and it's what I suspected. The worse kept secret ever. It turns out it is not a secular libertarian movement. But a conservative Christian movement.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386
Quote* But the survey challenged much of the other conventional wisdom about Americans who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:
o Nearly half (47%) also say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement. Among the more than 8-in-10 (81%) who identify as Christian within the Tea Party movement, 57% also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.
o They make up just 11% of the adult population—half the size of the conservative Christian movement (22%).
o They are mostly social conservatives, not libertarians on social issues. Nearly two-thirds (63%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and less than 1-in-5 (18%) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
o They are largely Republican partisans. More than three-quarters say they identify with (48%) or lean towards (28%) the Republican Party. More than 8-in-10 (83%) say they are voting for or leaning towards Republican candidates in their districts, and nearly three-quarters (74%) of this group report usually supporting Republican candidates.
Also they are smaller then suspected. If they are only 11% and half of that is already a part of the 22% conservative Christian movement movement it's not really that important of a voting block.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/3500/the_tea_party_religion/
Quotet RD, we've been telling the story of tea party religion for a while, whether it was the tea party presence at Values Voters Summits, the influence of Mormonism on the movement, or the role of Christian Reconstructionism in tea party politics. Over the past year or more, sources have described to me coalition-building between tea party groups and religious right groups, and the shared essential belief that the country's founding documents declare God-given individual rights -- ones that protect, conservatives say, both people from government "tyranny" and fetuses from abortion....
...But the culture wars in the tea party era are framed bigger: what tea party-religious right fusion artists like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint frame as broadened "moral issues" rooted in "Judeo-Christian" values. Thus everything -- including the economy -- falls into that category. And to want the whole government and economy run according to Jim DeMint's "Judeo Christian" belief system -- as opposed to those beliefs just driving anti-gay or anti-abortion policies -- is a much grander dream for conservatives, and one that the religious right brings to the tea party, along with its bigger share of the voter pool.
I saw these numbers and literally breathed a sigh of relief.
Then I got pissed that the media gave such power to 10% of the country. Stupid fuckin media.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 08:42:10 PM
I saw these numbers and literally breathed a sigh of relief.
Then I got pissed that the media gave such power to 10% of the country. Stupid fuckin media.
I wasnt relieved.
I had my money riding on them splitting the Republican vote and ensuring 4 more years of Obamas Socialist Republic of Hitlerstan.
:sad:
Well, first of, we are still in midterm season. 2012 is still 2 years away.
They'
I think by the time the Presidential election is in full swing, the Tea Party will be pretty much done. It's a political fad and it won't stick around. Especially since some of their candidates are going to end up losing, and in the case of Chrstine O'Donnel, losing badly.
The GOP won't stand for that. THey'll be kicking their TP asses to the curb. Sarah Palin will reinvent herself again as a loyal establishment Republican, and life will go on.
But honestly, as :kingmeh: as Obama has been. I think the current crop of GOP hopefuls aren't going to cut it against him. The one with the best shot is probably Romney but I don't see him having the ability to garner enough votes to win.
Now, I wouldn't be too surprised if Palin does throw her hat in the ring. It would be spectaular if she did and picked O'Donnel as a running mate.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 07, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
Well, first of, we are still in midterm season. 2012 is still 2 years away.
They'
I think by the time the Presidential election is in full swing, the Tea Party will be pretty much done. It's a political fad and it won't stick around. Especially since some of their candidates are going to end up losing, and in the case of Chrstine O'Donnel, losing badly.
The GOP won't stand for that. THey'll be kicking their TP asses to the curb. Sarah Palin will reinvent herself again as a loyal establishment Republican, and life will go on.
But honestly, as :kingmeh: as Obama has been. I think the current crop of GOP hopefuls aren't going to cut it against him. The one with the best shot is probably Romney but I don't see him having the ability to garner enough votes to win.
Now, I wouldn't be too surprised if Palin does throw her hat in the ring. It would be spectaular if she did and picked O'Donnel as a running mate.
Dear God. I don't believe in you, but if you can make this happen I will fake it for you.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 08:42:10 PM
I saw these numbers and literally breathed a sigh of relief.
Then I got pissed that the media gave such power to 10% of the country. Stupid fuckin media.
agreed.
It's always the loudest 20% that gets 80% of the attention.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 07, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
Well, first of, we are still in midterm season. 2012 is still 2 years away.
They'
I think by the time the Presidential election is in full swing, the Tea Party will be pretty much done. It's a political fad and it won't stick around. Especially since some of their candidates are going to end up losing, and in the case of Chrstine O'Donnel, losing badly.
The GOP won't stand for that. THey'll be kicking their TP asses to the curb. Sarah Palin will reinvent herself again as a loyal establishment Republican, and life will go on.
