35 replies to this topic

[Legaia]

Even more proof that the "entitled" will decide every election from now on.

Edit to add : Take a particularly close look at Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. My home state was single handedly decided by Philadelphia. Even Pittsburgh was somewhat split.

Edited by Legaia, 18 November 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[questionmark]

Legaia, on 18 November 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Even more proof that the "entitled" will decide every election from now on.

You mean like on the Michigan upper peninsula where most everybody lives half a year from unemployment benefits? Looks very red to me.

[Legaia]

questionmark, on 18 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

You mean like on the Michigan upper peninsula where most everybody lives half a year from unemployment benefits? Looks very red to me.

I wouldn't be so quick to lump the unemployed into the entitled. Most of them are looking for work, and probably didn't want their opportunities threatened even more with another Obama term.

[questionmark]

Legaia, on 18 November 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

I wouldn't be so quick to lump the unemployed into the entitled. Most of them are looking for work, and probably didn't want their opportunities threatened even more with another Obama term.

Yeh right, fact of the matter is that about 90% of US citizens are entitled, be it with a 401K, social security or subsidies for their enterprises.

It has nothing to do with it. Just those who cannot defend themselves easily (like the 2% on welfare) are best targets for chickens to hack on.

[Legaia]

questionmark, on 18 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Yeh right, fact of the matter is that about 90% of US citizens are entitled, be it with a 401K, social security or subsidies for their enterprises.

It has nothing to do with it. Just those who cannot defend themselves easily (like the 2% on welfare) are best targets for chickens to hack on.

So the 47 million people on food stamps, to use a perfect example, are unable to find enough work to feed themselves and their families? I already know the answer to that, because I can speak from personal experience. Your 2% number is complete crap, and you know it.

And people ARE entitled to do what they please with their OWN money (401k, bonds, pensions, etc...). They are not entitled to do what they please with others' money.

[questionmark]

Legaia, on 18 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

So the 47 million people on food stamps, to use a perfect example, are unable to find enough work to feed themselves and their families? I already know the answer to that, because I can speak from personal experience. Your 2% number is complete crap, and you know it.

And people ARE entitled to do what they please with their OWN money (401k, bonds, pensions, etc...). They are not entitled to do what they please with others' money.

The 47 million people on food stamps have, as a rule, more than one job and still can't make ends meet and as a rule do not live in blue states, Mississippi come to mind, as you can see from this map:



most live in red non-union states.

[F3SS]

I'm with ya legai, I know it sucks but considering the landslide blowouts throughout history it clear that the country doesn't stick to the same ideas for all that long. Considering the maps below its also clear that Obama isn't as popular as he seems to be. There have been many other presidents far more beloved. FDR owned the country big for 4 terms and Reagan's second term was 525-13 and I remember hearing that he didn't even campaign as the incumbent. That's how good he was. Obama on the other hand spends untold amounts of money, used every talk show venue and campaigned more than he worked for the better part of the second half of his first term. Don't worry, he ain't that great and it will be over someday.

http://www.100bestwe...ctoral-maps.htm
1928 Herbert Hoover
http://upload.wikime...College1928.svg

1936 FDR
http://upload.wikime...College1936.svg

1972 Richard Nixon
http://upload.wikime...College1972.svg

1984 Reagan
http://upload.wikime...College1984.svg

[supervike]

I think this almost purple map from here shows the better truth.

http://www.christian...e-nation-85043/

[Startraveler]

Legaia, on 18 November 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Even more proof that the "entitled" will decide every election from now on.

Edit to add : Take a particularly close look at Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. My home state was single handedly decided by Philadelphia. Even Pittsburgh was somewhat split.

That's a fairly useless map.

