Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
You also didn't address the dems spending problem.
You don't want to see all the info I could show you to suggest a different take on that. Let's just say we support different parties and leave it at that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
Also, if fetuses have full personhood, then what should the state do in the case of miscarriages? Is a woman guilty of criminal neglect if she miscarries? Will doctors and hospitals need to investigate each case? Will a woman need to report a miscarriage that happens at home?
It's a legal grey area right now. If we do give fetuses full personhood, it will be another way government gets involved in people's lives. Maybe we want that and maybe we don't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
Not everyone agrees that a fetus too young to have a viable life on its own gets full personhood protection.
There are legal complications if we grant those. As I mentioned, if the mother exposes a fetus to something that produces or even might produce a birth defect, should she be jailed? If a company produces a product that results in birth defects or abortions, what should the law do about that? There are many products which can be unsafe for a fetus but are safe after birth. Should we test products for fetus safety? We do to some extent, but our standards could be higher.
I'm after legal and ethical consistency, so I could live with full legal protection of the unborn, but along with a full pro-life policy, I would expect the country to avoid any activity that hurts unborn or born children. I want the pro-life movement to be strongly anti-war and anti-capital punishment as well.
I don't see enough concern for children after they are born, so I view the abortion issue with some skepticism. Let's have a significantly expanded social welfare network for children. That doesn't have to include their parents, but let's make sure all children are taken care of in terms of the basics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
No one is advocating for abortion, but women want to be able to make that decision themselves.
As for protecting the fetus, that's cool. But let's follow that all the way and make sure pregnant women aren't exposed to environmental pollutants which might hurt unborn children. Let's hold businesses accountable if they spew stuff in the air or water.
I also feel that if one is truly pro-life, one should oppose capital punishment and war. And I also believe that society must provide a basic level of health care, shelter, and education for all children. If we want all children to be born, let's make sure we set aside enough resources to take care of them, even when their parents can't or won't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
I read a lot of economic news every day. My outlook is most closely aligned with Occupy Wall Street and the P2P Foundation. There aren't many politicians or economics who view the world the way I do.
However, I was really turned off by the Fox viewpoint of the world, so there was no way I was going to vote Republicans given the party's move to the right.
I recommend you read that article I posted if you haven't. Don't just go by the excerpt I quoted. In the full article the author quotes Republicans who do make it a racial issue.
And actually, it works well for the Democrats if Republicans continue to insist Democrats won because voters want something for nothing. As many people are pointing out, the Republicans seem genuinely surprised that Romney lost. The move to the right didn't serve them well this year. This is an increasing diverse country and the politics need to reflect that. The social issues many Republicans were mentioning in their campaigns don't reflect where this country is headed. Sure, campaign on fiscal conservativism, but drop the fight against gays, abortion and birth control, immigration, non-Christians, and so on.
I actually believe everyone should live frugally and within their means. And I would be perfectly fine in asking everyone who gets government money to work for it.
However, Republicans wouldn't go through with these plans either. If the Republicans slashed government jobs, government contracts, and government transfer payments, the economy would fast slip back into recession.
Because I am all about sustainability, I don't believe we can have an endless growth economic model. I think the shareable movement, where people try to get by on less is better for the planet.
I saw what happened during the Bush administration (a combination of government spending and tax cuts resulting in expanding debt) and the Republicans never convinced me they wouldn't do the same thing again if in office. I didn't seen a lot of economic responsibility then and haven't been convinced they actually believe in it.
I don't have a lot of confidence that any President can work miracles, so given that, I'll at least vote for the party that seems the least nasty.
This is a great piece. If you keep insisting the world is a certain way and won't look at evidence that suggests something else, you are going to keep repeating the same mistakes.
Noahpinion: Asian-Americans destroy the "maker/taker" narrative: "As you can see, the 'maker/taker' narrative has a strong ethnic angle; the 'takers' are supposed to be mostly minorities and single women. White men and their wives produce things; blacks, Hispanics, and sluts single women live on the dole. Naturally, this ethnic angle plays well with the conservative 'base', i.e. Southern and exurban working-class whites for whom politics is ethnic and tribal.
