Lets see how Ryan responds to this, if at all.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...ctor-paul-ryan-plan-fairy-tale-164917087.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...ctor-paul-ryan-plan-fairy-tale-164917087.html
2012 Election Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Clak']Lets see how Ryan responds to this, if at all.[/QUOTE]
Just take a look at the cognitive dissonance from the yahoo! reading mouthbreathers in the comments on that article to see how he will respond.
Just take a look at the cognitive dissonance from the yahoo! reading mouthbreathers in the comments on that article to see how he will respond.
[quote name='mykevermin']Just take a look at the cognitive dissonance from the yahoo! reading mouthbreathers in the comments on that article to see how he will respond.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Clak']I like to think that Yahoo doesn't allow comments, don't kill that for me.[/QUOTE]
On a slightly related note, I was in Toronto last week and I was reading the story about the cop that went to Stampede and said he would've blown a couple of dudes away that he thought was threatening him and his wife, when in reality, those dudes were giving out free tickets. Anywho, the story was on Yahoo.ca and all the comments were actually reasonable. Blew my
ing mind.
[quote name='Clak']I like to think that Yahoo doesn't allow comments, don't kill that for me.[/QUOTE]
On a slightly related note, I was in Toronto last week and I was reading the story about the cop that went to Stampede and said he would've blown a couple of dudes away that he thought was threatening him and his wife, when in reality, those dudes were giving out free tickets. Anywho, the story was on Yahoo.ca and all the comments were actually reasonable. Blew my
ing mind.
[quote name='Clak']Lets see how Ryan responds to this, if at all.QUOTE]
By giving the classic "Government is like an out-of-control teenager with a credit card" example most of their constituents can relate to, like the federal government can be equated with the morals behind an episode of Full House.
By giving the classic "Government is like an out-of-control teenager with a credit card" example most of their constituents can relate to, like the federal government can be equated with the morals behind an episode of Full House.
[quote name='Clak']Lets see how Ryan responds to this, if at all.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...ctor-paul-ryan-plan-fairy-tale-164917087.html[/QUOTE]
By giving the classic "Government is like an out-of-control teenager with a credit card" example most of their constituents can relate to, like the federal government can be equated with the morals behind an episode of Full House. How else?
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...ctor-paul-ryan-plan-fairy-tale-164917087.html[/QUOTE]
By giving the classic "Government is like an out-of-control teenager with a credit card" example most of their constituents can relate to, like the federal government can be equated with the morals behind an episode of Full House. How else?
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
So I took the electoral map game at 270towin.com, I gave all the swing states with voter ID to Republicans. I gave NC to Republicans over gay marriage. I gave Florida to Democrats despite voter ID, just because all of the senior citizens are going to make it hard even with voter ID. I gave all other states to Democrats. Leaving New Hampshire blank, that leaves a tie of 267 to 267. The 4 electoral votes in NH pushes whoever wins it to 271. Scary.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Live free or die, is it?
:lol:
"I gave all other states to Democrats."
Any anomalies in there? Like Texas was blue or somesuch? I want to be more clear as to what your model looks like.
:lol:
"I gave all other states to Democrats."
Any anomalies in there? Like Texas was blue or somesuch? I want to be more clear as to what your model looks like.
On NPR just yesterday they were talking about all of the different things that impede democracy in this country, one of them being voter ID laws. The gist was this, as long as elections don't end up being very close, nobody seems to really notice the problems, because it doesn't seem like those problems would have made a difference, say if Obama still wins this election despite things like voter ID laws. On the other hand, if the election is close, it exposes all of the problems and people get extremely pissed off because it's more obvious how those problems effected things. This happened in 2000 with Gore vs Bush. One of the biggest problems they discussed, and I agree with, is that for the most part, the electoral college completely negates what we want. Some states do tie electoral votes to the popular vote, but they're few and far between. Again, that isn't too obvious when the election isn't even close, but when it comes down to a small number of votes, it's a lot more obvious.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Clak']On NPR just yesterday they were talking about all of the different things that impede democracy in this country, one of them being voter ID laws. The gist was this, as long as elections don't end up being very close, nobody seems to really notice the problems, because it doesn't seem like those problems would have made a difference, say if Obama still wins this election despite things like voter ID laws. On the other hand, if the election is close, it exposes all of the problems and people get extremely pissed off because it's more obvious how those problems effected things. This happened in 2000 with Gore vs Bush. One of the biggest problems they discussed, and I agree with, is that for the most part, the electoral college completely negates what we want. Some states do tie electoral votes to the popular vote, but they're few and far between. Again, that isn't too obvious when the election isn't even close, but when it comes down to a small number of votes, it's a lot more obvious.[/QUOTE]
Right-o. Here's a comparison (allow me to UncleBob this for a moment).
