Presidential Election: 2012

[FoolKiller]

But to blatantly state something that isn't true, that's quite different.

No, it is campaigning. Blatant lies happen on both sides, have been as long as I can remember and will undoubtedly continue long after I die.

And that's what the Romney camp has been doing as of late.

It's what both sides have been doing for a very long time.

 

[Joey D]

Here's a website that'll give you an idea of what candidate your political views align with:

http://www.isidewith.com

As always it's not 100% accurate but the results surprised me quite a bit.

After going through the questions (be sure an expand each question section if available) I ended up with a 90% match to Gary Johnson, who appears to be the Libertarian Party's candidate. Hot on his heels was Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate at 88%. While I don't agree fully with either of them, they both certainly provide better ideas than either Obama or Romney, which funny enough only scored in the 55-60% range on the questionnaire.

I don't really believe I'm a Libertarian in the sense of a Big-L but probably more in the sense of a small-l. After investigating and poking around some different literature on the subject, it seems I'm best aligned with liberal-libertarianism...whatever in the world that is. Apparently it's been recommended I read up Noam Chomsky, whom I only really know about from linguistics.

 

[Keef]

I sided 98% with Gary Johnson. I've taken this quiz before back during the primaries and I was surprised to find out that I leaned slightly more toward Gary Johnson than Ron Paul. Anyways, this time around it was mostly Gary Johnson with the Constitution Party's nominee Virgil Goode in the high 80s. Mitt Romney was a relatively low 68% while Obama was barely on the list at 16%. Stein and Anderson were tied at 15%.

As for party association, I don't care about parties at all. I think I'm registered as a Republican but I have no idea why I have to do that. I just did it because the guy I wanted to vote for was running as a Republican. I definitely don't subscribe to the Libertarian party either, though my philosophy is quite libertarian.

Joey, I think you're a lot more libertarian than you think you are. Plenty of people hate politics and ignore it to the point that they can't be bothered to find out where they stand or don't realize their ideas are actually better than what they think they are.

Anyways, libertarians. I don't like the last bit of Wiki's introduction to libertarianism:

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies, or no government whatsoever.

That last bit really gets me, see, because libertarians don't believe in that. Libertarians believe in a small government limited to the role of protecting the rights of the people. The people who believe in no government are called anarchists. Both of these philosophies are distinct from one another and there's absolutely no reason to confuse the two other than plain old ignorance of either.

 

[livemusic]

But there's a lot of ancaps who are part of the libertarian movement.

 

[Joey D]

Joey, I think you're a lot more libertarian than you think you are. Plenty of people hate politics and ignore it to the point that they can't be bothered to find out where they stand or don't realize their ideas are actually better than what they think they are.

I support quite a few things that aren't even remotely part of the libertarian school of thought. Social medicine (to a point), corporate regulations (to a point), and not privatizing certain organization, all spring to mind. Sure I still believe in giving the states more rights to figure out what to do, not having the government in an active role to fight gay marriage, abortion, etc., a flat tax system and other ideals that could be classified as libertarian. But you can see why it's a bit on the conflicting side.

I voted libertarian in the last presidential election, as well as for the Michigan governor in 2006. I've even supported Ron Paul in the primaries in 2008. I really think the only reason why was because their ideas were slightly less awful than then the Republicans and Democrats, or in Ron Paul's case slightly less awful than the other guys (Romney & McCain).

I still haven't figured out who'll get my vote in November (it won't be Romney). Guess I'll see how everything plays out and who presents themselves as less of an idiot.

 

[Keef]

But there's a lot of ancaps who are part of the libertarian movement.

Like Omnis, there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists who identify as libertarians because the only stepping stone toward making their philosophy sound reasonable to anybody at all is by first establishing a libertarian form of limited government.

Joey, Romney won't be getting my vote either and according to a recent post on Daily Paul he won't get getting the votes of about 65% of people who like the Blue Republican Facebook page. So far the sample size of that survey is small but heavily favoring Gary Johnson. Romney wasn't getting my vote to begin, and especially after his party blatantly rigged the nomination process so far in his favor as to disallow any voice at all to an opponent who wouldn't have won anyway. They literally did everything but get caught breaking laws in order to hush the Paul supporters. **** that guy. I've contemplated voting for Obama just to stick it to that asshole and the Republican party but that seems like something a Republican would do so I won't. Instead I'll vote my conscience just like every American should do. With a majority of Paul supporters not voting for Romney I'm betting he'll lose the election. I'll tell all the Romney supporters who bitch at me that I wasn't the one who shut out an entire segment of potential supporters from participating.

 

[Omnis]

Ancap is perfectly reasonable, just hard to imagine given how big and power hungry the government is. I'm aware that I will probably not experience social order like that in my lifetime, but am willing to participate in a system that progresses little by little towards it until the state obsolesces itself.

Romney and Obama don't bring it in that direction though.

 

[Quackjack]

According to some quizes, I ended up 10% closer to Obama than Romney. I can't vote anyways, but just my 2 cents.

 

[Adamgp]

I took the quiz posted by Joey and ended up siding 96% with Mitt Romney.

Anyhoo, didn't see it posted here, but here is another "oops" from the DNC:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112/

Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets

By Sam Fellman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 11, 2012 17:16:10 EDT

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Update
DNC apologizes for use of Russian ships
Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

The veteran who spotted the error and notified Navy Times said he was immediately taken aback.

“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

“An immediate apology [from the committee] would be very nice,” Barker said. “Maybe acknowledge the fact that yes, they screwed up.”

The background — featured in the carefully choreographed hour leading up to the president’s Sept. 6 speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination — showed four ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.

For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as “Flat Screen” for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”

Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 “Head Net” air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas, at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it’s hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.

But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)

Based on this specific group of these ship types, one naval expert concluded that this was most likely a photo of the Black Sea Fleet.

“Ships are all Black Sea Fleet,” A. D. Baker III, a retired Office of Naval Intelligence analyst, told Navy Times after looking at the image. “These four ships, at the time the photo was taken, constituted the entire major surface combatant component of the Black Sea Fleet,” Baker said, noting the photo was likely to be six years old or older. (The Kerch is now on the list to be scrapped, Baker said.)

Barker, the former sailor who first spotted the errors, believes the seven aircraft streaking by are F-5 jets, a trainer used by the U.S. Navy. Asked to explain how he reached that conclusion, the former airplane spotter ticked off a list: “Twin engine, single rudder, with hard points on the wingtips, with that silhouette is going to make them F-5s.”

 

[sumbrownkid]

^As funny and pathetic as that mistake was, America has got bigger issues at the moment in Libya.

 

[Joey D]

That's the biggest "oops" you could come up with? If that's all they got working against them then Obama should win by a massive landslide.

Or for a better "oops" how about Romney's response to the Libya attacks?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romneys-political-pretzel-over-libya/

 

[Pupik]

Well, they are our allies vacationing in America a lot more now.

 

[sumbrownkid]

@JoeyD: Yeah Romney's attempt at criticism failed pretty hard.

 

[Adamgp]

That's the biggest "oops" you could come up with? If that's all they got working against them then Obama should win by a massive landslide.

Didn't say it was a big "oops", or even the biggest Obama blunder I could find.

Just posted simply for the comedic value.

 

[BobK]

More revealing, perhaps, is the fact that as soon as the error was pointed out to them, the DNC blamed the vendor.

 

[Joey D]

More revealing, perhaps, is the fact that as soon as the error was pointed out to them, the DNC blamed the vendor.

Isn't that what all political organizations do? Blame someone else and don't admit they're wrong?

 

[Danoff]

I'd suggest that nobody vote until they understand this chart (this is from today).

 

[Keef]

Oh, you mean this chart?

Looks like somebody made a run on it, then sold a fair bit to make some cash. Who? Why? What?

 

[Touring Mars]

Ah, the old hockey stick graph, eh?...

OK, so prices hadn't changed for hundreds of thousands of seconds, and yes, the recent 'heating' of prices looks significant, but it is only a 2% increase overall, and as Keef shows, the 'heating' actually halted (and infact has, on average, dropped slightly) in recent seconds. There's no evidence whatsoever that gold price warming is entirely manmade, and indeed the price of gold has been higher in the past.

 

[Danoff]

Looks like somebody made a run on it, then sold a fair bit to make some cash. Who? Why? What?

Ah, the old hockey stick graph, eh?...

OK, so prices hadn't changed for hundreds of thousands of seconds, and yes, the recent 'heating' of prices looks significant, but it is only a 2% increase overall, and as Keef shows, the 'heating' actually halted (and infact has, on average, dropped slightly) in recent seconds. There's no evidence whatsoever that gold price warming is entirely manmade, and indeed the price of gold has been higher in the past.

It's not important where it went after that chart (indeed, one might expect things to cool off after a quick adjustment). It could tank tomorrow, who knows. What I'm getting at is that there is a real reason why gold took off today at the time that it took off. I want people to be paying enough attention to what's going on in this country that they know and understand exactly why that happened.

I'm not suggesting that Gold is going sky high or anything. I just want people to know what's going on.

Also, the fact that it's only 2% for now since the plateau isn't as impressive as the run up over the last few months in anticipation of today's news. People should also understand this chart:

 

[Keef]

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Speaking of that...

...but it is only a 2% increase overall...

Two percent of 71,140,000,000 is 1,422,800,000. Whoever dove into that trust managed to raise the price by $1.4 billion within two hours, and it wasn't all sold off for profit. It's likely that many previous holders saw that price increase, shat themselves, then sold some for profit. That aside, the vast majority of this buy was not sold, it was hoarded. We'll have to see how that price fluctuates overnight and tomorrow. I invite you to find me a group of investors who could splurge 1.4 billion in two hours and not sell all of it once their self-induced price spike stabilized.

That's just a theory because I have no idea how the market works. Basically I'm suggesting that the Fed decided to hoard some more gold.

 

[Danoff]

That's just a theory because I have no idea how the market works. Basically I'm suggesting that the Fed decided to hoard some more gold.

Sortof the opposite. There is definitely gold hoarding going on though. The fed announced today that they're doing their 3rd round of quantitative easing.

The Federal Reserve said it will expand its holdings of long-term securities with open-ended purchases of $40 billion of mortgage debt A MONTH in a third round of quantitative easing as it seeks to boost growth and reduce unemployment.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...llion-MBS-Purchases-3863413.php#ixzz26OCTnF22

(emphasis added)

What the GLD chart is showing is a distrust of the value of the dollar. People are moving to Gold in an attempt to avoid an inflating currency. Corresponds perfectly with the Fed announcement. The run up in the last month or two was the anticipation of this announcement. Then as we got close to the announcement, everyone had their GLD positions made, nobody wanted to move until they got information. Then with confirmation of QE3, another 2% spike in the price of gold as dollars look like a worse and worse bet.

 

[Omnis]

Lots of miners' strikes in Africa right now too. That explains the sudden jump. QE3 explains the trend.

 

[Danoff]

Today's reaction was due to the Fed announcement. I'd expect gold miners to decline with miners going on strike... but maybe GDX doesn't hold the particular mining companies that are affected:

Note the timing of the jump in price corresponds to the Fed QE3 announcement. Announcement was made at 12:30 on these charts.

 

[Joel]

I did some googling, I searched up "Ben Bernanke announcement September 13th" (after seeing Danoff's picture clue) and I saw the QE3 announcement. Took some googling to figure it out and everything, but I'm certainly understanding the trend now. It's a pretty troubling thing, especially given that it happened in 2010 too. I think I'm going to start making an effort to get into gold (the Canadian dollar is so directly tied to the USD), problem is I'm a college student and have no money right now.

 

[Danoff]

This is the story I want people to see, because the news right now is talking about jumps in the stock market, like as though QE3 is already working its magic and benefiting the economy. "Markets jump on QE3!" they're saying. Yea, that's right, stocks are going up, but not because people are as bullish on the US economy as they are concerned about the value of the dollar.

Investors are looking for any way to get some kind of return right now... or perhaps to just avoid losing money. With interest rates as low as they are, loaning money (by purchasing bonds etc.) is a terrible return. So investors sit on their dollars, but with the fed buying up debt, the value of the dollar looks shaky too. Where are investors to go?

Well, one route is to buy gold and other physical goods that the government can't inflate. Another route is to invest in companies that look solid enough to weather the storm. So stocks rise, real estate rises, commodities rise (especially gold), etc.

Is this good? No not at all. It's a symptom of weakness of the dollar.

I think I'm going to start making an effort to get into gold (the Canadian dollar is so directly tied to the USD), problem is I'm a college student and have no money right now.

