×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Para Bellum Labs Will Attempt To Make the RNC a Political-Analytics Player

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the 2nd-mover-advantage? dept.

Stats 212

Nerval's Lobster writes "President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign relied on a sophisticated data-analytics platform that allowed organizers and volunteers to precisely target potential donors and voters. The centerpiece of that effort was Project Narwhal, which brought voter information—steadily accumulated since Obama's 2008 campaign—onto a single platform accessible to a growing number of campaign-related apps. The GOP has only a few short years to prepare for the next Presidential election cycle, and the party is scrambling to build an analytics system capable of competing against whatever the Democrats deploy onto the field of battle. To that end, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has launched Para Bellum Labs, modeled after a startup, to produce digital platforms for election analytics and voter engagement. Is this a genuine attempt to infuse the GOP's infrastructure with data science, or merely an attempt to show that the organization hasn't fallen behind the Democratic Party when it comes to analytics? Certainly the "Welcome to Para Bellum Labs" video posted by the RNC gives the impression of a huge office staffed with data scientists and programmers. However, the creation of a muscular digital ecosystem hinges on far more than building a couple of apps. Whatever the GOP rolls out, it'll face a tough opponent in the Democratic opposition, which will almost certainly emulate the robust IT infrastructure that the Obama campaign instituted in 2012 (not to mention Obama's massive voter and donor datasets). From that perspective, Para Bellum Labs might face the toughest job in politics."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

212 comments

Toughest job in politics? (0, Troll)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 months ago | (#46217323)

>> Para Bellum Labs might face the toughest job in politics.

Nah...I think that belongs to the folks in charge of presenting Hillary as candidate of change and reform so Obama's coattails don't kill her campaign before it starts.

Re:Toughest job in beta? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217815)

Hmm...I'd say just looking at beta is really tough. But there are a lot of tough jobs in beta, that's for sure.

Fuck beta! Fuck it right in the ass!

Re:Toughest job in politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218321)

Don't worry, Joe Biden is standing on the sidelines ready to step in when Hillary's campaign crashes.

Umm, guys... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#46217327)

I know that 'Orca' pretty much sucked in the most hilarious ways possible, so I can understand wanting to ditch that name, and maybe cetacean-based names in general; but isn't 'Para Bellum Labs' kind of pitiful-IT-violence-nerd at best and creepy at worst?

Re: Umm, guys... (0, Flamebait)

Zeek40 (1017978) | about 2 months ago | (#46217473)

Pathetic, creepy and violent are accurate descriptions of the organization that created the lab, so its an appropriate name.

Re: Umm, guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217679)

That's fine, but the topic is the Republican analytics organization, not the Democrat organization.

Re: Umm, guys... (1)

AuntieAlias (2703007) | about 2 months ago | (#46217865)

"Para Bellum" ?? Should be more like Belladonna.

Re: Umm, guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218555)

Nah, "para bellum" is Latin for, "for war". Foreign wars are one of the GOP's greatest money making exports.

Waste of Time (5, Insightful)

Akratist (1080775) | about 2 months ago | (#46217333)

While the Republicans probably have a lot of catching up to do in the tech department, they're still clueless as to why they are losing in the political arena, and it has nothing to do with tech. They've long since given up their founding principles of being pro-liberty (remember, most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act) and internationally cautious and have instead become a hangout for corrupt Beltway extortionists and moonbat crazies in recent decades. When they do offer a political position, it's about 75 percent of what the Democrats offer, so what's the point of supporting them? Finally, dislike of government is a prominent Republican theme, but they've never seen a defense program they didn't like (by and large). All that adds up to a brand which is more damaged than New Coke and would take a cold, hard look in the mirror before it can ever expect to be resurrected, which they are not capable of doing. In ten years, the GOP will have largely gone the way of the Whigs, maybe winning some local elections, but increasingly irrelevant on the national scene.

Re:Waste of Time (4, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 months ago | (#46217581)

A lot of the Republicans Cluelessness is based on bad data. The main issue is that the Republicans are supporting the base of the groups that yell the loudest, and think they are supporting a majority.

Part (there are other reasons too but that will get onto political rambling) of the reason why Kerry Lost to Bush, is because the Democrats didn't collect their data as well as the Republicans, and let the Liberal Crazies push the agenda, making Kerry look out of touch, while the Republicans seemed to more controlled and moderate.

The democrats haven't been winning by huge landslides either. A small tweak from the Republicans stance, say being more open to Gay Marriage, or actually getting their act together on a good immigration policy could be enough to change the tide.

Sure most of us Slashdotters are based in Blue States, with a strong blue influence. But there are plenty of moderates out there who may be right leaning except for that one particular issue. and if the Republicans find that issue they could get in control.

Re:Waste of Time (1, Interesting)

laird (2705) | about 2 months ago | (#46217729)

Based on polls, Republicans are almost always the minority party, because they advocate positions that benefit the minority and harm the majority. Their electoral victories come from discouraging voting by the majority so that the committed minority can win.

Of course, because they've painted themselves into a corner and cannot imagine that their policies are the reason for their failures, they have to keep trying various tactics to "win" despite public opposition. But until they believe that they need to change, they can't change, and will keep losing.

Though if tactics such as gerrymandering and voter suppression continue to be allowed to succeed, then they'll never change.

Re:Waste of Time (3, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 months ago | (#46218715)

Based on polls, Republicans are almost always the minority party, because they advocate positions that benefit the minority and harm the majority. Their electoral victories come from discouraging voting by the majority so that the committed minority can win.

Of course, because they've painted themselves into a corner and cannot imagine that their policies are the reason for their failures, they have to keep trying various tactics to "win" despite public opposition. But until they believe that they need to change, they can't change, and will keep losing.

Though if tactics such as gerrymandering and voter suppression continue to be allowed to succeed, then they'll never change.