Republicans expect you to earn you way. If this country doesn't stand up and get to work we will soon be a third world country,
Do you really want to get into a discussion about the tax breaks for the wealthy -- both individuals and corporations?
If we are talking about people who work hard, let's hear it for those who do manufacturing and day labor, and who take care of the elderly and the disabled. Do you really think those on Wall Street who push around lots of numbers without actually creating much of real value are working hard?
The data collection was very useful in terms of identifying potential supporters. However, to actually get out the vote took lots of volunteers calling and knocking on doors. And when the volunteers sometimes asked why they were knocking on the same doors several times a day, they were told the best way to get people to the polls was to interact with them personally. (Most of the time door knockers found no one home, so they repeatedly went back to the same places in hopes of actually speaking to the residents.) So in that regard it was just like old-time canvassing -- one person to one person.
What the data was able to do was to identify the best people to focus on and the most effective pitches, but the campaign still depended on a lot of personal contact. If you don't have a grassroots army of people to work the campaign, you are at a disadvantage.
Yes, once you voted, you didn't get more "will you vote" calls or door knockers, although if you were considered a likely supporter, you still got "will you donate" emails and "will you volunteer" emails and calls. They did keep track of who said they wouldn't volunteer, who said maybe, and who said yes.
Another thing they did was to have big events where to get a ticket you either needed to be currently volunteering or willing to volunteer.
Since I think some commons and co-operative forms of organization are necessary to protect and deliver certain property, I believe we'll always have a type of "government." I don't think we'll have a world where everyone operates unto himself.
So I have never been against "government." For me it's an on-going discussion of what kinds of government. Even churches and homeowners associations are forms of government. Any group that attempts to create some rules and owns collective property operates as a "government."
There are three categories of observers who are permitted in polling places:
“Official Observers” -- credentialed by Colorado Secretary of State or by federal government.
“Media Observers” -- credentialed members of news media.
“Poll Watchers” -- credentialed by county Clerk and Recorder. This page tells you how to get your poll watchers credentialed.
-----------
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago: A poll watcher is a representative of a candidate, political party, civic organization or proposition who is legally in the polling place to observe the conduct of the election. All poll watchers must be registered voters in Illinois.
Yes, there was a lot of follow up right up to the end when the polls closed. And where I was (a university town) a lot of attention was focused on college students, both because they were more likely to vote for Obama, but also because they often needed more help to vote -- either as first time voters who may not have understood what was required from them or because they were registered in a different place than where they currently lived.
The video of Obama thanking the campaign workers in Chicago is so relevant given the amount of work those workers (both there and across the country) gave to the campaign. In Boulder, at the office where I was, the two campaign office managers grabbed lists and hit some college areas about one hour before the polls closed. And these were areas where walkers had already knocked on doors at least once on Monday and at least twice on Tuesday. Every vote was considered worth making an extra effort for.
I'm not into politics at all so plz forgive my ignorance but why are 'poll watchers' important?
If I understand the term correctly, these are people who make sure that if the lines get long, they encourage people to stay in line to vote. They make sure those in line have the proper identification so they can vote. They also make sure people at the polls aren't given misinformation and turned away when they shouldn't be turned away.
I don't go to the polls on election day (I vote early), so I haven't seen poll watchers in action, but all of the above is what I am aware people were doing on election day to make sure everyone who wanted to vote got to vote.
I got many Obama emails and I was intrigued by the ones that got me to donate. It was fascinating to know marketing, to be on the receiving end of requests, and pay attention to the ones most effective for me.
In other words, I was conscious of the process and liked the fact that I got a variety of different emails and some were so effective that I would donate on the spot. Of course, there were other factors. The election looked close and I was seeing some of the outrageous claims being made on the other side, which got me mobilized. I felt it was important to be involved this time.
But yes, the Obama campaign was so good at knowing what might interest me. I've never seen another email campaign by anyone, any company work so well. In fact, one reason I don't trust Facebook is that it keeps sending me pitches that appear to be personalized, but are totally wrong for me. So whatever info they have on me is either wrong, or the company is misinterpreting it. If a company is collecting data on me and it is giving me an inaccurate picture of me, I am very worried.
What I am saying is that some companies intentionally set their prices high because they pitch their products as high quality, expensive products. Apple has done well that way. It could definitely make them cheaper because they have huge margins, but for the moment at least, they choose not to.
Therefore, I don't think every company is going to go the "lower prices can make you more money" approach.
While I would love to pay the lowest possible prices for everything, companies like Apple base their pricing strategy on charging premium prices with huge margins.
Thought this article was accurate, but was pleasantly surprised at the election results
Given the nastiness of this year's campaign, I thought we were going to see people dividing into sides without regard to issues. However, I was pleasantly surprised at election results. If people are still doing bloc voting, then those blocs are evolving: gay marriage, legalized marijuana, new faces in government.
On the post: Navy SEALs Lose Their Military Careers By Consulting With EA On Videogame
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to disagree
If the military says you can't talk about something, you can't talk about it. If you want those freedoms, don't join the military.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
You don't want to see all the info I could show you to suggest a different take on that. Let's just say we support different parties and leave it at that.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
It's a legal grey area right now. If we do give fetuses full personhood, it will be another way government gets involved in people's lives. Maybe we want that and maybe we don't.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
There are legal complications if we grant those. As I mentioned, if the mother exposes a fetus to something that produces or even might produce a birth defect, should she be jailed? If a company produces a product that results in birth defects or abortions, what should the law do about that? There are many products which can be unsafe for a fetus but are safe after birth. Should we test products for fetus safety? We do to some extent, but our standards could be higher.
I'm after legal and ethical consistency, so I could live with full legal protection of the unborn, but along with a full pro-life policy, I would expect the country to avoid any activity that hurts unborn or born children. I want the pro-life movement to be strongly anti-war and anti-capital punishment as well.
I don't see enough concern for children after they are born, so I view the abortion issue with some skepticism. Let's have a significantly expanded social welfare network for children. That doesn't have to include their parents, but let's make sure all children are taken care of in terms of the basics.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
As for protecting the fetus, that's cool. But let's follow that all the way and make sure pregnant women aren't exposed to environmental pollutants which might hurt unborn children. Let's hold businesses accountable if they spew stuff in the air or water.
I also feel that if one is truly pro-life, one should oppose capital punishment and war. And I also believe that society must provide a basic level of health care, shelter, and education for all children. If we want all children to be born, let's make sure we set aside enough resources to take care of them, even when their parents can't or won't.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
However, I was really turned off by the Fox viewpoint of the world, so there was no way I was going to vote Republicans given the party's move to the right.
I recommend you read that article I posted if you haven't. Don't just go by the excerpt I quoted. In the full article the author quotes Republicans who do make it a racial issue.
And actually, it works well for the Democrats if Republicans continue to insist Democrats won because voters want something for nothing. As many people are pointing out, the Republicans seem genuinely surprised that Romney lost. The move to the right didn't serve them well this year. This is an increasing diverse country and the politics need to reflect that. The social issues many Republicans were mentioning in their campaigns don't reflect where this country is headed. Sure, campaign on fiscal conservativism, but drop the fight against gays, abortion and birth control, immigration, non-Christians, and so on.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
However, Republicans wouldn't go through with these plans either. If the Republicans slashed government jobs, government contracts, and government transfer payments, the economy would fast slip back into recession.
Because I am all about sustainability, I don't believe we can have an endless growth economic model. I think the shareable movement, where people try to get by on less is better for the planet.
I saw what happened during the Bush administration (a combination of government spending and tax cuts resulting in expanding debt) and the Republicans never convinced me they wouldn't do the same thing again if in office. I didn't seen a lot of economic responsibility then and haven't been convinced they actually believe in it.
