Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Semantics... a distinction without a difference. If you get none of what you want, and a lot of what you don't, the packaging is immaterial.

If the differences are so de minimus and don't affect you, the use of gas and time expended to get to the polls is irrational.

While you may well be as correct as the author, it IS a different thing you suggest is also rational. The author contends that, when voting, it is rational to be ill-informed; you contend that, when well-informed, it is rational to not vote. They may both be true and may be an extension of each other, but they are distinct points.

[Adder]

[i]Originally posted by It is next to impossible to determine how many voters "misunderstand" political information and to what extent they do. The assumptions built into such a study are challenging no doubt, and interesting, but hopelessly academic.

I suspect they are not hopelessly impossible, but admit that they may be beyond the discourse here.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Semantics... a distinction without a difference. If you get none of what you want, and a lot of what you don't, the packaging is immaterial.

If the differences are so de minimus and don't affect you, the use of gas and time expended to get to the polls is irrational.

In the universe of the authors, it is not mere semantics. there is a real difference from a logical point of view between you vote not counting and your choices lacking meaningful distinctions. And, again, if you vote "matter" even de minimus difference are reason enough to vote. Thw distinction is next to no cost to you (e.g. gas to get to the polls) against no cost to you at all.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
de minimus

Argh. The ablative of minimus is minimis

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
In the universe of the authors, it is not mere semantics. there is a real difference from a logical point of view between you vote not counting and your choices lacking meaningful distinctions. And, again, if you vote "matter" even de minimus difference are reason enough to vote. Thw distinction is next to no cost to you (e.g. gas to get to the polls) against no cost to you at all.

Thank you for fleshing my point out for me.

Take off the lawyer hat for a second and, though this may blow your mind, assume I am allowed in this forum to expand the author's point to a broader commentary, which I did.

The result in either situation is identical. Your technical distinction is exactly that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
While you may well be as correct as the author, it IS a different thing you suggest is also rational. The author contends that, when voting, it is rational to be ill-informed; you contend that, when well-informed, it is rational to not vote. They may both be true and may be an extension of each other, but they are distinct points.

I contend primarily that when well informed, one cannot reach any conclusion other than that he would receive nearly identically unsatisfactory results from either party, and therefore, not voting is rational.

I also agree that when ill-informed, a category into which almost everyone falls in re politics given the inherent dishonesty and vacant soundbite nature of the information provided in the process, not voting is also rational. But it's an accidental exercise of rational behavior, which I guess would have to be retitled "good luck," in that you were lucky enough to not have wasted an hour of your day engaged in something futile.

[sgtclub]

• The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”
  

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007230155,00.html

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”
  

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007230155,00.html

Daltry... Daltry.

Townsend's always had my proxy in describing the difference between elected "bosses." Nice to see Roger has a brain as well.

[Shape Shifter]

http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html

[Gattigap]

I wouldn't have guessed it, and it's still early, yet he does.

Romney's penchant for pretty dramatic flip-flopping and pandering to whoever's holding the microphone has been exhaustively documented already, and while I found it disturbing, I guess I've got to consider the fact that many (likely Republican primary voters) don't. Perhaps, as Yglesias speculates, it has something to do with whether the newly-flopped position is something with which you already substantively agree anyway. If so, then maybe you see it less as "pandering," and more as "seeing the light."

Gattigap

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I don't know much about the new immigration deal. Mark Kleiman says:

• The Republicans' cynicism is showing. They seem to have held out for "guest-workers" as the one piece they wouldn't budge on. That's the piece that's most advantageous to exploitative employers, and most disadvantageous to low-skilled U.S. workers. And it creates a pool of potential new "illegals": some people will overstay their guest-worker visas who wouldn't have risked crossing the border illegally. At the same time, the absurdly long citizenship process for the newly-regularized immigrants does nothing to reduce their labor-market or social impact, but it does a lot to protect Republicans' partisan interest in not creating new Latino voters.

linkyu

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, any bets on when Golzales is Gonzo?

Specter said yesterday he'd soon be gone, but the Pres. has now weighed in defending him again - how many times does he get to sign this refrain?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, any bets on when Golzales is Gonzo?

Specter said yesterday he'd soon be gone, but the Pres. has now weighed in defending him again - how many times does he get to sign this refrain?

Depends on how important W views the DOJ.


George Will: Gonzales can stay on as attorney general just as long as “you’re indifferent to the damage done to one of the most important departments in our government.”

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguest..._monday_may_21

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Depends on how important W views the DOJ.


George Will: Gonzales can stay on as attorney general just as long as “you’re indifferent to the damage done to one of the most important departments in our government.”

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguest..._monday_may_21

Isn't W just glad people are talking about something other than Iraq?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Isn't W just glad people are talking about something other than Iraq?

Has Giuliani voiced an opinion on the Gonzales Justice Department?

eta: I see that before Gonzales testified, Giuliani said he should receive the benefit of the doubt. I haven't found anything from Giuliani addressing the issue since then. Why haven't reporters been asking him about this? I'd be interested in his perspective as a former USA.