If you ask baseball fans to name a time when they saw a bad call in a game that comes to mind, they'll remember Jim Joyce screwing up Armando Gallaraga's perfect game. Why? Because the blown call happened during the very last out of the game.
They won't remember the games where a home plate umpire calls a ball that send the batter walking to first base that was *clearly* a strike if it happens in the 4th inning. Why? Because there's little expectation of a perfect game at that point - even if both incidents have the same effect (eliminating the chance of a perfect game).
I think there's an element there of people's party allegiances as well. Republicans are less concerned about voter ID laws because they see the immediate benefits to their ideology. They can't admit that (like Mike Turzai) this will help their party, because they have to maintain the visage of impartial motives.
But I do see your point overall. It's not a problem, in short, until it's a problem.
Similarly, for some people, racism isn't racism (see Ohio's early voting hours scandal going on currently; FL's voter roll purge, FL's previous voter purges, just to name a few) until it's flagrantly racism.
Right-o. Here's a comparison (allow me to UncleBob this for a moment).
If you ask baseball fans to name a time when they saw a bad call in a game that comes to mind, they'll remember Jim Joyce screwing up Armando Gallaraga's perfect game. Why? Because the blown call happened during the very last out of the game.
They won't remember the games where a home plate umpire calls a ball that send the batter walking to first base that was *clearly* a strike if it happens in the 4th inning. Why? Because there's little expectation of a perfect game at that point - even if both incidents have the same effect (eliminating the chance of a perfect game).
I think there's an element there of people's party allegiances as well. Republicans are less concerned about voter ID laws because they see the immediate benefits to their ideology. They can't admit that (like Mike Turzai) this will help their party, because they have to maintain the visage of impartial motives.
But I do see your point overall. It's not a problem, in short, until it's a problem.
Similarly, for some people, racism isn't racism (see Ohio's early voting hours scandal going on currently; FL's voter roll purge, FL's previous voter purges, just to name a few) until it's flagrantly racism.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=rGW
This is my worst case scenario model, in which it case it comes down to New Hampshire. Well, almost worst case, I'm assuming that Republicans still dont win Florida, but that could easily end up wrong. In that case, Its a R-win.
Republicans really shouldnt be able to win Wisconsin (blue since '84) and PA (blue since '88) as in the above model. However, if you look at the county by county map, most counties almost everywhere do vote red. Its the major population centers which swing states blue. If you really get down to it, its not a matter of 10-12 swing states, but maybe 12 swing COUNTIES nationwide.
Right now the registered voters in PA that dont have the required ID exceed Obama's margin of victory in 2008. This is basically the case in all swing states.
Republicans cant win without Ohio. Ohio also side with the winner almost every time. They went R in 04 and 08, when the elections were a mess locally, with long lines and shortage of machines in urban areas. A lot smoother in '08. They wont make that mistake again though. The curtailed early voting hours is really going to make for a wreck this November. Especially with the absence of being able to vote the Sunday before the election. Black churches often use that day to bring their entire congregation to the polls.
This is my worst case scenario model, in which it case it comes down to New Hampshire. Well, almost worst case, I'm assuming that Republicans still dont win Florida, but that could easily end up wrong. In that case, Its a R-win.
Republicans really shouldnt be able to win Wisconsin (blue since '84) and PA (blue since '88) as in the above model. However, if you look at the county by county map, most counties almost everywhere do vote red. Its the major population centers which swing states blue. If you really get down to it, its not a matter of 10-12 swing states, but maybe 12 swing COUNTIES nationwide.
Right now the registered voters in PA that dont have the required ID exceed Obama's margin of victory in 2008. This is basically the case in all swing states.
Republicans cant win without Ohio. Ohio also side with the winner almost every time. They went R in 04 and 08, when the elections were a mess locally, with long lines and shortage of machines in urban areas. A lot smoother in '08. They wont make that mistake again though. The curtailed early voting hours is really going to make for a wreck this November. Especially with the absence of being able to vote the Sunday before the election. Black churches often use that day to bring their entire congregation to the polls.
I just don't see the voter ID laws swinging swing states that much. It will make them closer, but I just don't see places like PA, FL etc. going for Romney/Ryan.
Playing around on that site I just can't come up with combos that put Obama below 300 electoral college votes even with giving Ohio and NH and IA to Romney. I guess maybe Nevada and Colorado could go red along with those 3, and that puts Obama at 289--still a solid win. But I think those states are unlikely to not go blue.
On a related note, one piece of data I haven't seen is how many registered voters with no form of ID actually voted in the last election? I mean I know it has to be WAY larger than the pretty much non-existent cases of voter impersonation fraud, and the democrats make efforts to get out the vote, drive people to the polls etc. But at the end of the day I can't imagine people who are so outside of society that they lack photo ID are particularly informed and excited voters either.
Playing around on that site I just can't come up with combos that put Obama below 300 electoral college votes even with giving Ohio and NH and IA to Romney. I guess maybe Nevada and Colorado could go red along with those 3, and that puts Obama at 289--still a solid win. But I think those states are unlikely to not go blue.
On a related note, one piece of data I haven't seen is how many registered voters with no form of ID actually voted in the last election? I mean I know it has to be WAY larger than the pretty much non-existent cases of voter impersonation fraud, and the democrats make efforts to get out the vote, drive people to the polls etc. But at the end of the day I can't imagine people who are so outside of society that they lack photo ID are particularly informed and excited voters either.
[quote name='Clak']Isn't that just about universal, that the major urban areas tend to swing blue? I can't imagine why when the republican party has been so good to them...
edit- I also don't know why I even vote, this state is in the bag for republicans anyway.[/QUOTE]
Vote 3rd party for federal funding. That's what I'm doing.
edit- I also don't know why I even vote, this state is in the bag for republicans anyway.[/QUOTE]
Vote 3rd party for federal funding. That's what I'm doing.
[quote name='Clak']Isn't that just about universal, that the major urban areas tend to swing blue? [/QUOTE]
Of course. I'm just curious as to what % of urban voters lack photo ID.
I'm skeptical that it's enough to swing states like PA, FL etc. to red given current gaps in polls of registered/likely voters in the swing states.
That doesn't change that the laws are wrong, discriminatory and should be struck down. I just wonder if some are worrying too much about them turning the results of this current election in any significant manner.
Of course. I'm just curious as to what % of urban voters lack photo ID.
I'm skeptical that it's enough to swing states like PA, FL etc. to red given current gaps in polls of registered/likely voters in the swing states.
That doesn't change that the laws are wrong, discriminatory and should be struck down. I just wonder if some are worrying too much about them turning the results of this current election in any significant manner.
Just did the math on Romney's income:
Assuming $20,000,000 as a rough estimate (the 2010 return looks that way) and a work year of 2,080 hours, Romney makes just short of $77k per day ($9,615.39 per hour). Average family income is low $40k right? Wow, I'm sure those two family's incomes that he almost makes per day really make him want to have their best interests at heart.
Oh yeah, his income is taxed at 15% across the board because we have to "encourage investment"...
Assuming $20,000,000 as a rough estimate (the 2010 return looks that way) and a work year of 2,080 hours, Romney makes just short of $77k per day ($9,615.39 per hour). Average family income is low $40k right? Wow, I'm sure those two family's incomes that he almost makes per day really make him want to have their best interests at heart.
Oh yeah, his income is taxed at 15% across the board because we have to "encourage investment"...
Yeah, and he just said today that he's paid "at least" 13% in taxes each of the last ten years.
And followed that up by saying that when adding in donations that gets up to 20%.
Who was it that was saying that lower taxes would lead to people donating more? He's dodging taxes and still not hitting anywhere near the top bracket when combining his effective tax rate and the % he donates to charity.
And followed that up by saying that when adding in donations that gets up to 20%.
Who was it that was saying that lower taxes would lead to people donating more? He's dodging taxes and still not hitting anywhere near the top bracket when combining his effective tax rate and the % he donates to charity.
Hypothetical situation time:
We all know that the Republicans, and conservatives in general, have turned the political climate into a hyper partisan one with many sitting representatives calling for secession. With the knowledge that popular vote isn't the only factor in electing a president because of the Electoral College, what do you think are the chances of members of certain states(LOLZ Republicans and red states etc) not abiding by their guidelines for voting if the guidelines dictate that they should give their vote to Obama? While the Republican primaries are different from the general election, we've already seen how they don't exactly feel constrained by any rules, not to say that there isn't any precedence regarding primaries of course. We've already seen the Supreme Court intervene and I don't think it's that far of a stretch to see something crazy come out of the Electoral College this year.
disclaimer: I didn't google anything, so I might be totally off the mark in regards to procedural matters. The thought just happened to pop into my head while I was waiting to pay for my take-out tonight. In case you're wondering, it was veal and sausage ziti with eggplant in the sauce and it was delish. Oh and I can't forget the garlic bread.:lol:
We all know that the Republicans, and conservatives in general, have turned the political climate into a hyper partisan one with many sitting representatives calling for secession. With the knowledge that popular vote isn't the only factor in electing a president because of the Electoral College, what do you think are the chances of members of certain states(LOLZ Republicans and red states etc) not abiding by their guidelines for voting if the guidelines dictate that they should give their vote to Obama? While the Republican primaries are different from the general election, we've already seen how they don't exactly feel constrained by any rules, not to say that there isn't any precedence regarding primaries of course. We've already seen the Supreme Court intervene and I don't think it's that far of a stretch to see something crazy come out of the Electoral College this year.
disclaimer: I didn't google anything, so I might be totally off the mark in regards to procedural matters. The thought just happened to pop into my head while I was waiting to pay for my take-out tonight. In case you're wondering, it was veal and sausage ziti with eggplant in the sauce and it was delish. Oh and I can't forget the garlic bread.:lol:
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I just got into it with someone on facebook over the Voter ID issue. I kept explaining to him why it's a form of disenfranchisement and even showed him the above clip and the bit about Ohio attempting to block Dems from voting early, and he just kept rephrasing "everyone should have a license" over and over ad nauseam. Is it safe to say I won that debate?
ID2006
CAGiversary!
Speaking of voter disenfranchisement, let's not forget about the felony disenfranchisement that some people have continued to foment. Not to take away from the seriousness of the issue in general, but it's also a major race issue (that almost no one wants to touch), since so many of minority descent are affected by it – specifically African Americans – and particularly since certain legislation such as the Civil Rights Act thwarted more obvious efforts to disenfranchise black people.
My memory is not as fresh on this topic as it was, but I think this is still a big problem, especially due to the "war" on drugs. I know its not a unique 2012 issue, but it still exists.
My memory is not as fresh on this topic as it was, but I think this is still a big problem, especially due to the "war" on drugs. I know its not a unique 2012 issue, but it still exists.
[quote name='dohdough']Hypothetical situation time:
We all know that the Republicans, and conservatives in general, have turned the political climate into a hyper partisan one with many sitting representatives calling for secession. With the knowledge that popular vote isn't the only factor in electing a president because of the Electoral College, what do you think are the chances of members of certain states(LOLZ Republicans and red states etc) not abiding by their guidelines for voting if the guidelines dictate that they should give their vote to Obama? While the Republican primaries are different from the general election, we've already seen how they don't exactly feel constrained by any rules, not to say that there isn't any precedence regarding primaries of course. We've already seen the Supreme Court intervene and I don't think it's that far of a stretch to see something crazy come out of the Electoral College this year:[/QUOTE]
I vaguely remember reading during the 2008 election that in some states the electoral college reps don't have to vote according to the voters of their state (or district pending on state laws/systems)--but it seldom happens that one goes against it. And it's never happened in a time that it was a close election and had any major impact on the outcome. I wouldn't expect any different this time. As much as things are partisan etc. now, most public officials still respect the will of the voters on such matters.
So I think your post is an example of what I was talking about in saying that some people are just being overly paranoid and pessimistic about the election. Obama's got this baring some unforeseen scandal or economic collapse etc. Romeny/Ryan just can't get the swing votes needed to pull this out.
The election reminds me a lot of the 96 won. Clinton got beat up a lot his first term, but the Republicans put together an awful ticket (and Romney/Ryan is worse than Dole/Kemp) and he ended up cruising to victory. This will be closer as the economy took off for Clinton and hasn't for Obama. But I'd still be very surprised if Obama ended up with less than 300 electoral votes.
We all know that the Republicans, and conservatives in general, have turned the political climate into a hyper partisan one with many sitting representatives calling for secession. With the knowledge that popular vote isn't the only factor in electing a president because of the Electoral College, what do you think are the chances of members of certain states(LOLZ Republicans and red states etc) not abiding by their guidelines for voting if the guidelines dictate that they should give their vote to Obama? While the Republican primaries are different from the general election, we've already seen how they don't exactly feel constrained by any rules, not to say that there isn't any precedence regarding primaries of course. We've already seen the Supreme Court intervene and I don't think it's that far of a stretch to see something crazy come out of the Electoral College this year:[/QUOTE]
I vaguely remember reading during the 2008 election that in some states the electoral college reps don't have to vote according to the voters of their state (or district pending on state laws/systems)--but it seldom happens that one goes against it. And it's never happened in a time that it was a close election and had any major impact on the outcome. I wouldn't expect any different this time. As much as things are partisan etc. now, most public officials still respect the will of the voters on such matters.
So I think your post is an example of what I was talking about in saying that some people are just being overly paranoid and pessimistic about the election. Obama's got this baring some unforeseen scandal or economic collapse etc. Romeny/Ryan just can't get the swing votes needed to pull this out.
The election reminds me a lot of the 96 won. Clinton got beat up a lot his first term, but the Republicans put together an awful ticket (and Romney/Ryan is worse than Dole/Kemp) and he ended up cruising to victory. This will be closer as the economy took off for Clinton and hasn't for Obama. But I'd still be very surprised if Obama ended up with less than 300 electoral votes.
[quote name='ID2006']Speaking of voter disenfranchisement, let's not forget about the felony disenfranchisement that some people have continued to foment. Not to take away from the seriousness of the issue in general, but it's also a major race issue (that almost no one wants to touch), since so many of minority descent are affected by it – specifically African Americans – and particularly since certain legislation such as the Civil Rights Act thwarted more obvious efforts to disenfranchise black people.
My memory is not as fresh on this topic as it was, but I think this is still a big problem, especially due to the "war" on drugs. I know its not a unique 2012 issue, but it still exists.[/QUOTE]
It is a big issue in terms of rights for sure. Like the ID issue its hard to know what kind of impact it has on elections without knowing how many of the disenfranchised would vote if legally able to.
My memory is not as fresh on this topic as it was, but I think this is still a big problem, especially due to the "war" on drugs. I know its not a unique 2012 issue, but it still exists.[/QUOTE]
It is a big issue in terms of rights for sure. Like the ID issue its hard to know what kind of impact it has on elections without knowing how many of the disenfranchised would vote if legally able to.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is a big issue in terms of rights for sure. Like the ID issue its hard to know what kind of impact it has on elections without knowing how many of the disenfranchised would vote if legally able to.[/QUOTE]
I definitely recognize that and personally don't believe it would change the turnout much at the moment; it stills bothers me, though, particularly about how it's being ignored by almost everyone who could bring attention to it.
I can imagine one side just dying to lash out attacks against "support for criminality" the second anyone of note brings it up.
I definitely recognize that and personally don't believe it would change the turnout much at the moment; it stills bothers me, though, particularly about how it's being ignored by almost everyone who could bring attention to it.
I can imagine one side just dying to lash out attacks against "support for criminality" the second anyone of note brings it up.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Just because you didn't "convince" someone of something doesn't mean you didn't "Debate" properly or "win".[/QUOTE]
It's all subjective. The person he argued against probably thought he won too. Considering there was no scorecard or people around to hear what was said in the proper context means there was no winner. Getting on a message board and saying 'I think I won that one' doesn't really mean anything other than dick waving, which in reality, is pointless.
It's all subjective. The person he argued against probably thought he won too. Considering there was no scorecard or people around to hear what was said in the proper context means there was no winner. Getting on a message board and saying 'I think I won that one' doesn't really mean anything other than dick waving, which in reality, is pointless.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I vaguely remember reading during the 2008 election that in some states the electoral college reps don't have to vote according to the voters of their state (or district pending on state laws/systems)--but it seldom happens that one goes against it. And it's never happened in a time that it was a close election and had any major impact on the outcome. I wouldn't expect any different this time. As much as things are partisan etc. now, most public officials still respect the will of the voters on such matters.