I don't have a lot of confidence that any President can work miracles, so given that, I'll at least vote for the party that seems the least nasty.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
Noahpinion: Asian-Americans destroy the "maker/taker" narrative: "As you can see, the 'maker/taker' narrative has a strong ethnic angle; the 'takers' are supposed to be mostly minorities and single women. White men and their wives produce things; blacks, Hispanics, and sluts single women live on the dole. Naturally, this ethnic angle plays well with the conservative 'base', i.e. Southern and exurban working-class whites for whom politics is ethnic and tribal.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Technology had nothing to do with it
Do you really want to get into a discussion about the tax breaks for the wealthy -- both individuals and corporations?
If we are talking about people who work hard, let's hear it for those who do manufacturing and day labor, and who take care of the elderly and the disabled. Do you really think those on Wall Street who push around lots of numbers without actually creating much of real value are working hard?
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
It wasn't just data, but also manpower
What the data was able to do was to identify the best people to focus on and the most effective pitches, but the campaign still depended on a lot of personal contact. If you don't have a grassroots army of people to work the campaign, you are at a disadvantage.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re:
Another thing they did was to have big events where to get a ticket you either needed to be currently volunteering or willing to volunteer.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re:
Who lost: The people.
Since I think some commons and co-operative forms of organization are necessary to protect and deliver certain property, I believe we'll always have a type of "government." I don't think we'll have a world where everyone operates unto himself.
So I have never been against "government." For me it's an on-going discussion of what kinds of government. Even churches and homeowners associations are forms of government. Any group that attempts to create some rules and owns collective property operates as a "government."
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re:
Poll Watchers: Poll Watcher Appointments
There are three categories of observers who are permitted in polling places:
“Official Observers” -- credentialed by Colorado Secretary of State or by federal government.
“Media Observers” -- credentialed members of news media.
“Poll Watchers” -- credentialed by county Clerk and Recorder. This page tells you how to get your poll watchers credentialed.
-----------
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago: A poll watcher is a representative of a candidate, political party, civic organization or proposition who is legally in the polling place to observe the conduct of the election. All poll watchers must be registered voters in Illinois.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re: Re:
President Obama: "I'm Really Proud of All of You." - YouTube
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re: Re:
The video of Obama thanking the campaign workers in Chicago is so relevant given the amount of work those workers (both there and across the country) gave to the campaign. In Boulder, at the office where I was, the two campaign office managers grabbed lists and hit some college areas about one hour before the polls closed. And these were areas where walkers had already knocked on doors at least once on Monday and at least twice on Tuesday. Every vote was considered worth making an extra effort for.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
Re:
If I understand the term correctly, these are people who make sure that if the lines get long, they encourage people to stay in line to vote. They make sure those in line have the proper identification so they can vote. They also make sure people at the polls aren't given misinformation and turned away when they shouldn't be turned away.
I don't go to the polls on election day (I vote early), so I haven't seen poll watchers in action, but all of the above is what I am aware people were doing on election day to make sure everyone who wanted to vote got to vote.
On the post: Obama's Tech Team Was Firing On All Cylinders While Romney's Was Still In Beta
I got Obama pitches and responded to them
In other words, I was conscious of the process and liked the fact that I got a variety of different emails and some were so effective that I would donate on the spot. Of course, there were other factors. The election looked close and I was seeing some of the outrageous claims being made on the other side, which got me mobilized. I felt it was important to be involved this time.
But yes, the Obama campaign was so good at knowing what might interest me. I've never seen another email campaign by anyone, any company work so well. In fact, one reason I don't trust Facebook is that it keeps sending me pitches that appear to be personalized, but are totally wrong for me. So whatever info they have on me is either wrong, or the company is misinterpreting it. If a company is collecting data on me and it is giving me an inaccurate picture of me, I am very worried.
On the post: A Reminder: Lower Prices Can Make You More Money
Re: Re: Now if only Apple understood that
Therefore, I don't think every company is going to go the "lower prices can make you more money" approach.
On the post: A Reminder: Lower Prices Can Make You More Money
Now if only Apple understood that
It's luxury pricing versus commodity pricing.
On the post: Sergey Brin To All Elected Politicians: Withdraw From Your Parties And Go Independent
Thought this article was accurate, but was pleasantly surprised at the election results
America's Increasingly Tribal Electorate -
Next >>