1. Counties aren't winner-take-all so very little information is conveyed by making them red or blue. It would more useful to use a color scale--varying through red, purple, and blue--that gives a sense of the relative scale of each candidate's victory in each county. That would like this for the 2012 election:



2. People are not evenly distributed across counties. Of course that's obvious given the sea of red in your map and the fact that Obama just won a convincing electoral victory. But there's no reason to imply something untoward is going on just because most people live in population centers (which is more or less tautologically true). Anyway, a more useful geographical representation would be a cartogram, which makes the size of a county on the map proportional to its actual population. That would look like this:



Presents a little more nuanced a picture of county-level data, doesn't it?

[Legaia]

Startraveler, on 18 November 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

That's a fairly useless map.

1. Counties aren't winner-take-all so very little information is conveyed by making them red or blue. It would more useful to use a color scale--varying through red, purple, and blue--that gives a sense of the relative scale of each candidate's victory in each county. That would like this for the 2012 election:



2. People are not evenly distributed across counties. Of course that's obvious given the sea of red in your map and the fact that Obama just won a convincing electoral victory. But there's no reason to imply something untoward is going on just because most people live in population centers (which is more or less tautologically true). Anyway, a more useful geographical representation would be a cartogram, which makes the size of a county on the map proportional to its actual population. That would look like this:



Presents a little more nuanced a picture of county-level data, doesn't it?

It presents exactly what I suggested - mob rules.

[questionmark]

Legaia, on 18 November 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

It presents exactly what I suggested - mob rules.

No, majority does, and calling the majority a mob because they don't agree with you shows a scary shortcoming in democratic understanding.

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 18 November 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

No, majority does, and calling the majority a mob because they don't agree with you shows a scary shortcoming in democratic understanding.

Well, Democracy is Socialism.  This nation is a Republic.  It is a nation of laws, not the dreams of a despot’s father.  However, majority rule is the only vestige of Socialism that is a necessary evil in our system.  This is just not my belief but also what the Founding Fathers believed.  If they believed otherwise, then Washington would have been our King.  As we have seen it can very easily turn into mob rule (exactly what the Founding Fathers warned of).  We knew what we had with 4 years of Obama.  If he was a head coach in the NFL, he would have been fired by now.  But with the aid of the MSM, he was able to buy another term.  !00 years from now, that is what Historians will confirm.  FDR, Reagan, and I’ll even say Nixon had earned their other terms.

[questionmark]

RavenHawk, on 18 November 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well, Democracy is Socialism.  This nation is a Republic.  It is a nation of laws, not the dreams of a despot's father.  However, majority rule is the only vestige of Socialism that is a necessary evil in our system.  This is just not my belief but also what the Founding Fathers believed.  If they believed otherwise, then Washington would have been our King.  As we have seen it can very easily turn into mob rule (exactly what the Founding Fathers warned of).  We knew what we had with 4 years of Obama.  If he was a head coach in the NFL, he would have been fired by now.  But with the aid of the MSM, he was able to buy another term.  !00 years from now, that is what Historians will confirm.  FDR, Reagan, and I'll even say Nixon had earned their other terms.

You better buy yourself a dictionary, the above is some great, though involuntary, slapstick.

[darkmoonlady]

Those who are waving the entitlement flag, yes there are people on the dole so to speak but right now there are far more hard working people trying to keep a roof over their head and some food in the fridge. They don't want a hand out they need a hand up or they'll drown. Despite some people's feelings on the outcome of the election, I'm very hopeful. No matter your feelings (or superstitions) about the President, the country is changing and for the better. The economy is recovering, and socially we're become more inclusive which is scary to some people. I find it funny and somewhat ironic that the pundits who are shaking their heads at the "end of America" seem to have forgotten history altogether. The demographics of this country have always been changing. Hispanic people have been in the Americas longer than the US has been around. That people of different races are becoming a powerful voting block is what this country was founded on. Immigrants have always been a part of the United States and they probably always will be. They are a vibrant and integral part of our country. I'm just sorry that those few political pundits who seem to think they speak for so many have lost what the American spirit is really about.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Legaia, on 18 November 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

It presents exactly what I suggested - mob rules.

That's what democracy is.