When the eligible voter turnout ranges from 35% in off years to 60% in presidential races, no one is winning with a true majority, they are winning by convincing more supporters to turn out than the other side. Winning/losing in the margin hardly creates a mandate by the majority, but that's what has happened for several decades now. Americans just aren't interested enough in either party. The only real solution for that is mandatory voting (and moving election day to a weekend or running it for multiple days), but freedom to be a lazyass is one of our most cherished rights so we would rather not do anything about it.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218887)

> advocate positions that benefit the minority and harm the majority.

Exactly. Now that a minority of adults pay taxes, the GOPpers lower tax/lower government spending position doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Why would I vote for a Republican when my income tax rate was negative last year? Instead, I want taxes increased on the people that are already paying. That is what benefits the majority.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Mashdar (876825) | about 2 months ago | (#46218051)

More data doesn't fix batshit crazy primary voters. So long as lunatics and zealots can carry the primaries, the GOP is in a terrible position. Only a few old-school Republican congressmen are immune from primary challenges from the nutters.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218381)

Nutters in the primaries flows both ways... So long as zealots and lunatics carry the primaries, both the Republican and Democratic parties are in jeopardy.

I say level the playing field. Abandon the primaries and allow each candidate the same finite amount of campaign funds. Both republicans and democrats are out of control. Only a fool, Mashdar, would fail to realize this.

Re:Waste of Time (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 months ago | (#46218303)

The democrats haven't been winning by huge landslides either. A small tweak from the Republicans stance, say being more open to Gay Marriage, or actually getting their act together on a good immigration policy could be enough to change the tide.

Dems are not winning by a landslide, that is true. The moment GOP moderates its stance it is going to lose a bulk of the moonbat crazy right wing that was preventing the Dem landslides. People who would prefer moderation immigration or gay issue are not going to switch in sufficient numbers to make up for the loss of crazy right wing. GOP has been riding the tiger. They have been trading away large number of moderate voters,( but whose voter turn out rate is low) to pursue the crazy nutjobs, who have smaller number but make up for it in voter turn out. But there is a limit to how much mileage you can get out of them. All that gerry mandering, bias in politics for small states with two senators each, natural accretion of dems in dense urban blocks, liberals in small red towns/counties/state moving to friendlier anonymous cities etc etc have all been exhausted to the limit. They have painted themselves into this corner, it is not easy to dig out of that hole (forgive my mixed metaphors).

Re:Waste of Time (4, Insightful)

bmajik (96670) | about 2 months ago | (#46218491)

If you write down a list of position statements and don't attach a brand/party to it, and then ask people what they agree/disagree with, republican _positions_ do pretty well.

Independent voters win elections. The politics that win in NYC don't win nationally.

The Republican brand is toxic, because of brand association with people like Akin. And the way you get Akin's and Akin like statements is that when you ask a republican to explain some particular policy/position, they double down with expressing some moral position that seems antiquated at best and offensive more commonly, or they wander off into insanity land.

These things just wreck the brand.

Furthermore, there is a huge struggle for the soul and the future of the republican party. The democrats have huge piles of young energized radicals. The active republicans are almost entirely senior citizens. The young, activist republicans are dominated by Ron Paul supporters -- who are much more socially tolerant than the rank and file, but who want much less government spending than the left can accept.

The party needs to take an active role in managing its brand better. When people like Akin open their mouths, the national party needs to excommunicate them loudly and immediately. "These views are not in keeping with the platforms and goals of the republican party or the republican vision for America". That kind of stuff.

Social conservatives (like myself) need to give up on ever being the majority party again. That ship has sailed. Republicans, liberty advocates, and social conservatives now must settle for the subset of things they want, because getting all of what we want is clearly off the table.

We're still arguing for what the right subset of things to go after is. The Tea Party, to its credit, mostly doesn't do moral/social advocacy or activism, and is mostly about the size of government and adherence to the constitution. That's good stuff.

On economic policy, the modern republican establishment is somewhere between democrat lite and corporo-fascist-enforcers (but, I repeat myself), and purging those elements of the party is going to be painful and take time, and result in lost elections due to infighting. But it has to happen.

I give Rand Paul a lot of credit for taking 80% of what people liked about his dad and making it palatable to 80% of the GOP establishment.

In a modern election, 80% support would be an unheard of landslide. So, say what you will about him, but he's saying the right things about the NSA, about drones, about limits on executive power, and a bunch of other things. He's one of the only republicans that is talking about cutting military spending -- consistently. He's been a huge critic of the TSA from the beginning. He's being wishy-washy on drug policy, but he has said a lot of the right things there as well.

If people could look past the tarnished brand, there's a lot to like about him.

Absent some other factor that is a deal-breaker, I'll support anyone who puts forward legislation to rein in the NSA and to tone down or stop the drug war.

The republicans could adopt these policies, stop talking about gay people and gay marriage, (or better yet, simply say, "we find no provision in the constitution that allows for a federal restriction on same sex marriage. Therefore, in the interest of promoting liberty for all Americans, we support complete government recognition of same sex marriage"), and adopt a "wait and see" approach on Obamacare ("we don't like it, we were against it, but the senate and the executive have rammed it through, so now we're going to focus on other matters while we see how it shakes out").

If they got rid of the things that kill their brand, and focused on the things the democrats aren't touching (drug war, civil liberties, military spending), I think there's some chance.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 months ago | (#46218781)

If you write down a list of position statements and don't attach a brand/party to it, and then ask people what they agree/disagree with, republican _positions_ do pretty well.

{citation needed}

Your cite had better include how they present those positions so we can control for propaganda.

Re:Waste of Time (3, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 months ago | (#46218517)

The problem the Republicans have, which is the reason Obama won by a landslide but the Republican party polls were predicting a win for Romney is a problem of demographics. For the first time in history the young are voting, millennial are voting by wide margins. The Republican polls took the view of history that even if the young said they would vote to a poll they actually wouldn't end up voting whereas the other polls predicting Obama's win took their statement at face value. They are the reason Obama was elected in both 2012 and 2008. The bad part for republicans is that the millennial numbers keep growing and by the end of the decade their voter numbers are projected to be higher than both GenX and the Baby boomers.

That is what should scare the every loving bejesus out of Republicans. You have an entire generation that is voting close to 80% democratic, that has larger voting numbers than previous generations and is voting young. There is a real possibility we're going to go into a era of total dominance by the democratic party for the next 30 years not unlike that caused by the great depression.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 months ago | (#46218821)

"A lot of the Republicans Cluelessness is based on bad data. The main issue is that the Republicans are supporting the base of the groups that yell the loudest, and think they are supporting a majority."

"Yell the loudest" is best translated as "give the most money".
They have very good data on their donors and they follow this data. Their rich donors want less government regulation and lower taxes so they can make more money. They also have a few fringe wacko social issues (abortion, racists, misogynists, etc.) who help rally "the little people".

Re:Waste of Time (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 months ago | (#46217731)

maybe winning some local elections, but increasingly irrelevant on the national scene.

Sure, that's why Democrats have both houses and Obama won by a landslide, right? Get real. The administration and Democrats have been screweing so badly that they even make idiot Bush look good. As an Independent, I think both parties are becoming increasingly irrelevant. In the future, I'll probably vote for whoever I think can produce the most gridlock in Washington, because the less either Republicans or Democrats do, the better.

Re:Waste of Time (-1, Flamebait)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46217791)

The old dixiecrats jumped over to the republicans with the passage of the civil rights act. Then, because the Obama (black) thing, they got pissed and and formed the tea party, and a bunch of morons fell for their bullshit. But none of this matters. The people will vote for whatever the TV tells them to, and gangsters will continue to run the show. The thing that people really need to realize is that their is no significant opposition to any of this. The republicans and democrats are a tag team taking turns in the ring financed by sociopathic multi-billionaires. And the voters dutifully play their part in keeping them in power.

DNC has history of racism, not GOP (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217863)

Of the 52 Dixiecrats, 50 went back to the DNC, 1 to the GOP, 1 independent. Some years later 1 more went to the GOP.

Not sure why you feel the need to lie. The DNC has ALWAYS been the party that welcomes racists, from back in the 1850s to today. Robert Byrd died a Democrat, Al Gore Sr died a Democrat, and so on. The overwhelming majority who voted no on the Civil Rights Act died life long Democrats. There is a LONG history of racism in the DNC and support for the KKK in that party, no such thing exists for the GOP except in your own head.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

nevermindme (912672) | about 2 months ago | (#46218077)

Dixiecrats are long dead, they were the last of the Conservative Dems of 1955. They were old southerners in 1965. Their kids were 40 year old Reagan dems in 1980 and most of them are voting in their last election cycle in this decade. Tea party events are full of 40-50 year old business owners who did very well in both 1990s and 2000 because of Conservatism and ultra low taxes, but now have hit a tax bracket where 50% or more of their income goes to government largeness. We now are at the point where 50% of the population pays nothing, benefits outweigh taxes for government. No wonder controlling the debt is minor issue with both parties. Republicans desperately look for the 10% they can strip off (rural states swings) and dems sit on 90% (urban middle class independents) who are being lead to biggest economic disaster since the fall of the Roman Empire.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46219069)

(Score:-1, Flamebait)

Oh dear! How the truth hurts your delicate sensibilities!

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217915)

... Republicans're still clueless as to why they are losing in the political arena, and it has nothing to do with tech.

Might be true although I think the evidence is there that the people running the RP know that what they are doing flies in the face of what most voters want and is self-destructive for the RP. They are simply motivated by a desire to turn the US into another country like those of Europe in which all of the parties just squabble about the details of a welfare state so pervasive that it dominates all elections - until the country's wealth is squandered and widespread civil unrest follows.

have instead become a hangout for corrupt Beltway extortionists

Extortionists, thieves, pick-pockets, rent-seekers, traitors.

and moonbat crazies

I don't know who you think the crazies in the RP are. I would say the crazies are in the DP, unless you believe that teaching grade school children that "sometimes little boys feel like little boys and sometimes they feel like little girls" is somehow normal. Or that handing out never-ending unemployment checks somehow creates jobs or that losing your job or having your hours reduced due to Obamacare somehow "liberates" you from the tyranny of having to work for a living.

When they do offer a political position, it's about 75 percent of what the Democrats offer, so what's the point of supporting them?

The rhetoric is about 75%; the actual policy promotion once you cut through the bull squeeze is more like 90%.

Finally, dislike of government is a prominent Republican theme

NO! "dislike of government" is a talking point of the left. The real theme is limiting the federal government to its enumerated Constitutional powers, not a desire to promote anarchy.

but they've never seen a defense program they didn't like

National defense is one of those enumerated powers. Besides the DP is every bit as enthusiastic about defense programs as the RP. Defense contracts represent "bringing home the bacon" to both parties. I'm not saying that defense contracts and interventionalism aren't a problem - war is the health of the state, after all - just that the problem is endemic to a political class that is used to butting into every conflict everywhere. In any case, defense spending is not the cause of the financial crisis in the US. That's just another talking point of the left that is disseminated through the "hate the military" faculty in our universities.

In ten years, the GOP will have largely gone the way of the Whigs, maybe winning some local elections, but increasingly irrelevant on the national scene.

Absolutely true. The US needs a real opposition party not an adjunct to the DP. I fear that the worst possible thing might happen, which is that the bulk of the population, having no political voice, may be driven to desperate measures as the country is rapidly being destroyed economically and the political class responds with brutality. In the last 15-20 years, the political class has been assembling the components of a full-fledged police state. The collection of vast databases of information detailing the lives of every American citizen and the tools to mine those databases are just parts of that future police state. Obama has even publicly declared his desire [youtube.com] to create such a police state, not that the Republican establishment seems that concerned about it.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 months ago | (#46217923)

How do you get people to vote against their own interests? Wedge issues. IMHO, the true gop agenda is to push as much money to rich people as possible at the expense of everyone else and the only way to do that is by courting the crazies.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

harrkev (623093) | about 2 months ago | (#46218989)

????? Proof???

To me, at least, the GOP is not about money to the rich. They are about trying to keep a balanced budget. I don't know about you, but I have a wife and kids to support. I am certainly smart enough to know that living off of a credit card is not the key to happiness. Sure, it would be great for about a three or four months, but eventually the credit cards reach their maximum, and then the party is over. The latest fight over extending unemployment benefits went something like this:

Dems: We need to keep unemployment going for much longer.

GOP: Sure. Just find a way to pay for it without putting it on the credit card.

Dems: But.... but.... the credit card is free money! We won't get the bill until after I am out of office!

The left keeps on waging a war on people who are successful. I do not understand why. I do know that a lot of people have money who do not really deserve it (inheritance, investment banker, etc.), but a lot of things in life are unfair, and a lot of people have money who DO deserve it (followed their dream, worked hard, made wise choices, etc.) Punishing the successful is not exactly a way to make people want to succeed.

One thing to keep in mind is that taxing the "rich" has a very nasty side effect. Companies are legal entities, and they are "rich." Increasing taxes on companies will leave less money to hire new employees. It also makes it more expensive to be here, and is the reason that so many companies set up other corporations outside of the US (Cayman Islands, for example -- Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]) Yup, Cayman islands gets those jobs instead of the US.

Now, if there were no loopholes, then the rich would certainly pay more than their fair share of taxes. They use the same roads that I do, use the same police and fire services, and yet pay a lot more.

Now, about tax "loopholes." Some of that may indeed be the result of lobbyists buying favors from politicians. However, tax "loopholes" are often used by the government as a carrot to make people and businesses to do what they want. For example, hybrid cars and alternative energy earn tax credits.

By the way, the top two richest people in America (Gates and Buffett) are Democrats. The third (Ellson) is kind of in the middle politically, so you cannot characterize all rich guys as evil white republicans.

It is also interesting to read the wikipedia pages of the richest people. Other than the Wal-Mart children, they are generally self-made billionaires. While the Walton family did inherit their money, they got it from a man who literally built a retail empire from the ground-up.

When you do not have any money, it is all to easy to point at the people who have worked hard to achieve success and blame them.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#46218383)

they're still clueless as to why they are losing in the political arena, and it has nothing to do with tech.

Losing? 29 Republican governors versus 21 Democrats, plus a majority in the House of Representatives.

"Don't look back, something might be gaining on you " - Satchel Paige

Parabellum (3, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 2 months ago | (#46217335)

Hmmm. What message are they giving here?
Parabellum, n
Definition: a type of semiautomatic pistol or machine-gun; also called Luger, also written parabellum
Etymology: Latin 'for war'

Re:Parabellum (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217461)

More accurately, "Prepare for War".

Figures that the Republicans would wage war on their fellow countrymen.

Re:Parabellum (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 months ago | (#46217703)

I expect it is to save their fellow countrymen. The "change" America got isn't the change that it wants.

Re:Parabellum (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217531)

You're one of those Gawker readers who doesn't fact check anything, do you?

"Para Bellum" it is not *defined* as a semi-automatic pistol (the P08 Luger) or a machine gun (the Parabellum MG14, which doesn't even fire 9x19 Parabellum), the name just happens to have been applied to those weapons. "Para Bellum" doesn't simply translate as "War", it translates as "Prepare for War". It comes from the Latin phrase "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum", which translates as, "If you desire Peace, prepare for War".

Re:Parabellum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217949)

para bellum is a term used with regard to firearms to designate a weapon designed for military use as opposed to a weapon designed for civilan use. Originally, it was just part of product descriptions.

Re:Parabellum (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 months ago | (#46218889)

Uh, /no/. Parabellum is used as a nickname for 9x19mm NATO pistol ammunition, "9mm Parabellum", and that was from the motto of the original designing company.

Para was used in the names of a few other period German weapons such as the MG08 and had the same provenance, from that company's motto.

Beyond War? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 2 months ago | (#46217337)

It would be an appropriate name if it were anti bellum, since nixon's southern strategy explains the disfunction of the GOP today. Para Bellum means "ultimate warfare".

Anti ante [Re:Beyond War?] (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 2 months ago | (#46217397)

anti-bellum would be "against war," which would be a good name for a pacifist party, but not so good for the Republicans, who are in general a pro-military, pro-war organization.
You're thinking "antebellum," before the war; in the U.S., usually referring (with nostalgia) to the slave-holding south before the Civil War.

Re:Anti ante [Re:Beyond War?] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218059)

Do I really need to point out that Wilson got the US into WWI, FDR got the US into WWII, JFK got the US into Viet Nam, Clinton sent troops into conflicts everywhere he could or that Obama has continued Bush's interventionist policies? Don't be confused by the use of drones and the substitution of mercenaries ("civilian contractors") for the regular military. Obama isn't really withdrawing the US from the ME.

The entire political class likes to play with toy soldiers, not just the RP. Also, as a loyal Democrat, you shouldn't talk about the old south. It was the DP that defended slavery, created segregation, created Jim Crow and created the current welfare state plantation and the piss-poor education system of today which continues to hold American blacks in a state of misery.

Re:Anti ante [Re:Beyond War?] (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 2 months ago | (#46218609)

On the otherhan the civil war killed more americans than all the other wars combined. But do i really need to point out that since Nixon, the republican and democratic parties dont resemble their former selves? barry goldwater and even ronald reagan would be leftist outcasts. walter mondale and hubert humphrey would be unwelcome in the democratic party. in the last couple decades the gop is belicose. Thats a fact. but it doesn't have to be a permenant condition. BTW, Johnston the Texan got us in to Vietnam. I'd say there certainly is a diffenence between drones and mercenaries as well. perhaps you are confused or able to see that things change?

Re:Beyond War? (3, Informative)

Robear (68955) | about 2 months ago | (#46217591)

You're looking for "antebellum", which is used to differentiate the American South in the pre-Civil War period from that of later times. It is a homophone of "anti-bellum" but has an entirely different meaning.

Re:Beyond War? (2)

goombah99 (560566) | about 2 months ago | (#46218627)

And dont' forget Auntie Bellum, that hell rais'n sister of your mother. Yes I mixed it up, even intendeding to get the right one and writing the wrong one.

Re:Beyond War? (4, Informative)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 2 months ago | (#46217613)

"Para bellum" is usually known from "Si vis pacem, para bellum", which means, roughly, "If you want peace, prepare for war." The problem is I think the Republicans A) forgot that first part and B) probably shouldn't consider the democratic process as a kind of war (this is a political data analytics thing, so that's the only logical interpretation). That they do explains a lot about their thought process in the past few years.

Re:Beyond War? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218123)

I think you are over thinking it, it is just an Americanism. We have war on this war on that, my office is going through a redesign and we're going to have 3 dedicated War Rooms. War simply means shit got real and we need to work on this.

Re:Beyond War? (1)

imp (7585) | about 2 months ago | (#46218395)

Also, it is the name of a Nazi gun more commonly known as the Luger...

Re:Beyond War? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#46219111)

Also, it is the name of a Nazi gun more commonly known as the Luger...

A Nazi gun??? The parabellum (aka Luger) was patented in 1898, and began production in 1900.

Which, if you're not aware, predated the Nazis by a few years.

If you're looking for a real "Nazi gun", you might want to look at the Walther P-38, which replaced the Luger as the German Army's standard sidearm starting in 1938.

Think Tanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217343)

Only work if you believe them when they tell you things you don't want to hear, rather than make up reality that seems convenient. Otherwise, their only useful function is to provide intellectual pseudo technobabble to quasi justify your otherwise indefensible position.

You can have any position you like, but you either embrace the truth, or you don't. Obama himself may have lied and lied and lied, but he listened to his advisors and implemented their advice. How many would be dictators did otherwise and reaped the whirlwind for it?

Mitt Romney is from a religion that encourages you to invent the truth as you go along to comport to the greater truth that your Church is True, and in Romney's case he believed he was Chosen of God...so Rove kept insisting the numbers would serve him, rather than report the truth.

Let us presume that this Para Bellum labs will have all of the most brilliant people in the @#$@# world because Throw Money(tm)....the people RUNNING IT still can't seem to address the truth that people don't like their ideas, and they're growing resistant to the lies being generated, and NOW they've awakened real opposition...

Surprised the Republicans are still so far behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217385)

The Clinton campaign was the first to extensively use cell phones, laptops, and email. The HW Bush campaign was still writing letters. That mobility was key to a relatively unknown Arkansas governor with plenty of scandal in his background winning that election.

Do they need it? (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 months ago | (#46217427)

If Republicans wanted to win the last election, they wouldn't have picked Romney as their candidate. Either they had no idea that their own supporters would rather stay home than hold their noses and vote for him (and you didn't need fancy analytic software for that, just common sense), or they intentionally gave Obama the win.

Re:Do they need it? (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46217505)

The Republican primaries were a gauntlet of Tea Party idiots. So everyone had to steer to the extreme far right to win their support to get on the ballot.

Then, during the general election, they had to steer to the middle. To, you know, actually get votes.

You can't appeal to the fringe and the center at the same time. Appeal to the base of Tea Party nutbags, and middle America won't vote for you, you disgust them. Appeal to middle America, and the Tea Party nutbags won't vote for you, just as you say in your comment. A house divided, yada yada yada

If the Republicans don't fix this problem, they are going to lose again in 2016. And 2020, 2024, etc.

Personally, as a Democrat, I love the Tea Party: sabotaging the Republican Party from within.

There is no bigger friend for Democratic domination of the Presidency (and, with demographic trends, increasingly the House and Senate in the long term, even with Republican gerrymandering) than the Tea Party.

Re:Do they need it? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#46217825)

That happens to some degree every election: the primary they swing in the direction of their party, then in the general they have to swing back to the middle. It was only unusual last time because politics have gone so far to the right.

I'd argue that they may have lost the last battle, but they've essentially won the war. Obama's signature accomplishment was basically a republican plan.

Re:Do they need it? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 months ago | (#46218241)

Obama's signature accomplishment was basically a republican plan.

A giant, uncoordinated cluster fuck that had no chance of surviving intact? That was the Republican plan?

Pray, what are they thinking about for an encore?

Re:Do they need it? (1)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about 2 months ago | (#46218365)

So now the Democrats get the credit if a Republican plan succeeds? If I vote for a Democrat, they are willing to implement the best ideas of either party. If I vote for a Republican, they won't even support Republican plans to do "important things" and accomplish goals.

Re:Do they need it? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46217841)

Personally, as a Democrat, I love the Tea Party: sabotaging the Republican Party from within.

Because they work for the democrats, to give an illusion of opposition. If you vote for either side of the Party, you are a sucker.

Re:Do they need it? (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46218053)

we got a conspiratard here folks

i'm sorry but the tea party is driven by people who actually believe what they say, as a genuine oppositional force, that you say does not exist

the struggle is real, the differences are real, the stakes are dramatic

and the difference in opinions results in dramatic differences in policy depending upon who wins

al gore would not have invaded iraq. john mccain would not have created obamacare. etc.

but don't worry about me. i'm a deluded fool who does not see The Real Truth (tm) like you: something something new world order. something something bilderberg group, teh j00s, etc.

Re:Do they need it? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46218213)

Oh please! Don't be such a drama queen!

There's no "conspiracy" here, no matter how you would like to think there is one. It's pure animal psychology at play. Alpha males battling for domination.