But honestly, as :kingmeh: as Obama has been. I think the current crop of GOP hopefuls aren't going to cut it against him. The one with the best shot is probably Romney but I don't see him having the ability to garner enough votes to win.
Now, I wouldn't be too surprised if Palin does throw her hat in the ring. It would be spectaular if she did and picked O'Donnel as a running mate.
Romney's a has-been. He's not going anywhere, even in the primary.
UGH WE SHALL SEE..
it fills me with such glee to vote against him and huckabee.
I'll take 10 John McCains over one Romney/Huckabee platform.
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 07, 2010, 02:46:47 PM
UGH WE SHALL SEE..
it fills me with such glee to vote against him and huckabee.
I'll take 10 John McCains over one Romney/Huckabee platform.
You'll need 10, because they'll be dying like flies.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
I love this century. :)
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
A very good point.
"One Nation under God".
The camps will be filling up if this goes bad.
I have a plan. After careful consideration I have decided to start preaching to the Holy Speed Limit Sign in my yard. I will develop a reputation and thereby earn a place as a re-educator in the coming camps.
Yes, I intend to profit from your misery.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 08, 2010, 12:04:07 AM
I have a plan. After careful consideration I have decided to start preaching to the Holy Speed Limit Sign in my yard. I will develop a reputation and thereby earn a place as a re-educator in the coming camps.
Yes, I intend to profit from your misery.
You need to get someone to take videos of you cursing out the sign on a shitty cellphone camera as if they were spying on you from a car or adjacent trailer and then post them on youtube.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 08, 2010, 12:09:14 AM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 08, 2010, 12:04:07 AM
I have a plan. After careful consideration I have decided to start preaching to the Holy Speed Limit Sign in my yard. I will develop a reputation and thereby earn a place as a re-educator in the coming camps.
Yes, I intend to profit from your misery.
You need to get someone to take videos of you cursing out the sign on a shitty cellphone camera as if they were spying on you from a car or adjacent trailer and then post them on youtube.
Excellent idea. You sir, have a future in the coming Dark Ages.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
Hurray for voter apathy.
So if the Tea Party does nominate their own candidate for the presidency then were guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:31:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
Hurray for voter apathy.
So if the Tea Party does nominate their own candidate for the presidency then were guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.
:kingmeh:
Who would you prefer?
Palin/Beck, 2012: "THE MAYANS SAW IT COMING."
:mittens:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:10:37 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:31:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
Hurray for voter apathy.
So if the Tea Party does nominate their own candidate for the presidency then were guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.
:kingmeh:
Who would you prefer?
At this stage, the only difference would seem to be speed of decline. Hell, Obama is even deporting more immigrants and has been more strict on abortion funding than Bush, in addition to emulating his War on Terror/Executive privileges/secrecy/bank-loving hardon. The next crop of Teabaggers will of course be worse, then be followed by Democrats who emulate them while appearing all nice and spineless etc etc until policeman are given the legal power to whack people for looking at them funny and every reporter who doesn't toe the Beltway line is in Gitmo, or one of it's Afghan/Iraqi equivalents.
Quote from: Cain on October 08, 2010, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:10:37 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:31:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
Hurray for voter apathy.
So if the Tea Party does nominate their own candidate for the presidency then were guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.
:kingmeh:
Who would you prefer?
At this stage, the only difference would seem to be speed of decline. Hell, Obama is even deporting more immigrants and has been more strict on abortion funding than Bush, in addition to emulating his War on Terror/Executive privileges/secrecy/bank-loving hardon. The next crop of Teabaggers will of course be worse, then be followed by Democrats who emulate them while appearing all nice and spineless etc etc until policeman are given the legal power to whack people for looking at them funny and every reporter who doesn't toe the Beltway line is in Gitmo, or one of it's Afghan/Iraqi equivalents.
Sure.
I'm kind of hoping for a Palin/O'Donnell victory in 2012, just to make the whole thing at least amusing.
You know the really funny thing?
There is probably at least one guy in every major government in the world who is right now being forced to create scenarios based on the assumption that Palin or someone very much like her will become President in the next 4-12 years.
BEST. JOB. EVER. It's like writing Apocalypse Porn...only with access to classified documents at the same time.
:lol: that is a hell of an image
Quote from: Cain on October 08, 2010, 03:22:35 PM
You know the really funny thing?
There is probably at least one guy in every major government in the world who is right now being forced to create scenarios based on the assumption that Palin or someone very much like her will become President in the next 4-12 years.
BEST. JOB. EVER. It's like writing Apocalypse Porn...only with access to classified documents at the same time.
Cain, can I borrow that? It's awesome.
Sure, feel free.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
Permission to use requested.
Granted, certainly.
I fully intend to vote for Romney in the republican primary. And not as a joke.
Feel free to pile on now.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 14, 2010, 09:04:16 PM
I fully intend to vote for Romney in the republican primary. And not as a joke.
Feel free to pile on now.
I don't like that fucker. seems slimy to me.
also, there's that whole would probably green light going to war with Iran thing.
nevermind the part about being a member of a far right
religious group cult.
wont catch me voting for him.
Out of the Republican front runners, Romney is actually probably among the less insane*. He's just cynical and successful enough that he might not give a fuck about listening to the religious right beyond throwing them a bone or two near election time, and using all the right words to get their Godfrenzy on. He's still a crazy fuck by any reasonable standard, but, uh, this is Sparta politics, standards, reasonable or otherwise, do not apply.
*Compared with Palin, Newt Gingrinch, Jindal and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! that is.
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2010, 09:20:37 PM
Out of the Republican front runners, Romney is actually probably among the less insane*. He's just cynical and successful enough that he might not give a fuck about listening to the religious right beyond throwing them a bone or two near election time, and using all the right words to get their Godfrenzy on. He's still a crazy fuck by any reasonable standard, but, uh, this is Sparta politics, standards, reasonable or otherwise, do not apply.
*Compared with Palin, Newt Gingrinch, Jindal and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! that is.
I see what you mean but damn, they're ALL fucking WarTards and would probably surround themselves with fucking Keynesians.
The only one who would provide me with laughs is Palin but I'd never forgive myself.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 14, 2010, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2010, 09:20:37 PM
Out of the Republican front runners, Romney is actually probably among the less insane*. He's just cynical and successful enough that he might not give a fuck about listening to the religious right beyond throwing them a bone or two near election time, and using all the right words to get their Godfrenzy on. He's still a crazy fuck by any reasonable standard, but, uh, this is Sparta politics, standards, reasonable or otherwise, do not apply.
*Compared with Palin, Newt Gingrinch, Jindal and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! that is.
I see what you mean but damn, they're ALL fucking WarTards and would probably surround themselves with fucking Keynesians.
The only one who would provide me with laughs is Palin but I'd never forgive myself.
Keynesians? Isn't that what our current Stimulus policy is based on... ie the one that the GOP says its against?
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 14, 2010, 09:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 14, 2010, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2010, 09:20:37 PM
Out of the Republican front runners, Romney is actually probably among the less insane*. He's just cynical and successful enough that he might not give a fuck about listening to the religious right beyond throwing them a bone or two near election time, and using all the right words to get their Godfrenzy on. He's still a crazy fuck by any reasonable standard, but, uh, this is Sparta politics, standards, reasonable or otherwise, do not apply.
*Compared with Palin, Newt Gingrinch, Jindal and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! that is.
I see what you mean but damn, they're ALL fucking WarTards and would probably surround themselves with fucking Keynesians.
The only one who would provide me with laughs is Palin but I'd never forgive myself.
Keynesians? Isn't that what our current Stimulus policy is based on... ie the one that the GOP says its against?
It's an election year. I believe the rule is play to your base.
I don't believe for a second they'd be saying they were against it if it wouldn't mean paying for in at the polls.
the other answer is yes, Keynes advocated deficit and government spending in recessions.
no evidence this is working at all, but lots of evidence it's being abused.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 14, 2010, 09:04:16 PM
I fully intend to vote for Romney in the republican primary. And not as a joke.
Feel free to pile on now.
He strikes me as the least bad option personally.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 14, 2010, 09:58:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 14, 2010, 09:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 14, 2010, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2010, 09:20:37 PM
Out of the Republican front runners, Romney is actually probably among the less insane*. He's just cynical and successful enough that he might not give a fuck about listening to the religious right beyond throwing them a bone or two near election time, and using all the right words to get their Godfrenzy on. He's still a crazy fuck by any reasonable standard, but, uh, this is Sparta politics, standards, reasonable or otherwise, do not apply.
*Compared with Palin, Newt Gingrinch, Jindal and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! that is.
I see what you mean but damn, they're ALL fucking WarTards and would probably surround themselves with fucking Keynesians.
The only one who would provide me with laughs is Palin but I'd never forgive myself.
Keynesians? Isn't that what our current Stimulus policy is based on... ie the one that the GOP says its against?
It's an election year. I believe the rule is play to your base.
I don't believe for a second they'd be saying they were against it if it wouldn't mean paying for in at the polls.
the other answer is yes, Keynes advocated deficit and government spending in recessions.
no evidence this is working at all, but lots of evidence it's being abused.
Keynes
also said that during times of growth, taxes should be raised and spending cut, which is how you pay for deficit spending during the recession (and limit the recessions in the first place.) But nobody ever wants to raise taxes and cut spending during boom years, so Keynes is only ever popular during recessions.
The current economic model favored by conservative partisans is "supply-side economics," which as far as I can tell amounts to "if the suppliers (i.e., industry, big business, etc) have enough money and de-regulation, good things will trickle down the the consumers." IIRC this is what most of the Bush tax cuts / early stimulus was based on. I could be wrong, though.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 15, 2010, 01:06:36 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 14, 2010, 09:58:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 14, 2010, 09:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 14, 2010, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2010, 09:20:37 PM
Out of the Republican front runners, Romney is actually probably among the less insane*. He's just cynical and successful enough that he might not give a fuck about listening to the religious right beyond throwing them a bone or two near election time, and using all the right words to get their Godfrenzy on. He's still a crazy fuck by any reasonable standard, but, uh, this is Sparta politics, standards, reasonable or otherwise, do not apply.
*Compared with Palin, Newt Gingrinch, Jindal and HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! that is.
I see what you mean but damn, they're ALL fucking WarTards and would probably surround themselves with fucking Keynesian's.
The only one who would provide me with laughs is Palin but I'd never forgive myself.
Keynesian's? Isn't that what our current Stimulus policy is based on... ie the one that the GOP says its against?
It's an election year. I believe the rule is play to your base.
I don't believe for a second they'd be saying they were against it if it wouldn't mean paying for in at the polls.
the other answer is yes, Keynes advocated deficit and government spending in recessions.
no evidence this is working at all, but lots of evidence it's being abused.
Keynes also said that during times of growth, taxes should be raised and spending cut, which is how you pay for deficit spending during the recession (and limit the recessions in the first place.) But nobody ever wants to raise taxes and cut spending during boom years, so Keynes is only ever popular during recessions.
The current economic model favored by conservative partisans is "supply-side economics," which as far as I can tell amounts to "if the suppliers (i.e., industry, big business, etc) have enough money and deregulation, good things will trickle down the the consumers." IIRC this is what most of the Bush tax cuts / early stimulus was based on. I could be wrong, though.
I believe the good things are supposed to trickle down to the workers. we're all consumers.
people with more money will (hopefully) save some, and invest the rest in companies with growth potential. Some will win, some will loose, but the idea is to keep ideas flowing and innovation fresh in order to compete with other companies. (this is simplified I know)
Keynes ideas were never meant to be combined with use of liquidity by early beneficiaries of a loose monetary policy.
Things have been on a downward spiral ever since Bretton Woods fell apart.
Keynes probably didn't anticipate this level of debt, either:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png)
look for the US credit rating to possibly be downgraded shortly.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 14, 2010, 09:04:16 PM
I fully intend to vote for Romney in the republican primary. And not as a joke.
Feel free to pile on now.
Why?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 02:52:42 AM
I believe the good things are supposed to trickle down to the workers. we're all consumers.
AND HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU, MR LAFFER?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 02:52:42 AM
I believe the good things are supposed to trickle down to the workers. we're all consumers.
AND HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU, MR LAFFER?
i dont know this "laffer" of who you speak
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 03:00:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 02:52:42 AM
I believe the good things are supposed to trickle down to the workers. we're all consumers.
AND HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU, MR LAFFER?
i dont know this "laffer" of who you speak
Supply side snake oil salesman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Proponent of the idea that if you tax less, you get more revenue, and that we should all be satisfied with the leavings of the ultra-rich, like sparrows picking undigested oats out of horse turds.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 02:52:42 AM
I believe the good things are supposed to trickle down to the workers. we're all consumers.
AND HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU, MR LAFFER?
oh, THAT laffer. I dont agree with that assesment. there a quite a bit of literature that helps disprove that curve.
didn't say I was a proponent, was just clarifying BTW
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 03:02:22 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 03:00:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 15, 2010, 02:52:42 AM
I believe the good things are supposed to trickle down to the workers. we're all consumers.
AND HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU, MR LAFFER?
i dont know this "laffer" of who you speak
Supply side snake oil salesman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Proponent of the idea that if you tax less, you get more revenue, and that we should all be satisfied with the leavings of the ultra-rich, like sparrows picking undigested oats out of horse turds.
while the ultra rich do tend to own large shares of mega corps or out right own them, they're still looking for profits for their share holders.
that means keeping a company lean, which any company has to do to turn profit and survive, and employ more people.
what are we discussing here? tax breaks? it's perfectly realistic for a small business owner that employs less that 50 people to have collect a personal income of more than 250,000/yr if he's also a smart investor, or employs one to invest his money.
I'm not getting his "leavings"
I'm gainfully employed by one and well taken care of for the work I do.
So we should punish everyone in that tax bracket for the sins of a few?
