[quote=""bilby""]Well no doubt we could debate Walter's passive-aggressive take on how Ayn Rand's dumb ideas imply that voting is futile all day, but this is not the place to do it. If you want to debate the pros and cons of taxpayer funded programs or of taxation funded governments in general, start a new thread for it.
This thread is for discussing the 2012 Election Result.[/quote]
I apologize. I get carried away sometimes.
I would like to share a description of the American political system I used this summer.
While at my in-laws house, I heard the Republican president of the St. Louis Baseball Cardinals, of course working for Republican owners, say they were looking at sites in Illinois for a new stadium. Yeah, like moving the team to Illinois was really going to happen. How these guys get up every morning and look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me. Sounded like W all over again.
But, here is the important thing I noted. Not a single elected Democrat stood up in defense of the taxpayers. Why would that be? Why would they ignore this lovely thing handed to them on a silver platter by Republicans? Let me take a wild guess: International Brotherhoods of Demolition Workers, Electrical Workers, Iron Workers, Brick Layers, Concrete Workers, Carpenters, Asphalt Pavers, Plumbers and Chair Installers. And you can bet that every single owner of those contracting companies, Republican and Democrat, were more than thrilled to have a perfectly fine stadium torn down and a new one built in its place.
So, the Republicans and Democrats both get what they want, hold hands and kiss, then take a nice stroll through the park. Later, after the stadium ground breaking, they put on a play at a large theater where they attack each other and hurl insults. The packed audience cheers and hisses, claps and boos and just has a wonderful time.
Here is the important point. The audience actually believes what it is seeing on stage is real.
And can you guess who makes up the audience?
Thatâs right. Voters.
I stay at home to watch a Perry Mason DVD, having absolutely no interest in going to see the play. And I have no interest in reading the reviews the next morning.
My older brother and I know that the play is not real. By the way, he has voted two fewer times than I have, and for newer readers, that means zero.
If only he and I cared about America.
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived FRDB and IIDB forum from prior to about March 2014. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
2012 US Election Results
[quote=""The Paul""]Yes, yes, taxes are robbery when they're used to the direct benefit of disadvantaged individuals, but not when they're used for military adventure or corporate subsidies.
It isn't any more coherent than the first forty-seven millions times we've heard it, and it wouldn't erase the racism, religious intolerance, or gender bias of the Republican party if it was.[/quote]
Theoretically, a libertarian (Walter) would not agree to taxes for military adventure or corporate subsidies either, but otherwise - excellent post
It isn't any more coherent than the first forty-seven millions times we've heard it, and it wouldn't erase the racism, religious intolerance, or gender bias of the Republican party if it was.[/quote]
Theoretically, a libertarian (Walter) would not agree to taxes for military adventure or corporate subsidies either, but otherwise - excellent post
[quote=""Jason Harvestdancer""]
I can't speak for the rest, but I don't claim to be an independent. I claim to be a hard core partisan top-wing Libertarian. It's just that since top wing is neither right-wing nor left-wing people have a hard time with the concept.[/quote]
That would be because, in this regard, you are more honest about it than some people.
Libertarians are not "apolitical" nor "non-partisan".
I can't speak for the rest, but I don't claim to be an independent. I claim to be a hard core partisan top-wing Libertarian. It's just that since top wing is neither right-wing nor left-wing people have a hard time with the concept.[/quote]
That would be because, in this regard, you are more honest about it than some people.
Libertarians are not "apolitical" nor "non-partisan".
A couple of months ago, I found the votes by state in ISideWith and found their correlation. I used Principal Components Analysis, and the biggest axis of variation was essentially the traditional left-right axis. It had about 90% of the variation.
No code has to be inserted here.
No code has to be inserted here.
So while Greens and Democrats are close, Libertarians are somewhat on the Republican side.
No code has to be inserted here.
No code has to be inserted here.
So while Greens and Democrats are close, Libertarians are somewhat on the Republican side.
[quote=""lpetrich""]A couple of months ago, I found the votes by state in ISideWith and found their correlation. I used Principal Components Analysis, and the biggest axis of variation was essentially the traditional left-right axis. It had about 90% of the variation.
No code has to be inserted here.
No code has to be inserted here.
So while Greens and Democrats are close, Libertarians are somewhat on the Republican side.[/quote]
Do you really think there is enough data there to do PCA?
No code has to be inserted here.
No code has to be inserted here.
So while Greens and Democrats are close, Libertarians are somewhat on the Republican side.[/quote]
Do you really think there is enough data there to do PCA?
[quote=""AdamWho""]
Would it matter whether they did or not? Libertarians would probably insist that the results are invalid no matter how much or how little data they had. Any political candidate running for president should have given more than enough policy positions to make this kind of determination, not that it matters.
Do you really think there is enough data there to do PCA?[/QUOTE]lpetrich;7327852 wrote:A couple of months ago, I found the votes by state in ISideWith and found their correlation. I used Principal Components Analysis, and the biggest axis of variation was essentially the traditional left-right axis. It had about 90% of the variation.
No code has to be inserted here.
No code has to be inserted here.
So while Greens and Democrats are close, Libertarians are somewhat on the Republican side.
Would it matter whether they did or not? Libertarians would probably insist that the results are invalid no matter how much or how little data they had. Any political candidate running for president should have given more than enough policy positions to make this kind of determination, not that it matters.
[quote=""AdamWho""]Do you really think there is enough data there to do PCA?[/quote]
Yes - 50 states' worth of data. The ISideWith site did not reveal the scoring used, so I had to infer it from the participants' preferences. I didn't have a list of each individual one, so I used the averaging over each state. There was enough variation between the states for me to get good numbers of the correlations between candidates' and parties' scores.
Yes - 50 states' worth of data. The ISideWith site did not reveal the scoring used, so I had to infer it from the participants' preferences. I didn't have a list of each individual one, so I used the averaging over each state. There was enough variation between the states for me to get good numbers of the correlations between candidates' and parties' scores.
-
Nice Squirrel
- Posts: 19397
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 4:00 pm
- Basic Beliefs:
- Out Campaign: Real Name: