCRATS like the friends who currently rely on private sector performance and economic growth. As it is now, I've dropped all my plans relative to building up a business and I'm gonna focus on making enough money for myself and my family.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah ... fuck.
And it's not just the Christian Right who might go on power trips in those either.
I can envision Green Communities and Jesus Communities popping up all over the damned place.

If I remember right, these HOAs were losing influence in the 80s and early 90s as the culture wars became a full-time occupation. If the 4T settles it, they'll come back to their neighborhoods just in time for a "picture perfect" 1T of standardized fences and pristine lawns.

And, of course, this will eventually spawn the cults & communes of the 2T.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I have consistently held Obama accountable. And I didn't vote for him.

As with before, you-plural, exclusive of anyone to whom it doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well thank you much, Justin

and playright and Aramea!

I'll also give you a kudos. But then, I also predicted he would win. After all, Wall Street and corporations know how to get people in the White House who will do their bidding. They know that he will have less opposition than a Republican.