No, they are there to make more profit than the year before for the shareholders. If you make a billions dollars, every year without fail, the stock will never go up. You have to actually increase the profits.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 15, 2010, 03:13:24 AM
No, they are there to make more profit than the year before for the shareholders. If you make a billions dollars, every year without fail, the stock will never go up. You have to actually increase the profits.
that can be accomplished in several ways.
innovation that leads to a more desired product that consumers are willing to pay more money for than last year, compensating for the cost in R&D investment that the company made. (whether that product turns out to be shit or not is not part of this discussion)
artificial inflation of the currency, giving the impression of income growth relative to prices, allowing more investment and creating paper investment bubbles. (the late 90's silicon valley bubble is a good example)
driving your own market, forcing (or seriously encouraging) consumers to buy the latest and greatest of your products because you're just going to stop supporting the OLD stuff your company made. A case could be made against computer software and hardware manufactures for this very thing.
Quote from: The Dancing PickleKeynes probably didn't anticipate this level of debt, either: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png)
The important figure there is the 'debt as a fraction of GDP' one, not the raw numbers. Debt as a fraction of GDP spikes highest during, before, and just after WW2. Which was exactly when Keynes was writing, and when he was arguing most venomously with the American government about why they should bail out the UK and delay claiming on UK war debt because the alternative was economic catastrophe. So, he was certainly aware of these levels of debt.
I'm not an economist, but Keynes' ideas have always made a lot of sense to me in the classes I have encountered him, and I think he did, in fact, anticipate exactly this level of debt. And worse. He lived through it.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on October 15, 2010, 10:29:12 AM
Quote from: The Dancing PickleKeynes probably didn't anticipate this level of debt, either: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png)
The important figure there is the 'debt as a fraction of GDP' one, not the raw numbers. Debt as a fraction of GDP spikes highest during, before, and just after WW2. Which was exactly when Keynes was writing, and when he was arguing most venomously with the American government about why they should bail out the UK and delay claiming on UK war debt because the alternative was economic catastrophe. So, he was certainly aware of these levels of debt.
I'm not an economist, but Keynes' ideas have always made a lot of sense to me in the classes I have encountered him, and I think he did, in fact, anticipate exactly this level of debt. And worse. He lived through it.
I believe you mean WWI. He was always concerned about the treaty of Versailles and the level of reparations that Germany had to pay.
I also agree with him on how to fund wars, through taxation rather than inflation.
but his macro economics and central banking ensure that wages can never keep up with the inflation inherent in the system. So much more so now that there are no ties what so ever to any sort of commodity.
No, I meant that the graph you provided shows debt as a fraction of GDP spikes highest at the end of world war 2. John Maynard Keynes was very involved with world economics at that time. He gave some fantastic talks during this period. I do not believe that he radically revised his earlier theories, instead arguing that they could deal with debt of this level.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 02:55:02 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 14, 2010, 09:04:16 PM
I fully intend to vote for Romney in the republican primary. And not as a joke.
Feel free to pile on now.
Why?
Because I'd rather kick myself in the balls than vote for Obama again, and Romney is the least crazy, most fiscally responsible of the likely GOP contenders for the nomination. I may reconsider if Jeb Bush throws his hat in the ring. If you can overlook his last name, he's a fairly moderate non-Jebus Freak, alot more like his dad than his brother. Still think I'd go for Romney over him, but I'd be willing to be swayed.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 15, 2010, 05:08:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 02:55:02 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 14, 2010, 09:04:16 PM
I fully intend to vote for Romney in the republican primary. And not as a joke.
Feel free to pile on now.
Why?
Because I'd rather kick myself in the balls than vote for Obama again, and Romney is the least crazy, most fiscally responsible of the likely GOP contenders for the nomination. I may reconsider if Jeb Bush throws his hat in the ring. If you can overlook his last name, he's a fairly moderate non-Jebus Freak, alot more like his dad than his brother. Still think I'd go for Romney over him, but I'd be willing to be swayed.
I don't see any reason to believe that Romney is fiscally responsible. He's a party hack, and will go along with whatever spending the party wants.
Jeb Bush would be interesting, and I think that he'd have a decent shot, if he's dumb enough to want the job. Plus it would get the hippies all wrapped around the axle, just because of his name, which would by itself be worth it.
Me, I'm voting for Harold Stassen.
I'm organising a write-in vote for Tony Blair.
Quote from: Cain on October 15, 2010, 05:13:32 PM
I'm organising a write-in vote for Tony Blair.
Unfortunately, he's ineligible. I'd totally vote for him.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 15, 2010, 05:13:32 PM
I'm organising a write-in vote for Tony Blair.
Unfortunately, he's ineligible.
Only by accident of birthplace, and if you believe the wingnuts, even that is no bar to the highest office in the land. And he fits all the other qualifications
perfectly.
I want to see him and Schwarzengger fight for it. Physically.
Quote from: Cain on October 15, 2010, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 15, 2010, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 15, 2010, 05:13:32 PM
I'm organising a write-in vote for Tony Blair.
Unfortunately, he's ineligible.
Only by accident of birthplace, and if you believe the wingnuts, even that is no bar to the highest office in the land. And he fits all the other qualifications perfectly.
I want to see him and Schwarzengger fight for it. Physically.
With 30 pound tunas as clubs.
My money is on Blair.
Yeah, he has that crazy look in his eyes, the one that says "yes, I might be a skinny bastard who weighs 90 pounds after being caught in a rainstorm....but I'm going to bite your fucking ear off."
But Tony Blair is genetically programmed to be subservient to the American President.
If Tony Blair WAS the American President, it would be like the whole world divided by zero.
:lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 15, 2010, 05:52:46 PM
But Tony Blair is genetically programmed to be subservient to the American President.
If Tony Blair WAS the American President, it would be like the whole world divided by zero.
:lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 15, 2010, 05:52:46 PM
But Tony Blair is genetically programmed to be subservient to the American President.
If Tony Blair WAS the American President, it would be like the whole world divided by zero.
:lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 15, 2010, 05:52:46 PM
But Tony Blair is genetically programmed to be subservient to the American President.
If Tony Blair WAS the American President, it would be like the whole world divided by zero.
And I wasted beer because of that. :lulz:
he has my support
:horrormirth:
I HAVE DECIDED TO BECOME A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.
HERE IS MY PLATFORM:
(1) 'Press 1 for English' is immediately banned. English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can.
(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports.
We will use the 'Wal-Mart's policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.'
(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.
(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens.
(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it.
(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade.
(7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life.
(8) Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences. If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc.
(9) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil.
(10) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause.
(11) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress.
(12) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc.
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November.
God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Cosby!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 16, 2010, 08:23:36 PM
:horrormirth:
I HAVE DECIDED TO BECOME A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE.
HERE IS MY PLATFORM:
(1) 'Press 1 for English' is immediately banned. English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can.
(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports.
We will use the 'Wal-Mart's policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.'
(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.
(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens.
(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it.
(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade.
(7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life.
(8) Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences. If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc.
(9) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil.
(10) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause.
(11) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress.
(12) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc.
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November.
God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Cosby!!!!!!!!
:mittens:
1, 5, 6 and 9 are my favorites
Circulating online, a 'presidential platform' attributed to purported write-in candidate Bill Cosby. (Yes, that Bill Cosby.)
Description: Email joke / Hoax
Circulating since: July 2008
Status: Falsely attributed to Bill Cosby
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/billcosby/a/cosby_write_in.htm
Please, please tell me that's satire. You lost me at #1. The US doesn't have an official language, so first you'd have to pass that bill. It's been tried, but it turns out that most Americans aren't actually clinging that tightly to xenophobic ignorance, thank all that's holy. I could dismantle every other point on the list, but it would take more time than I have right now.
The rest is a Tea Partier's wet dream.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 16, 2010, 08:44:24 PM
Circulating online, a 'presidential platform' attributed to purported write-in candidate Bill Cosby. (Yes, that Bill Cosby.)
Description: Email joke / Hoax
Circulating since: July 2008
Status: Falsely attributed to Bill Cosby
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/billcosby/a/cosby_write_in.htm
OH THANK GOD. For a minute I was completely frightened.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
It's a goddamn bayesian reasoning problem. :horrormirth:
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 16, 2010, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 16, 2010, 08:44:24 PM
Circulating online, a 'presidential platform' attributed to purported write-in candidate Bill Cosby. (Yes, that Bill Cosby.)
Description: Email joke / Hoax
Circulating since: July 2008
Status: Falsely attributed to Bill Cosby
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/billcosby/a/cosby_write_in.htm
OH THANK GOD. For a minute I was completely frightened.
Yeah, it took me about 3 seconds of reading that to start frothing rabidly. But I already hate Bill Cosby so I guess it's OK.
:lulz:
HUH,
i like that whole thing.
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 17, 2010, 01:02:44 AM
HUH,
i like that whole thing.
OK
#'s 1, 6 & 9 aren't important to me. the rest i like. #8 with a little fine tuning and #4 i would change to 'active', because i'd cold turkey the world and actually bring all troops back to the u.s. from everywhere. except antarctica.
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 17, 2010, 01:02:44 AM
HUH,
i like that whole thing.
Yes, but you're a philosophy major, which means you don't really understand politics.
No imports or exports for a year? That's a brilliant idea. Because, you see, the US Strategic Oil Reserve stands at 724 million barrels. Which sounds a lot, but is only 34 days worth of oil at current consumption levels.
PURE. ECONOMIC. GENIUS.
Quote from: Cain on October 17, 2010, 01:56:20 AM
No imports or exports for a year? That's a brilliant idea. Because, you see, the US Strategic Oil Reserve stands at 724 million barrels. Which sounds a lot, but is only 34 days worth of oil at current consumption levels.
PURE. ECONOMIC. GENIUS.
YOU
just have to tighten your belt. and walk everywhere.
and learn to hate Mexicans, apparently.
Quote from: Cain on October 17, 2010, 01:56:20 AM
No imports or exports for a year? That's a brilliant idea. Because, you see, the US Strategic Oil Reserve stands at 724 million barrels. Which sounds a lot, but is only 34 days worth of oil at current consumption levels.
PURE. ECONOMIC. GENIUS.
Well just hire Mexicans to pull us around in Rickshaws.
nobody has to learn to hate canadians. It just comes naturally.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 17, 2010, 04:05:02 AM
nobody has to learn to hate canadians. It just comes naturally.
EXACTLY
but we're talking about soldiers, so hate doesn't even weigh in.
COME TO THINK OF IT
if we pull all of our troops back in from everywhere, we could most likely guard north & south borders, as well as all ports, with an exclusively gay army
to what purpose? We'd have no more strategic interests to protect at that point, and we'd quickly turn into Russia circa 1995. Nobody would want to come here.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 17, 2010, 04:49:30 AM
to what purpose? We'd have no more strategic interests to protect at that point, and we'd quickly turn into Russia circa 1995. Nobody would want to come here.
WAIT
all gay army(!)
IT CAN'T
last forever. what the hell do you want?!
& What happened in russia '95?
&
is the point of civilization to get bumm rushed by the rest of the world until collapse?
oh yeah, it is. Well, welcome to america, nero's extended vacation spot.
We've been getting "bum-rushed" for our entire existence as a nation, and even several hundred years before that. All it's done is make us the dominant economic and cultural power on Earth. This nation is absolutely ONLY what it is because of immigration. Shut the doors on that and we'll stagnate within a decade. There is absolutely NO logical factual argument that can be made against immigration in this country. It's an appeal to emotion that holds no water when held up to scrutiny.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 17, 2010, 07:15:13 AM
We've been getting "bum-rushed" for our entire existence as a nation, and even several hundred years before that. All it's done is make us the dominant economic and cultural power on Earth. This nation is absolutely ONLY what it is because of immigration. Shut the doors on that and we'll stagnate within a decade. There is absolutely NO logical factual argument that can be made against immigration in this country. It's an appeal to emotion that holds no water when held up to scrutiny.
AH,
i see (voter of obama) that you've been confusing immigration with illegal entry. hook line & sinker? My Mexican -American friends certainly don't view "illegals" on an equal basis(man, just to BEGIN with, not to mention women's rights, their gay sons & brothers, blacks, asians, or certainly us "burrito" whites)
GIVE ME
ten years of stagnation. i dare ya (http://carolan.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/savalas.jpg)
SO
future 'republican', what's this scrutiny? i see no sign of such a thing.
I fail to see how Mexico's stance on anything has any relevance to America. Unless you're suggesting that they're a nation we should model ourselves after? :lulz:
And the reality is that it doesn't matter HOW the immigrants get here, as long as they get here. Those illegals aren't taking your jobs, unless you're one of the fabled honky fruit-pickers, or couldn't graduate from junior high and are thus stuck being a dishwasher well into middle age.
I also fail to see the relevance of my having voted for Obama (against McCain, really) or the likelihood of me voting for a Republican this time around (strictly economically self-serving and completely divorced from whatever "ideals" I still have left).
I disagree with all of Charlie's platform.
ETA: explanation on request.
No explanation needed, I think. It's mind-numbingly retarded on every level.
I of course support at least the oil import thing. But my interests don't align with a US hegemony in the first place, so naturally I support any and all attempts by American politicians to shoot themselves in the foot. Hey, multipolar systems just don't happen on their own.
Anyway, more Tea Party news
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-party
QuoteThe English Defence League, a far-right grouping aimed at combating the "Islamification" of British cities, has developed strong links with the American Tea Party movement.
An Observer investigation has established that the EDL has made contact with anti-jihad groups within the Tea Party organisation and has invited a senior US rabbi and Tea Party activist to London this month. Rabbi Nachum Shifren, a regular speaker at Tea Party conventions, will speak about Sharia law and also discuss funding issues.
