Election Predictions

[RangerM]

Are those worthless?

 

I don't tell my nephew to only follow his dreams that make him money. I tell him that he should follow his heart and do whatever he wants.

 

You can tell him there are no worthless degrees, but some degrees are worth less. (especially when putting oneself into debt to acquire them)

[xr7g428]

Okay with a 50% unemployment rate among recent college grads... there is no such thing as a worthless degree. Right. Lets try photography, political science, English history, and just about anything that ends in studies. There are virtually no employers looking for these degrees.

[retro-man]

While you do have some good points I think you were a little smug on a couple points.

1) The lack of education is the only reason Romney is equal to obama? REALLY? Wow, quite the arrogance there don't you think? So your conclusion is that the education level of the US is on par with Pakistan obviously because both like Romney? No other reasoning....mkay.

2) I agree there is a lot of people/countries that don't want to see the US fail and yes have a nostalgia towards what they once were(that's me) but the rest of the world is looking for a "progressive social and economic reformer will do more good for their countries"??? Uh that's a bit of a stretch..how about they want a left leaning leader who continue the gravy train as opposed to an unknown who looks to be threatening to stop the cash hemoraging? Perhaps they want a opologetic US that won't try to influence them in any way? Oh, and as far as the outpouring of sympathy after 911? (Keep in mind I was working that day and helped house around 1100 people when the aircraft started landing in Halifax, basically all of them American)My FIRST reaction when I saw the planes hit the towers and the guesses it was an act of war? I said "wow, somebody is in deep shit now, the States are going to turn some shithole into a glass parking lot". That was the sentiment by EVERYBODY here at that time. The US is the sleeping giant, if you do wake them up and piss them off? Holy crap, it won't be pretty. Honestly, if obama was in power when that happened I think the sentiment would of been "holy crap, this response should be interesting..let me guess, he'll opologise for offending whoever "had" to attack the US".

Sorry, but being a big powerhouse, the US is the one everybody looks to as a "cop" or "parent". Shit happens in Haiti and there is a US response, same as any other part of the world. But the response is with an aircraft carrier which can bed 5000 people...the rest of the world sees the carrier and thinks "man you don't want to screw with them".

 

Being the 6'7" kid who dwarfs everyone in the playground but is scared to offend anyone is picked on WAY WORSE than the regular or small kids who are scared to offend someone.

 

As far as "the world rejoicing" after obama was elected? We had the same thing, I was in England (and told by a brit) that Canada now had a female Prime Minister. Everybody was gushing how progressive we were and what a great step forward for Canada, blah, blah, blah. (Btw, the first Canadian female was a member of the Conservative party.) Was it because obama was viewed as some great peace loving messiah? Ahhh, NO!

I'll agree everybody was tired of war (and still is) but what was obama besides a different person than who was the president? I mean really, the world didn't know him or anything about him. He was the first black President was the primary ingredient. It appeared the States had finally broken the "final barrier".

He was an excellent speaker and wanted to stop the war(s). He was a rockstar, heck he even got a nobel peace prize for what he said! Seriously, nobody else in the world has ever received a nobel peace prize for what they SAID they would do. How clouded were the eyes of the world? Think about it! He was the perseived messiah, he talked the talk. In hindsight, he couldn't walk the walk.

You may find this surprising, but in the wake of 911 I actually wished we would have created a couple of glass parking lots. Once we found out where the perps were from, nuke their mother's villages and their holy sites. It would have cost us some in world image, and we would've experienced a horrified and intimidated silence from enemies and allies alike instead of the outpouring of support and solidarity that we did experience (until it was squandered) - but we would have had every secret service in the world out doing our bidding to prevent that from happening again. Hell, Saudi Arabia (what was left of it) would've gone to Afghanistan for us and taken out Bin Laden. Pakistan would've had every Madrasa shut down and a proper public school system in place by the end of the year. I think you underestimate what a President Obama or a President Gore would've done in the same situation. Don't forget which party prosecuted WWII, and stood down Kruschev in the Cuban missile crisis. One thing a President Obama or a President Gore would not have done, I believe, is squander American lives, fortune, and political capital by invading the wrong country on a pack of lies. We may be playing cat and mouse with Saddam to this day, but we'd be doing it with about $825 billion more in the bank, and about 4,000 young Americans still alive.

 

As for world reaction to the election of Obama, it is a complex issue - you allude to the point that many people were thrilled to see Americans break the race barrier. This is no doubt true, both at home and abroad. I will freely admit that it was true for me. (I hasten to point out that I would not have been thrilled if it had been Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton that did it, and that I did favor Obama over McCain in policy matters.) However, I think there are multiple dimensions to the world reaction. A large part of it was relief: relief to discover that we had not after all devolved into a pack of swaggering mendacious Neo-Con troglodytes - that there was still some trace of decency and a modicum of intelligence left. It was not just about race: it was about what kind of person is that 6'-7" kid on the playground after all? Ok, he was just a little crazy there for awhile, but he seems to be alright now. Phew. Nor do I think they necessarily want an apologetic and weak USA, or to remain "on the dole" How much foreign aid does the US provide to Canada? To Australia? To France? The Marshall plan and the MacArthur plan were repaid by the 1970s. Iraq is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid (we should've stayed out of there), followed by Israel.

 

I realize that I went a little over the top with the education thing. There are conservatives who are thoughtful, intelligent, principled and decent. I see that quality in many people on here. You may also find this hard to believe, but when somebody expresses to me eloquently why they believe in individual initiative and rights compared to government management - even if there might be a downside - "I would rather die poor and at liberty than rich and in chains" when convictions are expressed this way I am actually able to see the point sometimes (this is the great weakness of liberals - the willingness to see the other side). But for myself, there are other bargains I would make.

Edited October 31, 2012 by retro-man

[retro-man]

If educational achievement level can be correlated with political view--and is indicative of intelligence as alluded to by your statistics related to Creationism and the Three Stooges--then surely the choice of college major would also demonstrate a correlation with political view.

 

If you came up with a list, what do you believe would be the degrees with the highest percentage of conservatives, and conversely which would have the highest percentage of liberals? Which majors would represent the "better deal" when it comes to amassing large amounts of debt to achieve?

Conservatives would be business majors (except for Warren Buffet, Paul Krugman, and David Korten) and liberals would be liberal arts majors (except for Jon McNaughton or Dennis Miller). That's why Romney is so far outraising Obama in the 2012 Presidential auction. As you well know, I am not much given to economic rationalism. I believe that wealth is a very poor and limited measure for human and societal wellbeing. It is also a very poor and limited indicator of intelligence. (By the way, I also believe that IQ is a poor and limited measure of intelligence, and a very poor predictor of wealth.) Unfortunately, we live in a society and an age that has delegitimized every other measure but money. You want to save the planet? Better state the business case. Want to save grandma? Better state the business case. Want art and music? Great literature and history? It better pencil out. This is the pathology of our age.

Edited October 31, 2012 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Unfortunately, we live in a society and an age that has delegitimized every other measure but money. You want to save the planet? Better state the business case. Want to save grandma? Better state the business case. Want art and music? Great literature and history? It better pencil out. This is the pathology of our age.

But, haven't you essentially attempted to de-legitimize "red state thinking" with your correlation of red-blue with educated-uneducated? If it's wrong to dismiss people who lack (economic) means, then why is it better to dismiss them for their education?

 

Art, music, and literature are all individual human pursuits. They aren't collective, and should not be thought of in that way. Don't believe me? Think the same people who appreciate Bach also have the complete N.W.A. discography? My favorite band is Rush, but I certainly don't expect you to pay taxes to enable me to buy their CD. You may like to paint portraits, but you shouldn't expect me to pay taxes so you can buy brushes and canvasses.

 

"Worth" as it applies to Federal government support, should be agreed to a near universal degree. The idea that everything is worth something to somebody, therefore should be subsidized, is why our government is in the financial hole it's in.

[RangerM]

Okay with a 50% unemployment rate among recent college grads... there is no such thing as a worthless degree. Right. Lets try photography, political science, English history, and just about anything that ends in studies. There are virtually no employers looking for these degrees.

While I understand where you're coming from, I'll just say that if someone wants to pursue a degree in philosophy, then I don't see the problem with it, so long as I'm not in any way obligated to pay for it. Student loans for obtaining such a degree are fine (if financially unwise), so long as they are paid back with interest.

 

We should not "forgive" such loans, and all grants/scholarships should be privately-funded or State (not Federally) supported.

[FordBuyer]

But, haven't you essentially attempted to de-legitimize "red state thinking" with your correlation of red-blue with educated-uneducated? If it's wrong to dismiss people who lack (economic) means, then why is it better to dismiss them for their education?

 

Art, music, and literature are all individual human pursuits. They aren't collective, and should not be thought of in that way. Don't believe me? Think the same people who appreciate Bach also have the complete N.W.A. discography? My favorite band is Rush, but I certainly don't expect you to pay taxes to enable me to buy their CD. You may like to paint portraits, but you shouldn't expect me to pay taxes so you can buy brushes and canvasses.

 

"Worth" as it applies to Federal government support, should be agreed to a near universal degree. The idea that everything is worth something to somebody, therefore should be subsidized, is why our government is in the financial hole it's in.

 

Hmmmm....food for thought. Commercial TV or broadcast TV in general is pretty much unwatchable to me anymore. I would think that most anyone with common sense and some enlightenment would view that stuff for a few seconds and think what a bankrupt culture we have become. About all I watch anymore is PBS as I actually learn from it and DVD's that I choose to pop in to my player. Ditto for most commercial movies shown today. If they are actually for thinking, feeling adults, you have fooled me. And yeah, I think that it's rather sad that PBS is practically the only broadcast station on TV that is worth watching. HBO and some other cable stations do a decent job sometimes at showing some good, thoughtful, enlightened programming, but they are few and far between. Furthermore, looking at the Repubs of today, I can see why they hate PBS programming like Frontlne and all the environmental sensitive shows that they do throughout their season and want to take their subsidies from them. I would imagine the same goes for NPR as we wouldn't want anyone enjoying thoughtful programming like that.

[RangerM]

Hmmmm....food for thought. Commercial TV or broadcast TV in general is pretty much unwatchable to me anymore. I would think that most anyone with common sense and some enlightenment would view that stuff for a few seconds and think what a bankrupt culture we have become. About all I watch anymore is PBS as I actually learn from it and DVD's that I choose to pop in to my player. Ditto for most commercial movies shown today. If they are actually for thinking, feeling adults, you have fooled me. And yeah, I think that it's rather sad that PBS is practically the only broadcast station on TV that is worth watching. HBO and some other cable stations do a decent job sometimes at showing some good, thoughtful, enlightened programming, but they are few and far between.

While I won't watch the dreck on most broadcast TV, it IS self-supporting (as in, depends on ad revenue for its existence). Noone taxes you, so you can watch it.

 

PBS is (partially) supported by taxing those who never watch it. You benefit at their expense. HBO (and some of the other cable channels) are paid for by you. True, you (or I) could probably eliminate 3/4 of the cable stations we pay for in our cable bill, but that is the choice you (and I) make.

 

Furthermore, looking at the Repubs of today, I can see why they hate PBS programming like Frontlne and all the environmental sensitive shows that they do throughout their season and want to take their subsidies from them. I would imagine the same goes for NPR as we wouldn't want anyone enjoying thoughtful programming like that.

It only becomes a political issue when one side promises to use taxpayer dollars to pay what the consumers of those channels refuse to pay for themselves. If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can almost always count on support from Paul.

 

PBS and NPR have funding drives every so often. If it's worth watching to you, then it must be worth paying for by you.

Edited October 31, 2012 by RangerM

[Bored of Pisteon]

I may have said this a long time ago but it bears repeating: "Education is a waste of money and you'll end up in debt up to your eyeballs anyway, so what good is it?"

 

What good is having some college degree in some field and you can't even find a job? And you have all those government college loan money that is going to be tied to you for life... Yeah, that's really some way to live isn't it?

[FordBuyer]

I may have said this a long time ago but it bears repeating: "Education is a waste of money and you'll end up in debt up to your eyeballs anyway, so what good is it?"

 

What good is having some college degree in some field and you can't even find a job? And you have all those government college loan money that is going to be tied to you for life... Yeah, that's really some way to live isn't it?

 

Having a huge population that is largely uneducated souls would be very scary indeed. We are seeing some of the ramifications now in much of our depraved culture that manifests itself in so many ways. No respect for history, good music, rigorous academic work, objectivity, reasoned arguments, articulate communication skills, and on and on. Many of us who graduated from college back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's didn't exactly get jobs according to our majors, but most got good jobs anyway and had good careers in productive fields. And we gained good social and communication skills along the way by setting a goal and actually obtaining a degree after four years of study. With that being said, I certainly feel for students and their families today contemplating 4 year university degree that will cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 and wondering if it's worth going into debt for it. That is scary also and what it means for society if most opt out. I know my tuition was about $400/year for freshman year in college back in 1968 and my girlfriend told me her tuition at same time was $250/semester at University of Michigan. Now it would cost her about $20,000 as Michigan resident and over $40,000/year if out of state. That is sad. Both her kids went to U of M and are doing well in their resepective fields. It's difficult to see that many who want to go will not be able to afford it or just unwilling to take on the onerous loans and resulting debt. I feel blessed to be born in late 40's when houses, college tuition was affordable even into my teens and jobs offered decent pay and pensions. I don't blame young people for being mad and disillusioned.

[GaryG]

We live in the United States and we can't separate and put everyone out on their own for education, healthcare, war, defense, transportation FEMA etc, which needs to be available.

 

I predict Obama will be re-elected and Romney, the Pee Party and the Republican Party have really hurt this Country and themselfs. Sandy will be the cause of us to rebuilt and create the jobs the Republcan Party has block to destroy our President the last few years.

[Mark B. Morrow]

When Bill Clinton was in Pittsburgh on October 4, he made an interesting prediction. Bill said he believed that President Obama would be re-elected and that upon his second term, a great deal of the obstruction would end. His reasoning was that while the President could not stand for election again, McConnell, Cantor and Boehner would all have to and they would need to accomplish something. People are tired of the refusal to compromise on even the things Republicans usually support, like small business tax cuts.

 

Clinton also stated that if Romney were to win, he would be a hostage to the Tea Party and hard right wingers like DeMint since Romney would fear a challenge from the right in his bid for a second term. Clinton further pointed out that Romney only won the nomination because the anti-Romney voters never coalesced around one more conservative challenger in the primaries.

[the_spaniard]

As someone who has been fortunate enough to see both sides of things, it all depends on what your definition of worthless is. Despite coming from a fairly poor family, being rich was never a goal for me. Living within my means and having a certain level of freedom appealed to me greatly.

 

My first degree was in cognitive psychology, which I didn't do much with, at least initially. Being artistically inclined as a child, I luckily landed a job as a computer animator. After working in a career that didn't require a degree (at least back then) for 14 years, I was able to buy a house in a small coastal community in SoCal. It afforded me a bit of travel (I've been in 42 states in the US). No one gave a crap if I had a degree. In my last years in that industry (full-time) as a Creative Director, I would hire kids with a traditional art degrees. In less than 10 years these kids would be making over six-figures (not awesome for SoCal, but respectable). Point is, you can have a career without a degree (as I did), or with a degree...even in art. More and more now, though people want these kids to have degrees.

 

I left that industry (full-time) and became a consultant for animation, VR, and human-computer interaction (which is far less stressful and less hours). I made less money, but my degree earned me a spot to work with a host of people in the scientific field studying brain-mapping and cognitive behavior. So I didn't use my psychology degree until after 14 years in an unrelated industry where I made decent money.

 

I went back to school and earned another social sciences degree (gasp!) and began working in the field of in archaeology. I've been fortunate enough to work overseas here and there, and am now considering PHD programs overseas. I am currently conducting research to hopefully go to Russia to study neanderthals next year. I wouldn't have that opportunity without my degree in Archaeology. I wouldn't have made enough money to go back to school without my non-degree required field of animation. If you only measure life experience in dollars and cents, my animation career was where it was at. It afforded me my consulting career, and my second house in Puerto Rico.

 

Not all of us are wired that way. I learned that a computer in an office was a prison to me, as would (factory work) I am the adventurous type, and I have to work outdoors. I have to travel and experience things all over the world, sometimes these places are mundane, sometimes these places are a bit dangerous. That's part of the fun of it, as well as unquenchable passion for discovery.

 

I just turned 40 and work as a scientist, and have a small consulting business with a loyal client-base. My houses are paid off and my cars are paid off. I'll be heading overseas for my PHD study. I see the point that you don't need a college degree to make a living. I have done it. I also see the value of a formal education providing you with opportunities that you would not normally have without one. For me, that's where a formal education has value.

 

So when I see idiots like Scott (and a host of other far-right republicans) trashing science and creativity...it just doesn't fly. This country does not value education like other countries do. When I am oversees, pretty much no one asks what I do for a living. That's a distinctly American trait, where we define who we are by what we do.

[cal50]

When Bill Clinton was in Pittsburgh on October 4, he made an interesting prediction. Bill said he believed that President Obama would be re-elected and that upon his second term, a great deal of the obstruction would end. His reasoning was that while the President could not stand for election again, McConnell, Cantor and Boehner would all have to and they would need to accomplish something. People are tired of the refusal to compromise on even the things Republicans usually support, like small business tax cuts.

 

Clinton also stated that if Romney were to win, he would be a hostage to the Tea Party and hard right wingers like DeMint since Romney would fear a challenge from the right in his bid for a second term. Clinton further pointed out that Romney only won the nomination because the anti-Romney voters never coalesced around one more conservative challenger in the primaries.

 

 

 

That sounds great except you glossed over the fact that the problems (being blocked) came directly from the democratic party themselves and not the opposite side, for YEARS.

You cant blame being blocked on someone else when you control all houses and your own party does not side with you.

 

Quoting Clinton?

I take it you are an atty. so the credibility of Clinton who was impeached, disbarred, contempt of court,perjury, etc. should mean something to you or demonstrate character or lack of one.

 

He is entitles to his opinion but has zero credibility.

[Mark B. Morrow]

That sounds great except you glossed over the fact that the problems (being blocked) came directly from the democratic party themselves and not the opposite side, for YEARS.

You cant blame being blocked on someone else when you control all houses and your own party does not side with you.

 

Quoting Clinton?

I take it you are an atty. so the credibility of Clinton who was impeached, disbarred, contempt of court,perjury, etc. should mean something to you or demonstrate character or lack of one.

 

He is entitles to his opinion but has zero credibility.

 

One: The Democrats never even came close to the obstruction the Republicans have practiced during the Obama Administration. Just check the explosion of filibuster and cloture motions. It is at an all time high. The Democrats don't all vote in lock step. Even during the Bush years, there were always Dems who crossed over.

 

 

Two: Coming from a Romney supporter your calling anyone a liar is laughable. No matter what you think of Clinton as a man, no one knows more about politics. On that subject, his insight is very credible.

[cal50]

One: The Democrats never even came close to the obstruction the Republicans have practiced during the Obama Administration. Just check the explosion of filibuster and cloture motions. It is at an all time high. The Democrats don't all vote in lock step. Even during the Bush years, there were always Dems who crossed over.

 

 

Two: Coming from a Romney supporter your calling anyone a liar is laughable. No matter what you think of Clinton as a man, no one knows more about politics. On that subject, his insight is very credible.

 

One: Is a fact, for the first two years Obama was opposed by his own party, after that was others hopped on board opposing Obama.

 

Two: Clinton IS a liar and that is a fact as well.Your witness has credibility issues.....and is a chubby chaser.

 

Obama may be taking a cue from Clinton on Libya. Don't ask & don't tell but it will all come out at some point and like Clinton in may implicate him or exonerate him.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Let's make note of the charges from the left about "grid lock" and "partisan politics".

 

Considering the mounting evidence, Romney may "inherit a mess" and face hypocritical democrats who will refuse to compromise just out of spite. As in "W" keys on White House keyboards.

 

How much do you want to bet the left will try to block Romney at every turn, JUST TO MAKE A POINT? And to hell with America.

[the_spaniard]

How much do you want to bet the left will try to block Romney at every turn, JUST TO MAKE A POINT? And to hell with America.

 

Thats what worries me. Given the fact that is what house repubs have done at every turn to make Obama a one term president - country be damned. Democrats may get that into their head citing "whats good for the goose...."

 

Thats why extremists on both sides are bad for this country.

[Langston Hughes]

Given the way Republicans acted can you blame democrats for returning the favor to them for their "Desire to see Obama fail" ? I would prefer that they actually govern and work to create a more intelligent government but that's not on Romney's/Ryan's agenda so i doubt there will be anything they agree on.

 

That is if Romney does win, which i am seriously doubting will happen.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Again, how can there be "Grid Lock" unless BOTH SIDES refuse to concede? You certainly give a lot of credit to the minority party. It's just a matter of conceding enough to get cooperation and agreement. I'd say the majority party bears the responsibility for not using their own numbers to push through their agenda through their own party unity. Maybe they didn't have a compelling point or presentation?

 

And the left had both houses and the White House for the first two years and all you've got to show for it was Obamacare... that's a lot of political capital to spend on that one accomplishment.

 

Sounds like your man's priorities were screwed up.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Given the way Republicans acted can you blame democrats for returning the favor to them for their "Desire to see Obama fail" ? I would prefer that they actually govern and work to create a more intelligent government but that's not on Romney's/Ryan's agenda so i doubt there will be anything they agree on.

 

That is if Romney does win, which i am seriously doubting will happen.

 

I'll put a "beer" on it. If I am wrong, let me know how to get it to you.

Or we can meet for a "Beer Summit".

 

Face-to-Face would be so much better than ASCII to ASCII.

[FordBuyer]

Given the way Republicans acted can you blame democrats for returning the favor to them for their "Desire to see Obama fail" ? I would prefer that they actually govern and work to create a more intelligent government but that's not on Romney's/Ryan's agenda so i doubt there will be anything they agree on.

 

That is if Romney does win, which i am seriously doubting will happen.

 

Romney certainly is not having a good week sitting on sidelines watching Christie and Obama holding hands as they show empathy for the folks destroyed by mother nature and promise help and offer sympathy and hugs. And Romney talking of cutting FEMA in past is coming back to haunt him. Obama is leading the rescue effort while Romney as usual is spectator wanting to stick his foot in his mouth again. Romney needed a really good closing effort, and didn't get it with Obama presented with last opportunity to show his leadership skills and have Christie fawning all over him.

[Langston Hughes]

Again, how can there be "Grid Lock" unless BOTH SIDES refuse to concede? You certainly give a lot of credit to the minority party. It's just a matter of conceding enough to get cooperation and agreement. I'd say the majority party bears the responsibility for not using their own numbers to push through their agenda through their own party unity. Maybe they didn't have a compelling point or presentation?

 

And the left had both houses and the White House for the first two years and all you've got to show for it was Obamacare... that's a lot of political capital to spend on that one accomplishment.

 

Sounds like your man's priorities were screwed up.

 

I'll put a "beer" on it. If I am wrong, let me know how to get it to you.

Or we can meet for a "Beer Summit".

 

Face-to-Face would be so much better than ASCII to ASCII.

 

a couple of beers it is. You do the same if i am wrong.

[cal50]

How much do you want to bet the left will try to block Romney at every turn, JUST TO MAKE A POINT? And to hell with America.

 

 

Harry Reid has done a good job of blocking anything (he dislikes) that can make it to the senate floor for a vote.

God forbid they actually have to vote on something and do their job.

 

They can always skip state like the democrats in Wisconsin did. Too bad you can not AWOL them then remove them for not showing up to "work" or voting.

[the_spaniard]

Again, how can there be "Grid Lock" unless BOTH SIDES refuse to concede? You certainly give a lot of credit to the minority party. It's just a matter of conceding enough to get cooperation and agreement. I'd say the majority party bears the responsibility for not using their own numbers to push through their agenda through their own party unity. Maybe they didn't have a compelling point or presentation?

 

And the left had both houses and the White House for the first two years and all you've got to show for it was Obamacare... that's a lot of political capital to spend on that one accomplishment.

 

Sounds like your man's priorities were screwed up.

 

How about when a party signs a pact not to compromise on raising taxes? Or will not sign up to raise the debt ceiling (taking the U.S. to the brink of default, costing us our credit rating), but had no problem raising it multiple times (was it 5) under their last guy? Only bad if the other side does it, right? That just screams compromise and whats best for the country? How about we see what happens now that we are almost at the ceiling again?

 

You can act like republicans are just open arms across the isle if you like, but history reads a little differently. Both sides are acting like babies.