[/QUOTE]If I'm misunderstanding you, forgive me, but isn't that exactly what happened in 2000 with Gore and Bush? And about half the states don't bind them to the popular vote officially. Even then it can be a pledge to a party rather than the popular vote.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html
[/QUOTE]If I'm misunderstanding you, forgive me, but isn't that exactly what happened in 2000 with Gore and Bush? And about half the states don't bind them to the popular vote officially. Even then it can be a pledge to a party rather than the popular vote.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html
[quote name='ID2006']I definitely recognize that and personally don't believe it would change the turnout much at the moment; it stills bothers me, though, particularly about how it's being ignored by almost everyone who could bring attention to it.[/quote]
It's definitely an issue that doesn't get enough attention, and a law that should be struck down. Once you've done all your time in jail/parole etc., you should get all your basic rights back.
Yep, that's why so many bad laws like this, 3 strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences etc. that are shown to have no crime reduction impact and lots of backfire effects etc. are still on the books.
Try to change any of them, and officials get labeled as "soft on crime" by their opponents. So neither the left or right is willing to touch these kind of issues.
[quote name='KingBroly']It's all subjective. The person he argued against probably thought he won too. Considering there was no scorecard or people around to hear what was said in the proper context means there was no winner. Getting on a message board and saying 'I think I won that one' doesn't really mean anything other than dick waving, which in reality, is pointless.[/QUOTE]
Problem is there is never winners in these kind of arguments. Most people are firmly on the left or right and never going to change to an opposite position.
An outsider can say who made the better argument from a debate team type of sense though I guess. i.e. one person used facts and logic and the other person only used opinion and so on.
But at the end of the day, who cares? Discussing this stuff is just either for fun or not. It's a waste of time trying to change others minds as so few people are remotely open minded on political issues. I mean if you're liberal you might could sway another liberal person to a view a littler closer to your own I guess. But it's a waste to bother trying to change a conservatives mind. Or vice versa for conservatives trying to sway liberals.
It's definitely an issue that doesn't get enough attention, and a law that should be struck down. Once you've done all your time in jail/parole etc., you should get all your basic rights back.
Yep, that's why so many bad laws like this, 3 strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences etc. that are shown to have no crime reduction impact and lots of backfire effects etc. are still on the books.
Try to change any of them, and officials get labeled as "soft on crime" by their opponents. So neither the left or right is willing to touch these kind of issues.
[quote name='KingBroly']It's all subjective. The person he argued against probably thought he won too. Considering there was no scorecard or people around to hear what was said in the proper context means there was no winner. Getting on a message board and saying 'I think I won that one' doesn't really mean anything other than dick waving, which in reality, is pointless.[/QUOTE]
Problem is there is never winners in these kind of arguments. Most people are firmly on the left or right and never going to change to an opposite position.
An outsider can say who made the better argument from a debate team type of sense though I guess. i.e. one person used facts and logic and the other person only used opinion and so on.
But at the end of the day, who cares? Discussing this stuff is just either for fun or not. It's a waste of time trying to change others minds as so few people are remotely open minded on political issues. I mean if you're liberal you might could sway another liberal person to a view a littler closer to your own I guess. But it's a waste to bother trying to change a conservatives mind. Or vice versa for conservatives trying to sway liberals.
[quote name='Clak']If I'm misunderstanding you, forgive me, but isn't that exactly what happened in 2000 with Gore and Bush? And about half the states don't bind them to the popular vote officially. Even then it can be a pledge to a party rather than the popular vote.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html[/QUOTE]
I don't recall that having an impact in 2000. Best of my knowledge all the electoral college reps went with the voters in Florida and other close states.
Even in states that don't bind it to the vote officially, the reps almost always go with the vote as it's a shit storm if they don't.
And even among right wingers, most respect the will of voters. Being small government types, it would be pretty damn hypocritical to ignore voters and go the other way as an electoral college voter.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html[/QUOTE]
I don't recall that having an impact in 2000. Best of my knowledge all the electoral college reps went with the voters in Florida and other close states.
Even in states that don't bind it to the vote officially, the reps almost always go with the vote as it's a shit storm if they don't.
And even among right wingers, most respect the will of voters. Being small government types, it would be pretty damn hypocritical to ignore voters and go the other way as an electoral college voter.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is a big issue in terms of rights for sure. Like the ID issue its hard to know what kind of impact it has on elections without knowing how many of the disenfranchised would vote if legally able to.[/QUOTE]
I seem to recall Chris Uggen and someone else (Jeff Manza?) using some predictive models that found, even under the lowest rates of felon voter participation , Gore would have won FL in 2000.
(except for the fact that felons could not vote in FL.)
(and also that felon roll purges in 2000 omitted a LOT of African Americans with similar names to those convicted felons, create a lot of false positives and further reducing the African-American vote.)
(and all the other things about hanging chads, provisional ballots, jews for Buchanan, etc.)
Man,Florida is Republicans are the worst.
Where have Democrats been found to be enacting efforts at such brazen voter suppression? If we want to get back to some kind of naive world in which "both sides do it," where have Democrats tried to stop voter blocs en masse?
I seem to recall Chris Uggen and someone else (Jeff Manza?) using some predictive models that found, even under the lowest rates of felon voter participation , Gore would have won FL in 2000.
(except for the fact that felons could not vote in FL.)
(and also that felon roll purges in 2000 omitted a LOT of African Americans with similar names to those convicted felons, create a lot of false positives and further reducing the African-American vote.)
(and all the other things about hanging chads, provisional ballots, jews for Buchanan, etc.)
Man,
Where have Democrats been found to be enacting efforts at such brazen voter suppression? If we want to get back to some kind of naive world in which "both sides do it," where have Democrats tried to stop voter blocs en masse?
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I seem to recall Chris Uggen and someone else (Jeff Manza?) using some predictive models that found, even under the lowest rates of felon voter participation , Gore would have won FL in 2000.
(except for the fact that felons could not vote in FL.)
(and also that felon roll purges in 2000 omitted a LOT of African Americans with similar names to those convicted felons, create a lot of false positives and further reducing the African-American vote.)
(and all the other things about hanging chads, provisional ballots, jews for Buchanan, etc.)
Man,Florida is Republicans are the worst.
Where have Democrats been found to be enacting efforts at such brazen voter suppression? If we want to get back to some kind of naive world in which "both sides do it," where have Democrats tried to stop voter blocs en masse?[/QUOTE]
As part of the debate I took part in, I googled around for any signs of voter fraud or suppression perpetrated by Dems, and I couldn't find any despite the claims of my opponent insisting that Dems were guilty of using deceased people's ID's to vote twice or more (this is true apparently because his sister TOTALLY saw someone try it once).
After posting the Mike Turzai vid and the story about how Ohio tried to block early voting for Dems, I'm still currently waiting for a rebuttal.
(except for the fact that felons could not vote in FL.)
(and also that felon roll purges in 2000 omitted a LOT of African Americans with similar names to those convicted felons, create a lot of false positives and further reducing the African-American vote.)
(and all the other things about hanging chads, provisional ballots, jews for Buchanan, etc.)
Man,
Where have Democrats been found to be enacting efforts at such brazen voter suppression? If we want to get back to some kind of naive world in which "both sides do it," where have Democrats tried to stop voter blocs en masse?[/QUOTE]
As part of the debate I took part in, I googled around for any signs of voter fraud or suppression perpetrated by Dems, and I couldn't find any despite the claims of my opponent insisting that Dems were guilty of using deceased people's ID's to vote twice or more (this is true apparently because his sister TOTALLY saw someone try it once).
After posting the Mike Turzai vid and the story about how Ohio tried to block early voting for Dems, I'm still currently waiting for a rebuttal.
[quote name='mykevermin']I seem to recall Chris Uggen and someone else (Jeff Manza?) using some predictive models that found, even under the lowest rates of felon voter participation , Gore would have won FL in 2000.
(except for the fact that felons could not vote in FL.)
(and also that felon roll purges in 2000 omitted a LOT of African Americans with similar names to those convicted felons, create a lot of false positives and further reducing the African-American vote.)
(and all the other things about hanging chads, provisional ballots, jews for Buchanan, etc.)
Man,Florida is Republicans are the worst.
Where have Democrats been found to be enacting efforts at such brazen voter suppression? If we want to get back to some kind of naive world in which "both sides do it," where have Democrats tried to stop voter blocs en masse?[/QUOTE]
I got this one, my fellow conservatives...
Civil Rights Act of 1964. SUCK IT DEMOCRAT
(except for the fact that felons could not vote in FL.)
(and also that felon roll purges in 2000 omitted a LOT of African Americans with similar names to those convicted felons, create a lot of false positives and further reducing the African-American vote.)
(and all the other things about hanging chads, provisional ballots, jews for Buchanan, etc.)
Man,
Where have Democrats been found to be enacting efforts at such brazen voter suppression? If we want to get back to some kind of naive world in which "both sides do it," where have Democrats tried to stop voter blocs en masse?[/QUOTE]
I got this one, my fellow conservatives...
Civil Rights Act of 1964. SUCK IT DEMOCRAT
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Purple Flames']As part of the debate I took part in, I googled around for any signs of voter fraud or suppression perpetrated by Dems, and I couldn't find any despite the claims of my opponent insisting that Dems were guilty of using deceased people's ID's to vote twice or more (this is true apparently because his sister TOTALLY saw someone try it once).
After posting the Mike Turzai vid and the story about how Ohio tried to block early voting for Dems, I'm still currently waiting for a rebuttal.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm not foolish enough to say it's never happened, even recently. But I can very confidently say there's no way it has happened as broadly and extensively as GOP efforts to stop voters.
There's no Turzai video, or Weyrich video, espousing the virtues of selective voting from Democrats.
Continue to ask your friend "why do we need IDs?" - they will certainly tie themselves into a knot very quickly based on the fact that there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud in PA, and even if there were, how would the need for a photo ID stop that. What has the need for a photo ID prevented before? Kids from buying beer in a liquor store? Getting into a club?
After posting the Mike Turzai vid and the story about how Ohio tried to block early voting for Dems, I'm still currently waiting for a rebuttal.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm not foolish enough to say it's never happened, even recently. But I can very confidently say there's no way it has happened as broadly and extensively as GOP efforts to stop voters.
There's no Turzai video, or Weyrich video, espousing the virtues of selective voting from Democrats.
Continue to ask your friend "why do we need IDs?" - they will certainly tie themselves into a knot very quickly based on the fact that there is no evidence of in-person voter fraud in PA, and even if there were, how would the need for a photo ID stop that. What has the need for a photo ID prevented before? Kids from buying beer in a liquor store? Getting into a club?
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I asked him that repeatedly, and he just gave the standard "getting an ID is easy/everyone should already have some form of ID" fallback line. Not much of an argument really. The funny thing is, the guy's an immigrant and can't vote anyway but "understand the need for the law."
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Purple Flames']I asked him that repeatedly, and he just gave the standard "getting an ID is easy/everyone should already have some form of ID" fallback line. Not much of an argument really. The funny thing is, the guy's an immigrant and can't vote anyway but "understand the need for the law."[/QUOTE]
getting an ID is a non sequitur, though.
getting an ID is a non sequitur, though.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
That kind of statement, while accurate, is the least surprising thing I've read in some time.
I used to think IDs required for voting was purely to prevent fraud. (I know, I was naive and believed the republicans were genuine in their sentiments for most of my life.) Anyway, it really changed my mind when I started to think critically about it and realize that individual voter fraud isn't a concern because its such a small fraction of the vote anyway and will benefit/detract from both sides nearly equally. Systemic voter fraud and suppression should be our concern because that is what can swing elections.
Ironically, requiring IDs of people who don't have the money for it or perhaps don't even have access/knowledge of where to find their birth certificate is precisely what leads to voter suppression because of how heavily skewed those people are toward democrats. The Republicans are crafty though because they don't let the debate get there, they continue to insist that it's to prevent voter fraud but EVEN with an identification it won't prevent people from being on the rolls in multiple precincts or other fraudulent activity. All the while the whole point of it becomes democrat disenfranchisement. It's despicable and shameful that they are willing to stoop so low to win elections. It's BS and they know it but they'll smile and lie right to your face.
Ironically, requiring IDs of people who don't have the money for it or perhaps don't even have access/knowledge of where to find their birth certificate is precisely what leads to voter suppression because of how heavily skewed those people are toward democrats. The Republicans are crafty though because they don't let the debate get there, they continue to insist that it's to prevent voter fraud but EVEN with an identification it won't prevent people from being on the rolls in multiple precincts or other fraudulent activity. All the while the whole point of it becomes democrat disenfranchisement. It's despicable and shameful that they are willing to stoop so low to win elections. It's BS and they know it but they'll smile and lie right to your face.
ing Jenna Jameson!? And that's a statement of surprise, not a statement of intent.http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending...enna_jameson_clint_eastwood_endorsements.html
Some good news. Apparently they have been right for every election since 1980.
bread's done