TED Conversations

pat gilbert

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

For those of you who voted for Barack Obama, what were your main reasons for voting for him?

Since this election will make a huge change in the direction of the United States for ever. Clearly the conservative view point did not resonate with half of the voters especially in the swing states. I would like to know what the reasons were for voting for Obama

0
Share:

Closing Statement from pat gilbert

Ok out of 152 comments I got 6 answers to my question.

1 answer was to vote against the rich

1 answer was to vote against Romney's intention to let the too big to fail fail and the jobs that would be lost

3 answers were because Romney did not respect women or pro choice

1 answer was because Romney represented lost jobs.

So to read into it a little with Women it was about pro choice

With men it was about jobs

In my experience this is typically what the left believes.

I do thank you for your forthright answers.

With this stuff the devil is in the details, I get a clear sense of unwillingness to look at the details.

progress indicator
  • thumb
    Nov 8 2012: .
    1. I want the right to own my own body
    2. I do not believe that a fetus is a human
    3. I believe that birth control is the best way to reduce abortions
    4. When I was a newly-wed, putting my husband through school, Planned Parenthood provided affordable birth control and free well-woman check-ups.
    5. Planned Parenthood doesn't give abortions, and shame on those who say they do
    6. I believe that all are created equal and white men are not more equal than others
    7. Homosexuality is a condition of birth, Only a bisexual is capable of choosing. Anti-gay hate speech is unacceptable, as is inequality among any adult population. If you are in a heterosexual relationship, when did you choose to not go the other way. It is not mine to judge God's decisions.
    8. Rape is rape. There is no such thing as forced rape.
    9. If I am raped, God didn't cause it to happen. (1 out of 4 women are raped)
    10. I do not want to live in a theocracy. When religion becomes part of government, the religion is threatened - not enhanced.

    This said, I am very angry at Obama and wish that the Republicans hadn't become such hate/fear mongers. I used to be a Republican, but I will not treat my fellow citizens so disrespectfully. As much as I dislike Obama, I had to stand for the women and non-whites that Republicans hate.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: so why don't you vote for libertarians? the question was why obama, not what is the problem with romney
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Why are you so mean? The question was why did I vote for Obama. I answered it honestly.

        I suggest that you re-read the terms of service about speaking to people respectfully.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: If you need food, and the only food available is either a mars bar or a snickers, and you don't like either,, and you may only choose one, why would you choose the one you don't like the most. Why not choose the lesser of two bads? Is that so hard to wrap your head around?
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: yes you can Kristian say ' i bought a mars bar because i don't like snickers.' its called a decision by default. Stop being mean. Gracie, I liked your comments re women.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: How do we know you aren't Miss Marple in a Krisztian Pinter disguise?
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Dear Krisztián,
        Why are you making such an issue of this? There are LOTS of images and names on TED that we know are not the REAL images and names of the participants. And what is there to "trust" when a person is simply sharing his/her own thoughts, feelings, ideas and opinions?
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: and they also not look real. you guys really have not problem with that? seems the moderators also don't.

          what is the chance he/she shares honest opinion using fake photo/name?
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: I wonder if she really was a hot chick like in the picture, would we soften our stance on what she says?

          May this question better remain unanswered
        • Nov 11 2012: "There are LOTS of images and names on TED that we know are not the REAL images and names of the participants."

          Yeah, does anyone seriously think my real name is "John Smith"? This is the internet, people have to take precautions to protect their privacy.

          Why has Krisztian never wondered whether I'm really a man? Why is it so unbelievable that Grace really is a woman? This is TED, not some Tom's Hardware.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Krisztián,
        Personally, I do not have a problem with it, because it is already a well established practice on TED. Yes, there are images and names that are clearly not real, AND there have been images and names that COULD be real....or not! So what if the name is fake...the image is fake and the opinion is fake? Do you honestly think that is not already happening at times? I don't think there is any logical or reasonable way to control that do you?

        I prefer interacting with people I think may be real people, but we never really know on the internet....do we?
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: I'll give you an old example because I don't want to incriminate anyone now participating on TED.

        Kurgan in Disguise.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: i suppose you haven't seen the movie "highlander". and didn't notice the nice set of safety-pins keeping his head in place.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: LOL.....I DID indeed notice the safety-pins keeping the head in place!!! I'm also familier with stage make-up! No...didn't see the "highlander", nor am I familier with it at all:>) My point is, that it was not the real image or name of the person who was actually communicating here on TED....or was it!
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Right!
        We had no idea who was writing the comments....just like we really have no idea many times with internet communications:>)
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: so you say you don't see any difference between keeping the identity secret, and having a fake identity?
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2012: My image is a pair of lizard eyes. I can assure you, my real eyes are human, lol. Where is the fakery? I want some anonymity. Perhaps Gracie does too. If 'Gracie' is a 49 year old shut in with 80 cats, I still like his/her comments regarding women. I do get your point though Krisztian. Its to do with honesty. You dislike it if people seem to try to convey a false impression of themselves. I agree, its distasteful. We dont know Gracie is doing that. We dont know if you are doing that either. You in hot water on this one? :)
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Krisztian, this is a reply on the issue of the use of pseudonyms.

        Aja B, the TED staffer who runs TED Conversations posted a link within the last month on the question of the use of pseudonyms. She presented research that finds that permitting comment under pseudonyms actually elicits opinions and ideas more reliably than requiring that real identities be used.

        Obviously some people use pseudonyms as protection for negative behaviors they would not risk under their proper names or for trying positions on for size which they may not even agree with.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: and how is that related to this conversation? pseudonym is not fake photo
        • Nov 11 2012: I use it to hide the slacker that TED helps me be.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: Krisztián,
          This is a response to your question...
          " so you say you don't see any difference between keeping the identity secret, and having a fake identity?"