The league has also developed links with Pamela Geller, who was influential in the protests against plans to build an Islamic cultural centre near Ground Zero. Geller, darling of the Tea Party's growing anti-Islamic wing, is advocating an alliance with the EDL. The executive director of the Stop Islamisation of America organisation, she recently met EDL leaders in New York and has defended the group's actions, despite a recent violent march in Bradford.
Geller, who denies being anti-Muslim, said in one of her blogs: "I share the EDL's goals... We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the west."
Devin Burghart, vice-president of the Kansas-based Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, said: "Geller is acting as the bridge between the EDL and the Tea Party. She plays an important role in bringing Islamophobia into the Tea Party. Her stature has increased substantially inside the Tea Party ranks after the Ground Zero mosque controversy. She has gained a lot of credibility with that stuff."
Details of the EDL's broadening aspirations came as about 1,000 supporters yesterday gathered to demonstrate in Leicester, which has a significant Muslim population. Home secretary Theresa May banned marches in the city last week but the EDL said its protest would proceed, raising fears of violence. Parts of Leicester were cordoned off to separate a counter-protest from Unite Against Fascism. Officers from 13 forces were on hand to maintain order.
The Tea Party is expected to be an influential force in America's mid-term elections. Last month their candidate Christine O'Donnell romped to the Republican nomination in Delaware, following a stream of populist rightwing candidates who carry the movement's endorsement. Burghart says anti-Islamic tendencies have become far more marked in the grassroots organisation: "As we move farther and farther away from the Tea Party origins, that were ostensibly around debt and bail-outs, social issues like Islamophobia are replacing that anger, that vigour. The idea that there is a war between Islam and the west is becoming commonplace."
Another Tea Party-associated grouping, the International Civil Liberties Alliance, which campaigns against Sharia law, confirmed that EDL leaders have made "contacts with members of important organisations within the American counter-jihad movement". A statement said: "It seems now that America and Europe are acting as one, and united we can never fail."
With the Tea Party said to benefit from millions of dollars of funding from conservative foundations, experts warn an alliance between the EDL and extremist elements within the US movement could allow the English group to invest in wider recruitment and activism.
Shifren, a Californian senate candidate, said Britain's Jewish community should rally behind the EDL: "The Jewish community is paralysed with fear, exactly what most radical Muslim agitators want. The people of England are in the forefront of this war – and it is a war. One of the purposes of this visit is to put the kibosh on the notion in the Jewish community that they cannot co-operate with the EDL, which is rubbish."
The EDL's website relaunched briefly last week with new US links. Currently shut down for "maintenance", the site featured prominent links to a site called Atlas Shrugs, which is run by Geller, and another US-based site, Jihad Watch, which compiles negative news coverage of Islamic militancy.
In addition, two members of the EDL leadership, a British businessman called Alan Lake who is believed to fund the group and a man known by the alias Kinana, are regular contributors to web forum 4Freedoms. The forum claims to be "organising US activities" and has links to the anti-jihad group, American Congress for Truth, which in turn has supporters within the Tea Party.
Lake is also believed to have been in touch with a number of anti-Islamic Christian evangelical groups in the US. One posting by Lake on 4Freedoms warns that the UK of the future will start to fragment into Islamic enclaves. Lake, believed to be a principal bankroller of the EDL, which claims to be a peaceful, non-racist organisation, is understood to be keen on the possibility of setting up the UK equivalent of the Tea Party. At an event organised by the Taxpayers' Allliance last month, US Tea Party organisers outlined how the movement emerged last year, partly in protest at the US bank bail-out.
Those present included Freedom Works and the Cato Institute, one of the Tea Party's main backers. However, Simon Richards, director of the Gloucestershire-based Freedom Association, which is looking at developing a pseudo-Tea Party movement in the UK, said he was concerned the project could be hijacked by elements such as the EDL. Nick Lowles of anti-fascist organisation Searchlight said: "The EDL is an integral part of an international campaign against Islam. While some are fighting in a cultural and political arena, the EDL are taking it to the streets. The images of the EDL allegedly taking on Muslim fundamentalists on the streets of Britain is also delighting right wing religious organisations in US."
Quote from: Kai on October 16, 2010, 09:01:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 07, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
The only problem I see is whether or not those are percentages of population, or percentages of people who actually vote; and it appears that Tea Party members are more likely to vote.
The average percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot during midterm elections is about 37% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Now, the math on this makes my head hurt, so I'm going to make a rough example:
100 eligible voters, with 10 tea partiers.
Only 30 people vote, but that contains all 10 teabaggers, leaving 20 non-bags.
As typical, the non-baggers are roughly equal, so 10 vote D, 10 vote R.
Whichever way the baggers vote, wins the election.
It's a goddamn bayesian reasoning problem. :horrormirth:
I'm just reading the Sequences now. I had no idea that's what it was when I wrote it.