Another problem is the Gold is really expensive right now (it just had a huge run up). Might want to wait a little bit for folks to start getting more comfortable with the new levels of debt and try to cash out of their gold positions. Gold will drop some and then you can get in. But then again, I've been waiting for a gold selloff for so long that I missed the most recent bottom. My problem is that I bought some a while back and I got used to those prices.

Also, there is talk of a Gold bubble, which is a real possibility despite real reasons for investors to flock to it and other commodities. So it's hard for me to buy more right now.

 

[Keef]

I heard it on the news a little bit ago and then it made sense. Well, at least I got a 50 cent raise this week to cover the inflation.

 

[Joel]

I'm just worried about my future. I feel like my generation is going to really get screwed. I just feel like there's going to be some major changes to how the world works in the next 15-20 years, and when the walls come crashing down it'll be my generation paying for it all. Oh well, time to hoard gold, toilet paper, ammunition, and tinfoil hats in my dorm room.

However, it could go the other way. Maybe there'll be some short term pain that will finally rid us of this culture of entitlement and over reaching government. I'll choose to be optimistic.

 

[BobK]

So why shouldn't anybody vote until they understand that chart?

I for one don't have the slightest clue what it's about, much less its connection to any elections.

 

[Danoff]

I'm just worried about my future. I feel like my generation is going to really get screwed. I just feel like there's going to be some major changes to how the world works in the next 15-20 years, and when the walls come crashing down it'll be my generation paying for it all. Oh well, time to hoard gold, toilet paper, ammunition, and tinfoil hats in my dorm room.

However, it could go the other way. Maybe there'll be some short term pain that will finally rid us of this culture of entitlement and over reaching government. I'll choose to be optimistic.

It could be your generation (and probably mine) that pays for it. The problem (for you) is not so much the inflation but the fact that they haven't done it yet. Debt is skyrocketing these three "quantiative easings" (a name I'm sure was chosen to hide it from the public) account for $3 trillion of debt, about half of the debt that has accrued since Obama took office. The only way out of this debt will be to either default (very bad) or inflate (almost as bad). This is why gold is ratcheting up.

If all of the inflation occurred right now, you'd have trouble finding a job, but at least you wouldn't have any wealth to be destroyed at this stage in your life. Owing people dollars (student loans?) is the best possible position to be in when massive inflation occurs, because you can pay back the dollars you borrowed with dollars that are worth less. The people who get hit the hardest are the people who hold the most dollars.

My suggestion to people who want to ride through inflation is two-fold. Borrow tons of money at cheap rates now, and don't lose your job while the economy tanks.

Tough to do I know, but at least you don't have to make much money while you're paying your extremely low interest loans back.

So why shouldn't anybody vote until they understand that chart?

I for one don't have the slightest clue what it's about, much less its connection to any elections.

Because if you don't understand that chart, you don't understand the financial house of cards that our government is building. Bernake just announced that our government is going to take on $40 billion of debt PER MONTH indefinitely (I'm sure an end date will be supplied eventually). How are we going to pay for that? by destroying the wealth of everyone holding dollars.

If there's something you understand about politics right now, it should be that. Nothing else being discussed is as important. The game that is being played with our economy is extremely dangerous and has long term implications that will last decades. It's all about putting the pain off until the future when it's some other politician's turn to take the lumps, and it's us who will be paying for it down the line... and not necessarily just by working - there is a very real possibility that China could consider this an act of war.

Edit:

And any talk of tax hikes, or making the rich pay their "fair share" is ridiculous. You can't tax enough to balance this budget, it's not possible. None of the taxes being proposed would even come close to bridging the gap. They try to make it look that way by saying that a tax hike will bring x dollars over 10 YEARS (as if they can predict that far ahead anyway). But usually the 10 year numbers don't even bridge the gap with 1 year of debt. So it's all obfuscation. The taxes being talked about are purely symbolic. They're designed to make you feel better about the situation without really addressing it. Same thing with the spending cuts that are being talked about. They'll shave $10 billion off the annual budget (if we're lucky) and yell SUCCESS! But it's 1% of what needs to be done. It's symbolic only. We need someone who is willing to talk about cutting our budget on the order of $500 billion dollars, not 10 - and certainly not $10 billion over 10 years.