          Having a fake identity is for the purpose of keeping the true identity secret...is it not?
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Krisztián, are you serious to expect people to choose their real names and pictures on the internet?
        Do you really think my name is Lejan and I am a sketched white cat in a black circle?
        I think there are other reasons which triggered your edgy reaction towards 'Grace Greene' and made you ride about insignificant details. I know you can do better than that. :o)
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: no, i still expect people not to use fake pictures. what is so difficult in that? i have explicitly said that funny pictures are lame, but okay. am i stuck in a time loop here?
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: Some funny pictures really stand for something. Whoever knows who my avatar is, knows more about me than if they saw my real face.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: You wrote in your reply to Colleen "fake photo/name." That was what I was replying to.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Your expectation is not 'difficult' it is just pointless. This is what get's you stuck in 'time loops'.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: no, it is because you continue to say the same argument as others already did, and i replied. it might be the case that i see a difference where you don't, but it still does not make sense for you to just repeat those arguments.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Krisztián, sometimes it helps people to revise their expectations in relation to those of others. And sometimes it don't. I repeated 'those arguments' not to put you in this 'time loop', but to also add quantity to their quality, which I personally share and act upon it.

        Your stubbornness in your expectation in this digital media is just amazing to me, as it not only denies its intrinsic uncertainty as to also reflect your perception that this could ever be changed.

        In addition to this you show your disrespect to all of those who choose to take their right on anonymity in questioning their true intentions and this even by invalid conclusions.

        Unless you meet anyone on this forum in person and get to know them really well, you will never know who is honest with you and who is not, and even then, there will always be the 'non-digital' and usual risk of uncertainty and dishonesty.

        I do not expect this, my words, to change your mind on this. But your expectations (if they are true) did change my view on you, whoever you are. And no, I do not expect you to care... :o)
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: "add quantity to their quality"

          nice mission you have there

          the rest of your post is just quantity, everything has been discussed already
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: As I said, I didn't expect my words to change your mind, and hope can be a nice mission ... ;o)
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: You asked whether I see a difference between the use of a pseudonym and a photo taken from the internet.

        I see both similarities and differences. Both can be ways of masking identity for protection of privacy, not only on this website but also from people and programs that search for private information on the web.

        A special issue pertaining to images is that some are subject to a creative commons license and thus can be used by others and other images are private property and should not be "lifted."

        A special additional issue related to photographs is that if it is unauthorized use of a photo of an actual person, that could be construed as a form of identity theft.

        Perhaps none of these issues is the specific answer you seek.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: Those are the first that came to me. Why don't you share your greatest concerns with the use of such images?
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2012: I see trolling and dishonesty as some of the negative behaviors to which I refered in my first reply to you, though these would be as likely, I would think, with a pseudonym as with a false photo and therefore doesn't in my mind distinguish them.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: no it is not. pseudonym and funny image can show a willing to hide true look or identity. a fake image does not serve that purpose any better, so it indicates something different.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: I think that perhaps the fake image should be the topic of another conversation
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: Now, tell me fake pictures ain't fun!
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2012: Remember Krisztián there is no preferential voting so a vote for a candidate with no chance of winning is a wasted vote.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Thank you for you honest answer Grace

      Is there any single event that symbolizes your feelings?
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Yes. The Akin fiasco in Missouri was the day I decided to vote Obama. That's when I realized how real the war against women really was and I saw nothing but danger for all women. And if I want to protect women, I may as well vote to protect equal rights for all adults, regardless of their sexual preferences.
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2012: Not a US citizen, but I get the impression that your country is changing faster than the republicans can keep up.

    I guess Obama is the nearest candidate on offer who is more likely to represent the kind of change that people want. Also it will probably take more than 4 years to clear up the mess left behind by the Bush administration.
    • thumb
      Nov 7 2012: Yes the obvious.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Allan, Since he has been in office for four years, most of the time with a majority in both houses, the Bush excuse is no longer valid. He is accepting his own mess. Harry Trueman had it right .. the buck stops here.

      A leader see opportunities to excell and a loser looks to place blame. Time to put on the big boy pants and get on with it.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Allan, Pat, Robert,
      I agree that the US is changing, and from what I'm hearing now, AFTER the election, it seems that at least some rebublicans are ready and willing to participate cooperatively in the change.

      Obviously, since Obama won the popular vote and the electoral vote, he seems to be closer to the change people are looking for....as he was when first elected. The mess the Bush administration created in so many respects, was not created over a short period of time, and it will not be changed over a short period of time, especially when we have representatives who are unwilling or unable to work together. Working together seems to be an idea that more politicians are recognizing more now because of the election results. The situations the Bush administration created are not "the Bush excuse" Robert....they are well known facts.

      I voted for Obama because he is closer to the change I would like to see in this country. Over and over again Romney changes his rhetoric depending on what audience he is talking to. Part of the reason he lost, according to all the statistics, was because he failed to get the minority vote, and women's vote....for obvious reasons.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Thank you for your honest answer Coleen

        To me the whole deal was about spending. My perspective is less than 50% of the viewpoints out there. I will say working together requires 2 to tango or should I say do the Hammer dance. (good one John)

        Obviously these things that are not obvious to me. Help me wrap my wits around this what are the obvious reasons.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: You are welcome Pat! Honesty is much more enjoyable than the alternative:>)

          Spending is an issue for most of us I think, and while the republican party seemed to be formed on conservatism, financial responsibility does not seem to be important to them at this time.

          I totally agree with you Pat...working together requires 2 or more willing participants....which is why I said "representatives", rather than a particular party.

          The reason I said "some rebublicans" in my first paragraph, is because they have been speaking publically about more cooperation on their parts....Chris Christie and John Boehner to name a couple.

          Help you wrap your wits around the obvious? You mean regarding women and minorities?
          Based on many, many comments by Romney, it does not appear that he respects women's rights or minorities....I certainly am not the only one to notice this.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: How soon or convientently we forget. How did the president (Bush) allocate all of those funds .. answer he could not there was a Democratic Congress who funded all of those operations. I also seem to remember that Bush went to Congress and said Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are in great danger and the Carter / Clinton mandates to the banks need to be repealed. Barney Franks laughed and continued on.

        I doubt if anyone thinks that Nancy Polosi and Harry Reid acted openly and honorably in passing many bills. Those were back doored much the same as Obama now uses Executive Orders to get his way for things like the White House Sustainability Act (UN Article 21) without Congressional approval.

        I would agree that the House and Senate need to work together and put party aside. However to say it is all the fault of Bush and the Republicians does not inspire a team image. I could say just as easily that in the four years Obama served he ignored the problems facing America and the US economy to implement his pet projects for political reasons. If he had addressed the "Bush" problems they would have been eliminated as he had the house and Senate in his favor. Instead he spend his time suing states for doing the federal job as defined in the Constitution. By the way "these are well know facts".

        It is my opinion that Obama has divided the nation more than ever, damaged our world economic standing, foreign policy is non-existent, collasped small business, and developed a no confidence atmosphere for investment capital. But the illegals are happy .... well done.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: Dear Robert,
          I have not forgotten anything. Based on reading many of your comments here on TED, it appears that you support a particular party no matter what. I respect your choice, and I have my own choice. I'm glad we agree that working together is important:>)
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2012: Re: the House and Senate need to work together.

          And what would this look like in your opinion?
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Thank you Colleen

        Is there any single event that symbolizes your feelings?
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: Pat,
          I do not generally make choices based on one particular event. I do my homework, and explore all available information...so...no....there is not any single event that symbolizes my feelings regarding my choice....thanks for asking anyway:>)
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Colleen

        Just to be clear the only semi specific answer you have given me is:

        "it does not appear that he respects women's rights or minorities"

        Which by virtue of 3 out of 4 answer I have received on this thread have been from Women, it appears that Romney lost the election with women.

        I will also say he had an inability to articulate how he could be relevant to the current zeitgeist
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: LOL! Perhaps I am "semi specific" because I really don't want to get into a hot and heavy political debate! You asked a simple question, and I responded with a simple answer:>)

          Statistics show that Romney lost the election PARTLY because of lack of support for women's rights.That might indicate that more women voted for Obama BECAUSE of his support of women's rights, which is one reason I voted for him. The same is probably applicable for minorities.

          Actually Pat, my perception, is that Romney was unable to articulate how he could be relevant to anything or anyone except the rich. People, including politicians who hope to rule our world, need to walk their talk. I believe people are evolving to the point to be more able to effectively evaluate a person, and his/her words and actions. Fewer people are voting simply for a party, because that's what they have always done. People are caring more, and I, for one, want a leader who is genuinely caring and honestly responsive to the majority of people. Romney contradicted himself with words and actions in so many ways...so many times, to vote for him was TOTALLY unappealing to me.

          In my perception, Obama is much more consistant, and that is another reason I voted for him. I do not vote for leaders who are constantly waffling and contradicting themselves. Romney wanted desperately to be president, and appeared to say anything to gain that position. He did not seem to be in touch with the people, and that was also, according to statistics, a reason for Obama's re-election, and another reason I voted for Obama.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Thank you Colleen

        It is not my intent to argue politics especially since there is no point now.

        FWIW I think you are right Romney did not make himself understood. Which is more apparent when you look at his accomplishments and plan and how they were not known by all of the voters. That said almost 50% of the voters did vote for him and now it looks like we are headed into ground hogs day like we did in 2008.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: Dear Pat,
          I did not think it was your intent to argue politics, and you are not the only one commenting on this thread:>)

          FWIW,
          I think many people understood Romney, which may be one reason people voted for Obama...me for one:>)

          I honestly think/feel that we are headed into something more productive, because more people recognize the importance of working together toward beneficial change:>)
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Thanks Colleen
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Colleen, Since I am an Independent and have never voted a straight Party ticket, I would tend to think that untrue. However, my point is and has always been, 1) Define the Bush mess; and 2) stop the blame game and get to work to overcome the problems. Whinning is not one of my favorite character traits and is certainly not one to be admired in leadership.

        Always good to hear from you. Bob.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2012: Dear Robert,
          The statement in my first comment on this thread was for the purpose of recognizing what Obama stepped into with his first term. I believe it was unrealistic to think that he could "fix" everything right away, and I believe that to be an unreasonable expectation that some folks unfortunately had.

          Here is my statement again:
          "The mess the Bush administration created in so many respects, was not created over a short period of time, and it will not be changed over a short period of time, especially when we have representatives who are unwilling or unable to work together".

          This information is well known to many in our country, as well as many people around the world.

          My intent, was to answer this discussion question...
          "For those of you who voted for Barack Obama, what were your main reasons for voting for him?"

          One reason I voted for him again, is because I believe he and the representatives may now realize that they all need to work together.....which I stated in a previous comment.

          I personally AM stopping the blame game, which is why I did not follow through with your previous comment in which you brought up...
          "Democratic Congress who funded all of those operations... Bush went to Congress and said Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are in great danger... Carter / Clinton mandates to the banks need to be repealed. Barney Franks laughed and continued on....Democratic Congress who funded all of those operations...I also seem to remember that Bush went to Congress and said Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac...Nancy Polosi and Harry Reid"...bla.....bla.....bla!!!

          That is all finished Robert, and it is NOT what this comment thread is about.....let it go....take your own advice and try to stop whining! I totally agree...it is NOT a good character trait, ESPECIALLY when you are doing the exact thing you advise others not to do...whining!
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2012: I do not consider stating facts as whinning. I documented my input with facts. Guess that didn't set well.

        I wish you well.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Allen, I hear people use the phrase "Bush Mess" quite often. Could you define what you mean by the Bush mess?

      Thanks.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2012: I am speaking from a European perspective, so my view of the Bush administration may be very different to yours.

        When Bush left the presidency, he left the US in two unfinished wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Both wars were not paid for and both were unnecessary.

        Bush was a plutocrat, who believed in running both country and economy, for the benefit of the super-rich only. Some believe this is why the crash took place. In fact, Bush ran the national debt up to $11 trillion. This national debt caused the Wall Street melt down, which caused millions of people to lose their jobs.

        Now, the sabre-rattling of the republicans toward the oil-rich middle-eastern countries (notably Iran), appear from my perspective to be far more dangerous than Obama's more conciliatory approach.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2012: Hm I'm thinking that your news source loses something when they translate the language.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2012: Allan, Just out of curosity .. have you conducted any research into any of this to verify.

          Just wondering. Bob.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2012: Bush was a President playing with a hot potato the whole time he was in office, not to say he doesn't deserve some of the credit for the crash but most of the policy's (sub-prime mortgage loans policy's) were actually created under Clinton and continued under Bush. Bush was handed 5.7 trillion dollars of debt and he created $4.5 trillion dollar of debt in two terms. Obama has added to this debt $6 trillion dollars and he is not even out of his first term yet. The US national debt stands at 16.2 trillion dollars. The senate has not passed a budget since Obama took office. The markets will continue to decline because of the new Health Care policy and some of us will be forced to go to part time. Obama has also extended the war in Afghanistan. But I didn't vote for either major party I keep my principles unlike Paul Ryan and voted for Gary Johnson.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2012: Obama did get handed a mess but he in my eyes has not made things better. The country is more divided now then it has ever been I just hope we can get out of these tough times before in crash on top of are head like Greece. I was surprised that the NDAA or the Affirmative Action were not covered in the media or the debates at all.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2012: I suspect that there is a great deal of difference in how American politics affects other countries in the world, as opposed to how American politics affects America.

        If you are only concerned about the introspective position of America only caring about what happens in America, then I could understand a predominance of republican values. But things are changing...

        I haven't done definitive research to support this, but I think the US is beginning to realise that there is a world out there, deeply affected by what happens in your political system (that's not meant to be a criticism!). Hence the increasing distaste for republican values and the rise in popularity of egalitarian, democratic values. In a country whose influence extends worldwide, democratic values are probably also the most important ones to those who are affected by it - and my opinions are no exception.
  • thumb
    Nov 11 2012: Pat,

    There is a question that goes hand in hand with yours. Why did the people who voted for Romney did it? I have not done any research on this matter, but based on what i have heard so far, it appears to me that a large proportion of the people who voted for Romney did it ony because they wanted to vote against Obama.

    As we can see below, there is a lot of arguments in this debate against the validity of that justification.

    Wasnt' the Republican discourse in the media during the campaign a mere mirror image of the democrat's (i.e. a negative portrayal of Obama)?

    As Ed Long has said in another conversation, it would be worth to try to get money (specifically externally funded advertisement) out of the political process.

    cheers
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2012: I don't know. For me it was strictly about debt. Not that Romney was really all that different as he created Romney care the forerunner to Obama care. Bottom line he at least had a plan to deal with the debt.

      Yes I think that Ed had a good point as some are saying that O had 100 million dollars of unanswered attack ads. Considering Romney lost Ohio by 100k votes and Fla by 70k votes Romney was in striking distance to win.

      But the bottom line is debt that if not handled will make everything else irrelevant.
      • Nov 17 2012: seems like revenue is an important part of debt reduction, but romney is unwilling to address this and most of his cohorts have signed inappropriate pledges to not restore taxes to pre bush rates. is this really a tax hike? the cuts never should have happened.
  • thumb
    Nov 10 2012: Americans should read "The Signal and The Noise, The Art of Science and Prediction" By Nate Silver. In one of his chapters he explains how all polls in 2008 had Obama leading yet pundits were saying it's too close to call and the lead up to this election had the polls fairly even and still the pundits were reticent, the only difference with this election is that Americans are feeling it in their pockets and want whether they know it or not a greater participation level in government than they have now.

    Your Galvanized but feel unheard, the fear of the cliff and what it might bring, might bring about Open Source or the opening stages of Open source government. So, if you guys fall off the cliff, it won't be the end but it will set it up for the climb back up and at least you will have forward motion again. How bad can it be?

    In elections it's always the majority that runs on Bias rather than common sense, so the Q to ask is, which party has continually shown itself as common sensical?
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2012: Some of us are galvanized some are not.

      One of O's big campaign promises was transparency I haven't noticed anything changed. If the U.S. falls off of the cliff the liberty of the world will go down. If China decides to take over South Korea or Japan they are going to get taken over . Even though the U.S. is scoffed at regarding foreign aid it does make a difference. If Iraq wants to take over Kuwait no one is going to push them back. If Iran gets nukes in the next 5 yr the only ones that will stop them is Israel which is supported by the U.S. Who shoulders the lions share of the war on terrorism? I'm not even sure if I agree as I may be getting more propaganda than truth but it will make a difference on world wide liberty.

      Who funds the lion share of the U.N.?

      Up until now the U.S. has raised the standard of living of the world more than any country in history because of the free market. Who will do that in the future?The biggest manufacturing country in the world is the U.S. by far. And don't say China because you would be wrong and China's numbers are highly dubious.

      The universal world language is English and universal currency is the dollar.

      If the country fails it will be like any other country without a rule of law, private property,. consumers, a work ethic, modern medicine, science, market competition. I would not bet on TED being here.

      I think it will be somewhat worse than the U.K. and some what better than the Eastern Bloc but who knows maybe it will be like Somalia. I think the areas that are the most inflated like Los Angeles and New York and D.C. will be the most ravaged by riots. As with Rome I betting that many of the citizens will be gone before the shit really hits the fan.

      Anyway I bet that the world will miss the U.S.? more than they realize?
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: Pat, If the states goes over the cliff, which the markets will be watching very closely this January, then regardless, it will go over the cliff, I wonder if someone will try to assassinate O like Lincoln? Who knows, You should come live here in nz, the white populace of my generation has gone Americana crazy, i suspect that they will start celebrating independence day soon since they have started celebrating Halloween,it's a alien tradition, a new thing that regardless has taken hold.

        If O is the agent of change then it might be a change that even he has no clue as to exactly how it will turn out, it could be exactly what you describe or it might not and yes the world will miss the States but it won't end and if the world goes belly up, it isn't going to matter to a small bunch of people on two little islands at the bottom of the world, We always knew we were alone.

        Personally i couldn't give a rats arse about the U.N

        No man sees all but there is a way. It would be for future generations or it might be here already, a med stat chip for everyone, there's a saying in the weather forecast world, "You would have to know where every molecule is at any given time to know exactly where and when it will rain" Even with todays tech and comp models that the forcasters have at their disposal, the saying still stands.

        If compromise can't be met then it's just a matter of time, Slash and burn doesn't work, our governments projections for our employment stats for the last quarter went from growth to 13% in the red and they can't understand why or they don't want to see it which is the usual case with us humans. We're like your country, a service based society.
  • Nov 8 2012: Romney is a liar. He stands for the same trickle-down economics that put us in this position in the first place.

    Romney refused to release his tax returns.

    Romney is anti-women, anti-homosexuals, and anti-the same poor people that he helped make poor by virtue of his support of outsourcing.

    Rommey says one thing to one group and the opposite to another. I want honesty in government.

    Granted Obama isn't the most honest person, but he isn't as cruel as Republicans have become since the 2000 election. When Republicans stop being the party of hate and begin standing for more than just white men and tea party theocrats, I'll be back. Till then, I vote for the one who will represent the whole country, not just the declining white, christian base.

    I don't think that this election would cause change even if Romney were elected. Remember, Romney invented Obamacare. As for his saying that states should handle it, do you really expect states like Wyoming - with a population less than a single us city - to be able to negotiate wholesale prices that a larger group gets?
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: and that was your reason to vote for obama? because that was the question.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: I think the answer made sense. Candy voted for Obama because he was the lesser of two evils and because Democrats are not cruel, racist, homophobic, misogynists.

        Is rudeness a Hungarian value? It is possible to make a point with civility. Is there a reason why you are unable to understand the answers as answers to the question asked?
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: yes, it is hungarian value. we hungarians are all the same. we don't have that thing called "personality" like you in the US. we are barely humans. better to just refer to us as hungarians.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: Still, I love your bogrács.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: bogrács is just a bowl. we make different things in it. maybe you like gulyás?
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: Mmm Goulash (8^(l)

          btw you should learn to spell it correctly and what the hell is a bogracs?
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: Wow, all the years I have lived in a sweet ignorance of the meaning of bogrács. Of course what I meant was probably gulyás, but I swear to God, last time I was in your country the menu featured a dish called bogrács. It was a one-pot dish, extra spicy and with excellent meet.

          I don't know if Hungarians are barely humans or not, but I'd rather spent time with these savages eating gulyás, than civilized and tolerant citizens eating burgers.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: the confusion might stem from the usual term "bogrács gulyás" which originally meant gulyás made in bogrács (=cauldron). now it means more like "rich" version having lotsa meat and stuff, as opposed to a thin soup that can be eaten before the main course.

          it is funny that the stolen picture lady gets email notifications of all these :)
        • thumb

          . . 100+

          • +1
          Nov 8 2012: Reading all your writings made me laugh so hard that I splattered my water out on my monitor.. especially after I learned that Gulyás = a Hungarian cattle-herdsman.

          Krisztián, we love Hungarian Gulyás... and look forward to having it every time....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009-09-gulasch-pörkölt-paprikas-3.jpg

          Plus one of the best people in the world who touched my life more than anyone else, was my professor Dr. George Szabó, a Hungarian-American !! ( as He also enhanced that of forty generations of students at Harvard Medical School ). And I wish every student would have one teacher like him.
        • Nov 8 2012: "Candy voted for Obama because he was the lesser of two evils and because Democrats are not cruel, racist, homophobic, misogynists."

          They're also not anti-science, not theocrats and not anti-reality.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2012: People! Stop labeling. The truth is that none of them is better than the other. Being homofobic, racist, anti-science and so on will soon be of no importance at all.

          here: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
        • Nov 8 2012: @John Smith: "They're also not anti-science, not theocrats and not anti-reality."

          Wrong, right, and wrong.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6hWK7BnngE
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: thanks for the explanation.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Thank you for your honest answer Candy.

      Is there any single event that symbolizes your feelings?
  • thumb
    Nov 8 2012: That's part of it. Workers are being asked to do more with less. Their money doesn't go as far. They are being given less and less recognition. The benefits that attracted them are slowly eroding. And the worker is getting more than annoyed by it all.

    Romney said he was going to give tax breaks to those who create jobs. But he didn't say why jobs are being lost. All of Borders book stores went out of business because of E-books. Fewer people are buying books. Fewer books are being printed. Book printing companies will have to scale back to stay in business. E-book readers were a good sale, at the cost of many existing jobs, a net loss.

    Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowes came into the area. Local department stores, hardware stores, and general stores all went out of business. As jobs were created, jobs were lost. It was a wash, no gain there.

    Internet sales are reducing local sales. As internet sales increase, local sales decrease. Start a new business, lose an existing business. No gain there.

    Automated cashiers are showing up at many stores. One cashier overseer can do the work of four. Jobs were created to make automated cash registers. Cashier jobs were lost in the process. No gain there.

    Many housing projects were started. Our community is saturated with condos and a workforce that can't afford them. Many are unoccupied and will remain that way.

    The cost of oil went up. No one seems to have a good answer why. But it is squeezing the budget of the workforce which keeps businesses active. Romney didn't have an answer, and he criticized Obama's green energy policy.

    If Romney had a vision for what kind of jobs he would try to promote and how this would help America, I might have thought different. But I didn't see it. I couldn't see his plan working. Create new jobs, lose existing jobs, doesn't work. I could only see the bean counters getting rich and the workers all paying for it.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Thank you Roy that is a real answer and why I asked the question.

      FWIW a better standard of living for all requires doing things more efficiently, the average Joe today lives better than a king from yesteryear. This displaces people a newspaper writer, a printer, and many skills that were valuable in the past. The apparency is a degrading of people but you have to look at the upside and the lifting of the standard of living for the majority.

      I think you are right in that Romney did not communicate this adequately, but I can assure you that as one who has been though decades of back breaking, gut wrenching, effort that Romney did know what he is talking about, but as you say did not communicate it well.

      Regarding Oil the question always comes up regarding peak oil, the market will find a way, even though it is much maligned fracking is one example of how it will work out. As the price of energy goes up alternatives become profitable.
  • thumb
    Nov 8 2012: I see Obama as leading us to increasing debt, but he seems to care for the work force. When this country was founded, inventors built an infrastructure that benefitted all. They built railroads to move people and products. They improved agriculture. They built textile mills. They built the oil industry. They built the auto industry and roads. They built the electric grid. Sure they benefitted with huge profits, but they were the inventors.

    Today I see a major shift. An individual improves a product, and if he/she works for a company, the patents are the rights of the company and the inventor sees no gain. There is growing animosity by workers who see no personal gain from their efforts. A recent company hired a new CEO to improve the company. The CEO consolidated several companies into one and ELIMINATED all non-essential jobs. He gave the workers a 6% raise over three years which doesn't keep up with the cost of living. He also eliminated several benefits that the company was providing because it wasn't profitable to the investors. Then he had the gaul to request the workers to do more because they were being paid more as if he had done them a favor, as he voted himself a huge bonus. If the workers had a choice, they would've all walked out. But they still need to feed their families, so they bit their tongue and kept working.

    The reason that the United States won the space race isn't because United States is better. It is because the Russian engineers who put Russia in space first were not recognized by their government. They became disillusioned and stopped being cooperative. Rather than giving 110%, they resolved to do what they needed to do to earn a paycheck (taken from Air and Space magazine). I see the same thing happening here. Investors don't lift a finger to improve products, the workers do. But the investors walk away with all the booty. And I don't see Romney changing that in the least.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2012: Thanks Roy

      I understand you to be saying that the reason you voted this way was the perception that investors squeeze a buck real hard and make 2 out of it at the expense of the worker.

      Is that correct?
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2012: You paint it, Pat, like it is the end of the world, or like it is the only moronic government in this world, whereas I can assure you it is not.
    • thumb
      Nov 7 2012: Did you vote for Obama?
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2012: No, I am not a US citizen. But you can treat my voice as an objective one.
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2012: Objective perhaps, but not germane. The question does not say one single word either positive or negative, so why do you say it "paints the end of the world"? Strike 1.
          Nor does the question say one single word that would indicate the US government is "the only moronic government". Strike 2. The question is unmistakably addressed to those who voted for Obama, you didn't. Strike 3. You're out!
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2012: Easy, I just wanted to chat, don't take it so seriously.

        I know pat gilbert through his posts here on TED and I know more or less what he feels now, when Obama has won the second term.
  • Nov 17 2012: didn't see any reason to vote for more tax cuts for the rich. the economy was losing jobs when bush left office,it seems like it was time to try something different. why should tax rates be lower for the rich when the reason for the cuts was bogus? the 98% put more into the economy.get their income in line with the 2% instead of parking fortunes off shore, this might help the economy. google patriotic millionaires.
  • thumb
    Nov 14 2012: the President did what he said he would do during his campaign

    4 years is NOT enough time to determine the benefits of the administrations efforts considering the immensity of the crisis,

    no viable alternative,

    the ethno-socio-economic makeup of the people at the Republican Convention...(giggle)
    • thumb
      Nov 14 2012: I assume you voted for Obama. It looks like your reasons were to give him enough time and that there was no viable alternative.

      Is there any single event that symbolizes your feelings?
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2012: Good assumption since your question is specifically directed at those who voted for him

        There is no "single" event that symbolizes my feelings anymore than there is any single issue that prompts my vote...

        but if we use President Obama's overall response, to avoid the crisis spiraling farther out control than it already had, as a single event then, .
        keeping the banking system, auto industries and insurance industries from failing together would help symbolize my feelings...wether one agrees with his methods or not, the fact that he chose to save these industries instead of allowing them to fail, as his opponent indicated he would have, shows me President Obama is not an acolyte of "Disaster Capitalism".......and for that alone deserving of my vote and continued support.
  • Nov 11 2012: more evolved
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2012: Yes clearly.
      • Nov 11 2012: Man!! A picture of Obama for your profile? That was a true WT* moment for me :-)
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: Hey if you can't beat them... drop all integrity, intelligence, and what you know is true, and join them
  • thumb
    Nov 10 2012: Hi Pat,

    I did not vote for Obama. But I didn't vote for Romney either. As a matter of fact I could have not voted for any of them because for some people, more than a decade of paying taxes is not enough to have the right to vote.

    But not that i think too highly of voting anyway. Candidates are products for sale, and advertisement works its magic on people. This election was no different from previous ones.

    But i am curious. I do not agree with many policies of Obama, but i fail to see how things have changed from last year or will change in the next years. What exactly is this change of direction of the United States forever? where do you see it going now, and how is it that this election changed it so drastically?

    cheers
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2012: Why does immigration take so long?

      The long of it and the short of it is debt. O increased it by 6 trillion in less than 4 years. And the lions share of it will not come until Ocare kicks in. The problem with a service that is give for free is that the demand skyrockets which means that it will cost a lot. Not that Bush was much better about the same in 8 years.

      Additionally Frank Dodd has not kicked in yet. it will handcuff the economy further. To give you an idea Sarbanes Oxley is estimated to cost the economy 1.5 trillion dollars per year, if anything Frank Dodd will be worst. You may not know but Franks and Dodd along with Greenspan were the most culpable individuals for the housing meltdown. Both of them have retired as they know they can't get reelected. The main problem with this that business investment goes on a I-hate-us with this much uncertainty.

      O is going to raise taxes which further exacerbates the situation as there will be even less incentive to make a profit. and the tax revenue will decrease.

      Additionally O does not have to worry about reelection so he will now not hold back on his agenda.

      The most important thing is that the culture has changed from what was a free market culture to one of socialism and entitlement. The reason the U.S. was successful is the culture. When you look at the Europeans what is uppermost on their minds is holiday and the envy of the world the English healthcare. And they are in worst shape than the U.S. because of this culture. What is amazing is that this has happened so quickly.

      These two videos sum it up:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EW5IdwltaAc

      http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: Hi Pat,

        On immigration, my own guess is that because immigration law has changed little in decades, and with the exception of George Bush II (whom i did not support much but i have to recognize his positives too), and the McCain-Kennedy effort, nobody has taken immigration seriously in the legislature (speeches do very little to change the law)

        Debt i agree is the key issue (which some could interpret as to mean money is the issue, after all, money is debt, right?, well, let me get back on track, I know you mean government debt)

        I take issue when you imply that all government debt goes out to become free services for lazy people. Let's for a moment forget the fact that i don't yet buy the principle that completely deregulated business make an economy thrive and focus just on where this insane debt comes from.

        Do you think we would be in this levels of debt if there had been no war with Iraq or Afghanistan? Just like i don't buy the government explanation that we need to intervene every industry to revive it (a point with which i am sure you will agree), i also don't buy the government explanation that these wars were needed

        Trillions went there and disappeared in the hands of the military industry. Isn't that another way of the government using public funds to "intervene" an industry?

        People say: "the market likes this or that policy", "the market reacted as you can see in the DOW today". Who is this "the market"? quite moody "individual" isn't it? i venture to say that this "market" is composed principally of a small percentage of wealthy individuals. Am i wrong?

        I'll watch the videos you suggested and will get back with my comments

        cheers
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: My point is that the government has created a culture of entitlement this is very observable here and the U.K. You came here to raise your standard of living as 99% of us or our ancestors did. The reason for this higher standard of living is the free market as explained in the video by Nail Ferguson.

