U.S. 2012 Election: Obama Wins!

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

YEP! , I mean hows about forgetting about Money (capitalisim ) and get back to the basics , Hunting and Gathering .
Brian.

Originally Posted by Larryp

I have no idea what you mean, but I think we should agree to disagree and leave it at that

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by brian nordstrom

YEP! , I mean hows about forgetting about Money (capitalisim ) and get back to the basics , Hunting and Gathering .
Brian.

I don't think I would make a good hunter/gatherer at my age, Brian!

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

My 3 son's , 1 daughter , 4 grand kids will look after me ok , I think ..( 3 hunter's and 1 gatherer with 4 helpers , nice ) .
Brian.

Originally Posted by Larryp

I don't think I would make a good hunter/gatherer at my age, Brian!

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Close result. Boils down to Obama won but 48% of the people don't want him

So? Here in Oz over 50% of the voters did not want a Labor government but we still got landed with one.

Obama got over 50% of the popular vote. You can win a presidential election with a lot less than that. In essence you need to win the large states to get 270 electoral college votes as most states are winner takes all.

[LewisM]

Same situation in the USA as it is here - the opposition is worse than the powers that be, so what choice do you have?

Honestly, if there was an election here tomorrow, I have NO clue who I would BOTHER to vote for! All as worthless as each other.

The USA will eventually sort itself out again. We will too

[LewisM]

There are good and bad points to every political system/type. NONE is perfect - if it were, we'd all strive for that Utopia (oh dear, I hear Karl Marx rolling over in his grave, murmuring...)

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again, irrespective of what cherry picking issues and problems may suggest, overall guys, our quality of life in Australia is the best in the World and is projected to be so for decades to come and much better than the US.

Look Here

Look here to understand the Human Development Index

So whether we are being headed up by a ghastly Fabian or a failed Catholic Priest who can't string too words together, in a global sense we should be alright for some time to come

[PCH (Paul)]

Too right Mike. I'm from pommieland originally, and I weep at the way it's going.

This recent report of the best places to live in the world have 4 aussie cities in the top ten. No US cities made it, although a couple of Canadian ones did.
The research is based on all sorts of liveability factors including jobs/cost of living/crime/amenities and more...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/...?frame=2311083

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

So whether we are being headed up by a ghastly Fabian or a failed Catholic Priest who can't string too words together, in a global sense we should be alright for some time to come

Hope so. We've still go it pretty good here.

We need to cut down on our civil servants though and gvt size, whichever side it will be and start manufacturing and producing. We have all the raw materials and the brains to do it. I've always been amazed at the amount of smart scientists and ground breaking discoveries that originated in Australia. Must be the worries free layback life style.

The US election was pretty close. Not many states voted Obama in if you look at the map. I guess the american 'outback' was in favour of Romney but the cities and more densely populated areas for Obama. I think Sandy helped Obama too as he did the right thing and was on the ground straight away. Romney wasn't.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

I'm a political agnostic with socially moderate, somewhat libertarian view, a positive view of capitalism and markets (working in financial markets), but a recognition that government has an important practical role. Now that places me more or less in the middle, however I can see that there are reasonable positions well on either side of me, BUT...

Watching this election (and our own political machinations) I can't get over the degree to which many people accept the rhetoric of both sides despite it being totally at odds with their actual behaviour.

For example, the Republicans go on and on about small government (which I think is no bad thing), however this bears no relationship to their practical policies. They promote huge government - enormous military, a security state with astonishing powers of arrest and detention, a police state feeding off an unwinnable war on drugs and endless middle-class welfare.

On the other side, the Democrats go on and on about 'nice things' (most of which I agree with), but again this doesn't seem to mean anything in practice. Guantanamo Bay is still there, they're not getting out of any wars, there is no real attempt to stop corporate interests controlling the political process and offshore extrajudicial killings are regarded as fine.

We have the same thing here. There is a rhetorical orthodoxy that the Liberals are the hard-nosed party of economic rationalism and Labour is the party of social responsibility, but I can't see any evidence in policy implementation that either has actually been the case for a very long time.

Oh well.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by PCH

Too right Mike. I'm from pommieland originally, and I weep at the way it's going.

This recent report of the best places to live in the world have 4 aussie cities in the top ten. No US cities made it, although a couple of Canadian ones did.
The research is based on all sorts of liveability factors including jobs/cost of living/crime/amenities and more...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/...?frame=2311083

Egggs..actly

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

... a police state feeding off an unwinnable war on drugs ...

Interestingly there were a few states which had referenda on different forms of legalisation of marijuana. Most of them seem to have got over 50% support, but that might not be enough to get them enacted.

The only way to win the drug war is legalise some form of access, eg on prescription. At one sweep you remove the profits from the drug cartels and introduce quality control.

[rat156]

Since when have political discussions been allowed on IIS?

I should start up a religious one and see whether he hypocrisy extends that far...

Dismayed
Suart

[iceman (Mike)]

Come on Stuart.

I've already deleted some posts that were inappropriate from this thread.

If people keep it civil it can stay. When it starts getting attacking, personal or inappropriate, it goes.

Can't get much fairer than that.

[rat156]

Hi Mike,

Just pointing out that it's a bit hypocritical to have a TOS which states...

Please avoid topics about global warming, race, politics or religion. These can be very sensitive topics, and people are usually very polarised about these issues; it can be very easy to take things the wrong way, creating arguments. Threads about these topics often end badly - usually being locked, with posts being deleted, or with people being upset.

and then to allow one which has had, by your own admission, some inappropriate posts.

Particularly when you and the mods jump on other topics like a flash. I dunno, I suppose I just expect that if you make the rules then you abide by them.

I don't mind, it means that I can revisit some old threads if you allow rational discussion of controversial topics now and just delete the rants and ravings of the irrational few. I think I may have even suggested this to you in an email a couple of years ago as a fair way of controlling threads which spiral out of control.

Well done.

Cheers
Stuart

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Stuart
The TOS does not state that all threads about politics will be deleted. It simply asks that we avoid this as a topic. I we users choose to start up a political thread, then as long everyone is civil, and the "ranting" and name calling is avoided, all is good.
But the TOS gives fair warning that discussion will be monitored and inappropriate posts deleted and threads spiralling into bad territory will be locked.
Apart from at least 1 obviously offensive post ( I may have missed others before they were deleted) the discussion in this thread has been pretty civil, so why not let it go on.
Mike and the mods can't win, they get slammed for locking threads and deleting post, then cop when they don't.

Malcolm

[xstream (John)]

Originally Posted by barx1963

Mike and the mods can't win, they get slammed for locking threads and deleting post, then cop when they don't.

Amen,

ex-mod.

[JB80 (Jarrod)]

I don't disagree with anything you have said there to be honest and the extra funding given to the private sector can only be a positive thing but I don't feel it should be at the expense of NASA funding.

And I agree that there are other areas that need to be sorted out as well but I don't feel they need to touch NASA in the process barring massively increasing the budget. The amount that is spent on NASA is minuscule, they spend more money on air conditioning tents in Iraq and Afghanistan per year than the entire NASA budget, imagine what they could do if it was funded correctly.

It's just something I feel strongly about even though not being a US citizen NASA cuts do have global implications both fiscally and inspirationally.

Phill Plait has the best of it really.... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-budget-again/
He is amongst a few vocal supporters and there a loads of articles on badastronomy that are worth a read.

In short they should of left NASA alone.

Originally Posted by brian nordstrom

Will we see the 'Cola / Westpac " banners on the next generation of space flights ? this probably will be the only way its gonna happen , using NASA's expertise in these things . .
There are a lot of experienced people out there worried , as you guys say .
The way of the future , sorry to say .
USA 's gotta sort its Health / Poor / Housing / Enviroment / Military , ( eg. people ) ... the list goes on and on and on first .
Brian.

edit: Well as I was typing.....
http://www.space.com/18380-nasa-moon...-election.html

I hope it's not just speculation.

[rat156]

Mike and the mods can't win, they get slammed for locking threads and deleting post, then cop when they don't.

No, they can actually. If the rules are applied equally and fairly across all topics then there can be no complaints.

I have started threads in the past (not in one of the areas which are advised against) with a plea for people to keep on topic and keep civil. A few inflammatory posts later by individuals who don't want that particular topic discussed, thread closed or worse still thread removed never to be seen again.

I have joined other people's discussions, we have been debating various topics, again someone (usually from outside the core of people contributing to the discussion) posts some name calling etc, thread locked etc.

Now, it seems, that Mike and the mods are going to just delete the offending posts, an action that I applaud as long as, again, it's applied fairly.

So that's a win for free speech and, eventually, a win for the mods and Mike.

Cheers
Stuart

[TrevorW]

Too true, agree, remove the offending posts but keep the topic alive, moderation is just that.