And yes, Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. Lieberman would be making the decision. And he's worse than Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I shall leave you to continue your little charade here, so you can continue thinking you're all philosophical, sophisticated an' shit.

Re:Do they need it? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 months ago | (#46218481)

The Republican primaries were a gauntlet of Tea Party idiots. So everyone had to steer to the extreme far right to win their support to get on the ballot.

If you think Romney was 'extreme right', you must be to the left of Stalin. Romney's problem was that he was trying to be a Democrat, and there was already a Democrat candidate for anyone who wanted one.

Re:Do they need it? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46219039)

i never said romney was extreme right. i said he *had to appeal to* the extreme right

he had to compete for votes from tea party loony toons with wackjobs like santorum and cain and bachmann

and romney's problem wasn't trying to be a democrat, that's called "trying to win the election by appealing to the moderate center," which, in your bias, you've called "trying to be a democrat"

which is exactly how and why the right will not win the white house in the future: they view being a moderate as some sort of RINO betrayal. this is how and why republicans lose elections, this ideological inquisition

and so, as a democrat, i say, "keep it up, tea party, thanks for destroying the republican party with your inflexible, intolerant, rigid extremism"

Re:Do they need it? (1)

ehynes (617617) | about 2 months ago | (#46217515)

And who among the other Republican contenders who lost to him in the Republican primaries would have done a better job against Obama in a general election?

Re:Do they need it? (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about 2 months ago | (#46218399)

And ... another fact-free denial. The 2012 election had the HIGHEST percentage turnout since 1968, and by raw voters, the third highest in U.S. history. One source of many you could read: Wikipedia - Voter Turnout in United States Presidential Elections. [wikipedia.org]

America rejected the Republican party - if you cannot accept the numbers then all the analytics in the world are going to be worthless to you.

-GiH

You know what could really use a parabellum? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217429)

Beta

Health Care Site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217441)

Be nice if https://www.healthcare.gov worked just as well.

Re:Health Care Site (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 2 months ago | (#46217623)

That does raise some big questions. Assuming that the DNC and the Obama campaign intentionally hired the most sophisticated data-gatherer/number-crunchers available, you would think that they understood what separates excellence from incompetence in technology. So why did they hire not just an incompetent company to handle Obamacare but a company with a history of incompetence? There are several possibilities. One, there was some old-boy networking going on and that company paid off key people to get the contract. Two, they're really not as savvy at picking tech companies and they merely think that all that analytics was what won the election when it may have been nothing more than a group of voters wanting to be part of history by voting for the first black president or even more basic as "I've had enough of Republicans" Or three, the thing was botched intentionally so as to have yet another excuse to push for single-payer health insurance.

Re:Health Care Site (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217779)

Make sure you are using TIN foil. The aluminum foil does nothing.

Try this one:

4: Obama and his close advisors had great leeway in steering the technology direction for his campaign, but everything about Obamacare has been rolled out by the sausage grinder that is our government. (God bless the US of f'n A!!!))

He is the President, not the deus ex machina.

Re: Health Care Site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218139)

In other words, Obama is a good campaigner but horseshit at actually administrative tasks.

RNC still just doesn't get it (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 months ago | (#46217443)

They keep babbling about needing to do a better job of getting their message out, and using technology like Obama did to spread their message. Well, bullshit, we heard their message and said "no". No to bigotry against gays, no to the notion that a single cell can be a human being with a soul and consciousness, no to pushing the lie they call "creation science" into the classroom, no to lying to rape victims about the mechanism by which emergency contraception prevents pregnancy, no to all the anti-intellectual garbage that springs from twisted wacko interpretations of the old testament.

But I guess they're not hearing what the voters said, and so it's going to take them using technology better, and suffering another spectacular loss, to start accepting the idea that the problem is the message, not lack of effectiveness in communicating it.

Sigh. You see, I really would like a president who understands the limits of the ability of the government to fix all problems with massive spending, and the negative side effects of massive new spending, and who would strike (in my opinion obviously) a better balance. But as long as the republicans keep nominating candidates who toe the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-intellectual line drawn by the party hard-liners, I will keep voting for the democrats.

Re:RNC still just doesn't get it (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217553)

You forgot anti-worker. These are the people who not only don't want to raise the minimum wage, they want to abolish it. Because in the mind of the GOP, paying people less than what it costs to feed/cloth/house yourself is their idea of 'freedom.'

When your idea of freedom is in-practice worse than slavery, it's a wonder people don't like your message.

Re:RNC still just doesn't get it (3, Insightful)

wiggles (30088) | about 2 months ago | (#46217697)

The two parties in this country are what are known as 'big tent' parties. The Republicans have the businesspeople/capitalists, the religious people, and the libertarians, whereas the Democrats have the environmentalists, the immigrants, labor, and socialists.

The goals of those microparties are not always aligned - see the labor vs. environmentalists in cases such as the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest logging community.

The Democrats have done a far better job of making their microparties play nice with each other. The Republicans, on the other hand, have had a revolt over the last few years where the Libertarians have been fighting with the Religious people, leaving the capitalists looking as the only sane ones in the tent

Re:RNC still just doesn't get it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46217893)

...I will keep voting for the democrats.

Exactly the way the Party set it up. They got you hoodwinked with this little dog and pony show into believing there is opposition. And the decline continues...

Re:RNC still just doesn't get it (1)

Quila (201335) | about 2 months ago | (#46218589)

Well, bullshit, we heard their message and said "no".

Except in the 2010 and 2012 elections, where we resoundingly said "yes" in the legislative elections. Or, rather, we said "no" to the false promises and failed policies of the Democrats and went with the only viable alternative.

They targeted people who want government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217453)

I think its clear that in both elections Obama's first and his second campaigns. They focused on making the Republican Mitt Romney out as a rich person who cared so little about the working man. Plus the Obama campaign created a emphasis on getting people out to vote who wanted government help. It was clearly a we will help you and the Republicans won't. The issues of course is that this can easily get you elected but then turn against you when the results are so much different. Black's still seem so supportive of Obama and yet young Black unemployment is at ridiculously high levels. I truly believe the Black voter believed Obama could provide more help to them because he was a Black man himself. I think voters need to rethink the process of voting for a person. Obama to me is just a man without any experience in managing properly. He delegates to people incapable of doing the work assigned and Obama never punishes those that fail. The Federal government has failed because we now have so many in Congress and the White House who believe only in a ideology and agenda and its become a free for all on obtaining that agenda. Until we get people in Congress who are common sense middle road, working for the common good of American's. Not for Tea parties, extreme leftists agendas or more government bureaucracy. We will continue to see a ineffective government. Voters, sharpen your minds, do some homework and vote for people based on more then one topic or one ideology. Vote because overall the person is a level headed person devoted to the common good of America.

Re:They targeted people who want government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218347)

Obama acts like a stinking Socialist. If it walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist, it's a socialist. I am not a socialist. Middle road don't work. We need to dial a lot of crap back first. It's not a black/white issue. There are plenty of poor unskilled white families that had large families to get a check from Uncle Sam too. We are now seeing the Democrats "Investment" Payoff. I know plenty of Black IT professionals that are smart and don't like this bullshit either. It's not a racial issue. It's a self suffecient hard working / lazy sucking on the governement's tit issue. We have hardworking and lazy individuals in every nationality. This is not a race issue at all. The problem is the lazy out number everybody else. I don't think we will recover from this shy of a Revolution. That might be soon. Look at Russia, The USA will probably reorg withing 25 years. We can not continue like this.

Stop voting Repubilcan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217465)

Stop voting against your own interests. You are not a wealthy Billionaire. Stop voting like you are one.

Re: Stop voting Repubilcan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217635)

But I'm also not on welfare or food stamps...
The rest of us seem to be underrepresented.

Re: Stop voting Repubilcan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218369)

Amen brother. I hear where you are coming from. I'm tired of paying taxes to help some lazy ass.

Stop voting for both parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217643)

You might want to look into who the banksters supported financially.

But you won't. You wouldn't want facts to interfere with your religion.

Stop Voting for the Pimps of Poverty. (0)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | about 2 months ago | (#46218227)

Democrats got our Country in the shitter. They encouraged low income families to have lots of babies. Having a child actually got them a check from Uncle SAM. Families that were hardworking had smaller families. This is why Democrats now outnumber every body else. You don't have to be rich to be a Republican. I don't even think I would consider myself a Republican because they sold themelves out too. I would say I lean towards the Tea Party.

Hey RNC, don't forget about Home Depot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217481)

Buy a lot of pipes there. It will help you with that "Internet thingy"

Better information wouldn't help (3, Funny)

Shajenko42 (627901) | about 2 months ago | (#46217511)

From what I remember, the Romney campaign ignored their own polls that said they were losing. How would improving the data help when you won't pay any attention to it?

Re:Better information wouldn't help (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#46217911)

Romney threw the 'fight'. It was a show, pure and simple.

Re:Better information wouldn't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217979)

Can you imagine the riots and other atrocities that might have happened if romney would have won?

Re:Better information wouldn't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46219013)

Yes, of course it's a show, but the republicans really did try. A republican friend of mine, who has held a state office, was absolutely convinced, the night before the election, that Romney was going to win.

See, after they blatantly sliced and diced their way through the pool of candidates to measure their appeal to various interest groups (Huckabee the vacuous 'family values' guy; Santorum and Perry, the Real Christians; Bachmann, the comic relief; Herman Cain, the token black tax radical; John Huntsman, the closest thing to Ron Paul the system could accept; etc.), they defaulted back to the usual business-friendly candidate, Romney, whom the RNC figured they could stuff with whatever agendas would appeal to whomever he was talking to at the time, a la Clinton or Bush Sr. I guess that didn't work out for them.

The republicans are sort of a protest party right now. A lot of their votes come from people who would vote democrat out of economic self-interest (however misguided that may or may not be), were it not for abortions, faggots, taxes (lol), guns, Jeebus, feminists, scientists, etc.

Re:Better information wouldn't help (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46217951)

they didn't ignore the data, they had bad data

the last couple of decades has seen the rise of conservative news sources. which is good for morale. you fudge the truth a little, make things look rosier than they really are, and you galvanize your base

the problem is when you start believing your own bullshit

romney was fed the fudges the conservative echo chamber feeds itself, and was kept in the dark. so they were overconfident

there's a respected solid analyst called nate silver at the new york times, who is very good at forecasting elections with his methods

he called the election early, in september, for obama

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n... [nytimes.com]

this analysis was pilloried on the right as a propaganda. even though he was just applying cold hard analysis

http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]

when in fact, the right was the one creating propaganda, and silver called them out on it:

http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

the decision makers around romney chose to ignore cold analysis as liberal propaganda. romney had a chance to buckle down and maybe do something with his message in october and maybe eke out a win

but just look at rove on election night: he couldn't believe the news about ohio. because the right wing media echo chamber was operating on its own bullshit, and kneejerk rejecting bad news as liberal propaganda

again, conservative media is great for the morale of the average conservative voter. but when the conservative media is depended upon by the decision makers on the right, the right loses, because decisions based on lies are bad, losing decisions

Re:Better information wouldn't help (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 months ago | (#46218531)

From what I remember, the Romney campaign ignored their own polls that said they were losing.

That's pretty much the last time that will ever happen again. Nate Silver's nearly perfect prediction of nearly all 50 states was a major wake-up call to the people who didn't believe in basic stats.

More than Obama, the nerds won last presidential election and its a permanent win.

"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare..." (3, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about 2 months ago | (#46217583)

That statement speaks volumes about what is wrong about the electoral system, and US politics in general. It's all about winning and consolidating power. Few people are really interested in the process of governance. Jesus H. Christ, where are the adults?!

Re:"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare. (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46217983)

i hate to break it to you, but politics was emotional, is emotional, and always will be emotional. the adults you seek never existed and never will. the only truth here is you fail to understand the ugly emotional game called politics. we're human beings, not robots

please don't shoot the messenger

Re:"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare. (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 2 months ago | (#46218245)

Who said anything about robots? You seem to entirely misconstrue the meaning of my original statement: being an adult involves having strong emotional reactions but it also means having the self-control and maturity to manage these emotions in a constructive manner. Being an adult means putting aside petty grievances and personal grudges to try and achieve something for the common good. Being an adult means that I no longer act nor think like a child and think it's all about me, me, me because even the staunchest libertarian will be forced to agree that even personal self-interest is sometimes best served through cooperation and not the miserable and petty one-upmanship that passes for political discourse in this day and age.

This political system is such an utter disgrace. Those who merely respond "that's just the way it is" are either too jaded or are utterly lacking in imagination to envision something better. And if you say it can never get better then I say: fine, but at least admit you are a nihilist and ascribe to no particular ethos, that the world merely is, that events merely are, that there are no moral categories, and that we are merely specks of flesh aimlessly wandering on a much bigger speck of rock, all of it soon extinguished and forever passing out of memory.

Re:"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare. (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 months ago | (#46218967)

the point is you want politics to be something it never was and never will be

it's *politics*, not polite academic debate society

all of the ugliness in politics you dislike is the whole point of politics

all you are telling me here is you don't understand the subject matter. you can't just wave a magic wand and make people behave like robots. of course people aren't robots. but they behave like feral beasts in politics. of course people aren't feral beasts either. but in POLITICS they are

Re:"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare. (1)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | about 2 months ago | (#46218171)

Our problem is lazy citizens looking for money > hardworking skilled people. We are now outnumbered. It took a while to get here. It's going to take a while to get out. Unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen in our lifetime.

Re:"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218949)

It's all about the niggers, amirite?

Re:"The GOP has only a few short years to prepare. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46219087)

> hardworking skilled people

Only 115.7 million (http://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/) people work full-time and only 99,880,223 (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html as of 2005) paid federal income taxes. That means less than 1/3 of the people work hard enough to pay taxes, and an even smaller fraction of that are your "hardworking skilled" people. That is who the GOP tries to represent, but they just don't get that that is too few people to win elections. If the GOP promised to expand the negative tax rate to higher incomes, then they would win elections.

We need a Party that's Pro American. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218137)

I'm sick of the Democrats, damn pimps of poverty. The USA paid and encouraged low income families to have lots of babies. The more babies they had the more money Uncle Sam sent them. That's how the democrats insured they will increase their votes. In the meantime, every hard working family that wanted to provide well for their families had one to two kids. There were some exceptions, like myself. My wife and I had three sons. Even though we had our first early (my wife 19, me 22) we never ever wanted government financial help and we provided well for our three sons. Now... fast forward 18 years... those low income families had 5 to 8 children living off the government, sworn democrats because the government supports thier lifestyle. Dependency = votes. The government wants them to be more self efficient so they make college grants available for low income kids and my wife and I have to scramble again, my employer goes belly up and I freelance while we drain money from our 401k to make sure our kids eduction does not skip a beat. Republicans let me down because they allowed Obamacare to pass and have not done anything to curb Outsourcing. If you are a CIO and are pro outsourcing, you are no better than a drug dealer. Why ???? Because you are willing to sell out your Nation's future and fellow citizen to make a buck. EOE = mediocrity. A Nationalist party that is willing to deport illegal immigrants that don't have a skill. The USA should have immigration policies similar to Canada and New Zealand. You should have a sponsor family, skill, and job lined up. We need to curb globalization. Isolationism isn't good, but outsourcing good paying jobs to low cost labor overseas isn't good either. We need policies in place that will promote companies that insource and tax companies that outsource. We need to reward companies for keeping jobs. I do not see ANY political parties offering that. All I have to say to the CIOs that like to Outsource. What are you going to do when all of us who earned $75k - $150k in the IT industry are unemployed and doing side jobs on our own to survive and no longer have enough funds to buy your goods and services ? Your not going to sell your goods to India. They get paid 1/4 of what an American working an American job makes.. .. yeah a Systems Admin performing a job that typically pays $80k in the US will get $20k. and that's if they are working in the US. if they are remote in India even less. We can only slow this down if we slap business that outsources with a hefty tax. They won't because all the US politicians get financial backing for favoring outsourcing. They all suck and I am getting tired of it. I am currently employed but the writing is on the wall. The new goal at work is to achieve 70% outsourcing. I hope things get better. I've got 10 years left on my mortgage. no money in the 401k..I tapped it all. but no credit card debt. I can't put any money back in the 401k yet because I am working on getting a consulting business together. Now the USA has less hard working red blooded American people than ever before. More lazy people with no skills looking for handouts. Bring back the Wig Party!

Should have been a warning sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218749)

Seems funny in hindsight but Obama winning campaigns on strong metadata analytics? Should have seen it coming.

Ignore the data (1)

MarkWegman (2553338) | about 2 months ago | (#46218977)

Let's see. The RNC and it's friends want to teach Creationism as part of Science. They want to ignore mountains of data on Global Climate Change. They "unscewed" the polls last time around to believe they were going to win -- when their candidate was the most data driven businessman they could find. The economic evidence for austerity based changes or New Keynesian show the Keynesians have been much more accurate in predictions about things like inflation rates and GDP growth. We could go on and on. There's a reason that people say facts (or data) have a well known liberal bias. Someone who's really good with data is going to have to have some strange reasons to be a Republican. It will be hard for the Republicans to assemble a good team, knowing that they'll have to work for people that want to ignore what they have to say.

It's too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46219055)

It's too bad it took 8 years of George W. Bush to teach this generation of the left that all it had to do was win elections.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...