          You do have to have some regulations but that point was reached decades ago.

          No question that the military industrial complex is a form of crony capitalism. On the other hand do you propose that we do nothing after 3000 people are killed on our own land?

          The market is individuals and groups. Money by definition is confidence, in other words you are confident that a piece of paper will be accepted by someone else. People have more confidence in gold than they do dollars. In reality the stock market is an index of confidence.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: Hi Pat,

        Seminoles also saw their standard of living raise from that of their ancestors, and it was not because of unregulated free markets

        I am not disputing your point. Entitlement, taken for what it means (the perception that something is deserved without any effort) is something i do not agree with

        But as usual, the devil is in the details

        If i pay social security for 20 years and i retire. Am I entitled to receive social security payments? is that a correct use of the word entitlement?

        If i am a pharmaceutical business that makes good money out of selling my products... am i entitled to receive government grants to fund my research?

        How about tax breaks for oil companies... are they entitled to receive those?

        So the question is who deserves to get tax money and who defines the criteria under which that money is deserved. Deserved as in work for it. When somebody works to get the money they get i do not call it entitlement

        I am sure we can debate the video extensively. I will only say that i don't buy much of what Ferguson portrays as the explanations. They sound much more than justifications for the status quo

        Regarding the military I would say that the response to 9/11 was both disproportionate and misdirected (did Iraq have anything to do?) Threats are vastly exaggerated, which leads me to suspect that the government sees the need to convince it's people of spending money where they might not spend it otherwise

        I was not disputing the confidence definition of the stock market. But the confidence of who? Most of the money invested in stock is owned by a minority, and the remaining small fraction owned by common individuals doesn't really reflect their confidence in the specific industries where they stock is invested (few actually know or decide precisely where it goes)

        So i still contend that the reactions of the stock market usually reflect the confidence of a minority of wealthy individuals regarding their expected returns

        cheers
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: The Seminoles standard living was unchanged since they became the Seminoles. Their standard of living only changed when they started playing football.

          Social Security is not an entitlement in that most people will pay more into it than they get out of it. It is 15% of anyone's salary which is immediately put into the general fund thanks to LBJ

          Pharma and the Oil companies are called subsidies and they are crony capitalism. Although I think you are assuming that they get more they do. Especially considering the risk involved.

          Entitlement refers to the stuff that is given away for free like WIC, Section 8 housing, free medical care, etc.

          Regarding Ferguson you have got to be kidding, I will agree to disagree

          Regarding the military could be

          Mostly the stock market is regular peoples retirement funds.

          The main point though is the debt in the other video.

          One other point right now the Feds pay 250 billion a year on interest of the debt. Normally the interest rate is around 5% when that happens the Fed will spend 750 billion on just the interest of the debt. That will happen overnight that means instantly almost half of the annual revenue will go to interest on the debt. Zimbabwe here we come
      • Nov 11 2012: Can't argue with the chart, but would like to point out there are imbalances in tax revenues the correction of which would change much. also waste in all areas changes the bottom line.Would like to see these charts with these changes.Bottom line both sides of this equation are wrong - income can rightly be more and cost can be less without hurting anyone.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2012: The math does not work for your premise. Do you have any facts?
  • thumb
    Nov 9 2012: I think this article says a lot about what went wrong for the GOP

    http://www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x303007583/CHARLES-KRAUTHAMMER-Republicans-and-the-way-forward
    • Nov 10 2012: No, he gets it exactly wrong:

      "They [hispanics] should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example)."

      It is exactly this infusion of religion into politics that is driving people away from the republican party, women, young people, Asian Americans, scientists, gay people, atheists, all groups who have been alienated by the republican pandering to the batsh*t crazy American Taliban, aka, the evangelical movement. Most Americans don't want the United States to be an evangelical version of Iran, not even the increasingly secular hispanics. There was a time when the republican party was about fiscal conservatism (including keeping military spending within limits), not theocracy and playing santa claus for the rich and major corporations.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: You are not from the U.S. right?

        Most Hispanics are Catholic. As usual what the hell are you talking about.
        • Nov 10 2012: "Most Hispanics are Catholic."

          Lol, so are most Germans and Belgians, at least according to the baptism administration of the catholic church, of course most of these people haven't been to a church since they were kids... American hispanics may be a bit more religious than that but their young people stop caring about things like abortion, gay marriage, catholic dogma and even religion itself more and more, as is the general trend in America, following a similar trend in Europe where it started decades ago.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: I don't know where or who you are, you hide behind pseudonym and are a troll. Since I'm for real and live close to the border in the U.S. which you are not even in the U.S. I'm thinking that have a better take on this than you, what do ya think?
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2012: You know what Pat? I was just thinking, if china takes Korea and Japan then instead of defending them, Why not open your borders to them enmasse, Ask them to bring all their gold and resources while fighting a fall back stepped action, The states educational gdp level will rise by a tenfold as well as swell your financial system with much needed input, Kangnam style, You guys helped them once and instead of losing lives for someone else with no return, they on the other hand will flourish the States, What's half a billion people soon as opposed to half a billion in the future?

      Business will rock n roll, the only thing that will offend you guys is our innate racism levels that we all have will kick in but that will change as integration takes place over the generations.

      Surprisingly the planet is fracturing, where once you had a perception of countries as a whole unit the reality is that we are becoming more divided, you might not agree with it but more and more these days it's cracking down to the tribal level.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: It always has been smaller groups the problems begin when the small groups are subjugated to a central authority we call this federalism.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: I come from a small group that in itself is made up of several small groups, a small town that paid bad contractors to build a crappy sewage recycling plant that went billions in the red from incompetent management, that's the best way to describe us.

          I think we are becoming more federal, it certainly looks like it.

          Do you think that if the republican element goes for continued gridlock, will it force O out? and if yes then who is the right man for the job of fielding the parties line?
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: I think I wasn't clear federalism means shared control of the states and the federal government.

        The problem is that at the federal level there is much lower level of accountability, your sewage recycling plant on steroids.

        No O is here for the duration. Yes gridlock is vital. The right man imo would be Marco Rubio because of his popularity with the Hispanics and he is a good dude..
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: 4.6 million people owing about 67 billion = your 16 trillion, We're supposed to hand over surplus to the future gens not the other way round. It's off the top of my head but it's still too much.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: By my math (which is often wrong) the per capita debt of the U.S. is around $53,000 New Zealand is about 14,500.

        The question is how manageable is the debt what percentage of the revenue does it take to service the debt? Here it could easily be 30% overnight which means either cut a ton of stuff or inflate.

        From the obvious danger here I wonder sometimes if O is being pushed to do this by George Soros who historically makes money by selling short and destroying economies. It is purported that he is the most frequent visitor to the white house.

        Another idea I heard was a push towards a world wide currency that would bail out the entire world. I'm not much on conspiracy but there is more to this story.

        Watch this from about 4 minutes on:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xam_0AJVplo&feature=related
    • Nov 11 2012: where do tolerance and compromise fit in here? Most people know that compromise is not a dirty word.Could that hurt the republican party?
  • Nov 9 2012: @John Frum

    Nice little libertarian video you have there but name me one democratic lawmaker, (vice) president or cabinet member in the last 15 (so Clinton gets included too) years who was against vaccines. Also, being against fracking and nuclear energy are not anti-science stances: nobody on the left denies nuclear energy or fracking work, they are merely against those things because they fear the stuff that happens when a nuclear reactor melts down (which we know can happen because it has happened) and the environmental impact of fracking (which is severe and wholly established by the scientific community). The guy in the video also incorrectly states that Bill Maher is against vaccines, even though Bill Maher wrote a whole story about vaccines on the Huffington Post where he states he isn't against a vaccine for polio, he just thinks it's overreacting when healthy, young people get themselves vaccinated for the flu at great monetary expense.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2012: you are right. being against nuclear is not antiscientific. it is just unscientific. one can be an advocate of the scientific approach, yet not educated enough to understand why anti nuclear statements are false.
      • Nov 9 2012: Tell that to the people from Fukushima and Chernobyl... the designs always look good on paper, until corners are cut by the contractors and bribes are paid to inspectors... All the supposedly scientific probability estimates only look at single, separate, very rare (which makes it very hard to estimate their frequency) events (so not at what happens when you have an earthquake that causes a tsunami, or a terrorist who takes advantage of a natural disaster), nor do they take into account human error and corruption. This is not to say that nuclear energy should never be an option, especially when the only alternative is coal (which generally isn't the case), but to say it is "unscientific" to worry about nuclear energy is just nonsense.

        @below

        "chernobyl was a man made event"

        Which was precisely my point: nuclear reactors are not foolproof.

        "fukushima caused minor problems only, the biggest of them is the evacuation of a nearby town. deathtoll is 2."

        Many more people will get cancer (at the very least the 50 volunteers who secured the reactors when radiation levels were still way too high) in the end and large swaths of land have now become unusable to humanity for decades to come, that's land that humanity can't use to house people, grow food on or draw drinking water from anymore.

        In the US there are many reactors of the same type and age as the reactors in Fukushima, some are even older, many lie on faultlines or downstream of dams. Many whistleblowers have come out against corruption and neglicience among American and Japanese nuclear authorities. The American authorities are relaxing their regulations for economic reasons. Relatively small investments (in the several billion dollar range) could dramatically decrease risks to all American nuclear reactors, but it's just not happening. Human error indeed.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: thanks for the novel and unforeseen answer. i also noticed that most people that lack knowledge are in fact not dumb or simply weren't exposed to information, but rather they actively reject information.

          so let us quickly recite what was told numerous times already. chernobyl was a man made event in a badly designed rector we don't use anymore.

          fukushima caused minor problems only, the biggest of them is the evacuation of a nearby town. deathtoll is 2.

          that is the nature of unscientific arguments. appeal to emotions, lack of numbers, lack of facts, lack of probabilities for events, disregard of past events, etc.

          this anti nuclear sentiment is as harmful as disturbing, but above all, boring.
    • Nov 11 2012: I saw this comment addressed to me 2 days later.
      "name me one democratic lawmaker ... who was against vaccines."
      Does Obama count? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/dr_obama_and_dr_mccain.html
      Bill Maher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPrLCIoxe8Y and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy,_Jr. were mentioned in the video.

      "nobody on the left denies nuclear energy or fracking work, they are merely against those things because they fear the stuff that happens when a nuclear reactor melts down"
      There are ways to ensure safety with both. Why not deal with it rationally, and calmly instead of calling for an outright ban, just because some out-dated reactor malfunctioned? What about liquid thorium reactors, that need closer attention to keep running? Any lack of attention will just shut them down safely. Calling for outright bans is anti-science.

      "until corners are cut by the contractors and bribes are paid to inspectors."
      If there is corruption and negligence, let's deal with the corruption and negligence! Roads and bridges have this problem too. Are you anti-bridge now?
  • thumb
    Nov 9 2012: This video is 5 minutes long and succinctly explains the only real problem.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EW5IdwltaAc
  • thumb
    Nov 9 2012: I really think what the problem with the republican ticket was their social conservative view which is just out touch these days. That absolutely killed a lot of the voting groups such as Latinos, women, and young voters. I think if they were a little bit more socially liberal and stay fiscally republican conservative then they might of actually won. The GOP put a bad taste in my mouth seeing what happened down at the convention with Ron Paul and his delegates.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2012: Shelby

      The only word I can use regarding this is stunned. I too am a Libertarian but Johnson did not have a chance, even though what he has done as governor, is exactly what I'm looking for. I chose to vote for the lesser of two evils.

      What stuns me is that the voters put social issues above financial issues. In my mind the debt is a roaring forest fire and the social issues are a camp fire. Half of the people agree with me half don't. So we are in exactly the same position as 4 years ago with 6 trillion more in debt. Now that he does not have any reelection concerns O is not going to worry abut anything but his agenda. Hopefully we can have gridlock until he is done and government can function as intended with a balance of power.

      But no matter the disposition it always boils down to finance. He is going to be forced to inflate as is occurring now. When a company goes bankrupt it is out of money when a country runs out of money it collapses and it collapses suddenly, I wonder how important those social issues will be when anarchy rains?

      I wonder how many that voted for O could answer the questions the Krisztian linked below? I think that what occurred was reason verses emotion. I think that we need to educate the constituents about rudimentary economics as what appears to be going on is "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance."