2012 Election Thread

[quote name='dopa345']Apparently they have been right for every election since 1980.[/QUOTE]

Have the selected the winner each time, or have the accurately predicted the electoral vote breakdown within a standard deviation or two? If it's the latter, color me impressed (and frightened); if it's the former, meh.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Some good news. Apparently they have been right for every election since 1980.[/QUOTE]

From what I was reading the other day, the system they are using is completely new and hasn't predicted anything. It was only right in retroactively picking out the winner, which really doesn't say a whole lot.
 
I still don't give a fuck about the new voter ID law and I look forward to hearing from all of the old geezers and minorities who are gonna whine about having to show ID just to vote. Not really, but I'll just sit there and nod my head like I did in prior years. All I care about is if the people from the county pay my ass in a timely manner for sitting there for 16 hours pretending to give a fuck.

The only thing that concerns me is the robo calls and how I can try and stop them.
 
[quote name='Clak']
lJ5z6.jpg


:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Yeah I get sick of how people get sucked into Paul Ryan's charisma (which I don't see incidentally)

Just the other day some guy posted about how Paul takes his workout on the road. Who cares, the guy is still a douche.
 
It's 2012. Get a form of identification. It's not that hard. It really isn't. Of course, the news and the left have found a way to make a story out of this by finding the handful of people who live a million miles away from a government building that issues IDs or who are 1000 years old and don't speak any language known to man.

And for those saying they can't find any case of a Democrat being implicated in voter fraud, try a little harder...or try at all...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/4-indiana-dems-charged-with-election-fraud-in-2008/

http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?view=article&id=1176

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8301269
 
I'm not sure how any of those situations would have been different if the voter had to show ID - none of them really involved voting under a fake name in such a way that would have changed if the individual had to present ID at the polls.
 
Anybody else wonder if this is all a ploy by the party of freedom and liberty to have some way of tracking us more easily?
 
Ya, because you aren't already tracked in just about everything you do. Reward cards at department stores tracking you and what clothes/electronics you buy. Reward cards at grocery stores, tracking what you eat. Bank transactions, tracked. Credit, tracked. Point cards at gas stations, amount of fuel you consume, tracked. I highly doubt it is a ploy to track you anymore than you already are.
 
[quote name='nasum']Anybody else wonder if this is all a ploy by the party of freedom and liberty to have some way of tracking us more easily?[/QUOTE]

Considering that party of freedom was pushing a national ID to allegedly combat terrorism, no, I'm not wondering. I know.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']It's 2012. Get a form of identification. It's not that hard. It really isn't. Of course, the news and the left have found a way to make a story out of this by finding the handful of people who live a million miles away from a government building that issues IDs or who are 1000 years old and don't speak any language known to man.[/quote]
I lived for 2 years in Oregon without a valid form of ID and I made 6 figures. I just didn't need one at any point. If there's fraud, prosecute it.

Also, yea, IDs are impossible to forge as evidenced by how minors never have them to buy alcohol with. That's some fine securitizing there. And with the bar not even being driver's licenses but often allows gun permits (but not college IDs!), I know I'll sleep safer at night knowing democracy lives to see another day.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/4-indiana-dems-charged-with-election-fraud-in-2008/
Click to expand...
Voter ID would not have affected that in the slightest. Pointing out that people have been bullshitting the nomination signatures since roughly the time it was first thought up and that it easily predates Christ by a couple of hundred years at least probably doesn't matter? In any event, yea, this has zero bearing on the issue at hand.
http://www.tunicatimes.com/index.php?view=article&id=1176
Click to expand...
One person, 10 votes, convicted of absentee ballot fraud so the ID law would have had no effect at all.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8301269
Click to expand...
A grand total of 4 votes which was caught by the system in place to prevent votes and the ID law would not have changed this at all.

So our evidence is a grand total of 14 votes cast fraudulently with a robust 0.00 of them that would have been caught by these voter ID laws. That's the kind of high gravitas argument that speaks for itself.
 
[quote name='speedracer']One person, 10 votes, convicted of absentee ballot fraud so the ID law would have had no effect at all. [/QUOTE]

The thing is, most of the voter fraud that happens is by absentee ballot. It's much easier for someone to commit fraud by mail and fake many more votes than it is showing up on voting day and going from polling place to polling place. Using voter IDs to prevent voter fraud is like using a steamroller to kill a fly considering how little voter fraud at polling stations actually occurs.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']The thing is, most of the voter fraud that happens is by absentee ballot. It's much easier for someone to commit fraud by mail and fake many more votes than it is showing up on voting day and going from polling place to polling place. Using voter IDs to prevent voter fraud is like using a steamroller to kill a fly considering how little voter fraud at polling stations actually occurs.[/QUOTE]
If someone wants to find an efficient and reasonable way to handle that, I got no problem with that. Hell, I'm sure it's out there.

Voter ID laws are straight up voter suppression. It's not reasonable to pretend it's not.
 
By your logic, we should get rid of voter registration cards as well.

And let's not pretend this doesn't suppress against those that can't read, write, have access to pens, pencils, stamps, post office boxes, etc.
 
You know how you deter voter fraud? By making it a federal fucking felony, which has already been done.

Yeah, it is 2012 and everyone should probably have an ID BUT requiring a purchase (ID) to make a vote equates to a poll tax, which has already been struck down. Don't give me this bullshit about the free IDs being made available either because we all know those are token concessions to try and avoid being struck down by the poll tax ruling in addition to the fact that they artificially limit the IDs by only making them available 1 Saturday a month for 3 hours or some other such bullshit.

This requirement of an identification is coming from the same damn party that had their own elected representatives openly endorsing giving limited information to census takers because "that's the gubment intruding in our lives!!!!" They know damn well it's not about preventing voter fraud but if they came out and publicly stated that their ulterior motive was to disenfranchise voters they would be lambasted.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']By your logic, we should get rid of voter registration cards as well.

And let's not pretend this doesn't suppress against those that can't read, write, have access to pens, pencils, stamps, post office boxes, etc.[/QUOTE]
So let's say the law "only" stops 1,000 people from voting in PA, a number so low even the Republicans there know it's bullshit (or else they wouldn't have wasted the time to do it). Is stopping 1,000 people who have every right to vote a bridge too far? What about 1,001? Is 5 too many?

That's my problem with the law. That and the whole "oh look we passed it and it got out of the courts a robust 3 months before the election. Good luck folks!". That doesn't pass the smell test.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']By your logic, we should get rid of voter registration cards as well.

And let's not pretend this doesn't suppress against those that can't read, write, have access to pens, pencils, stamps, post office boxes, etc.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget hands. People without hands will have a harder time!
 
Did anyone just see the new Democratic voter registration graph on MSNBC's coverage? From 259k in the 2008 cycle to 11k now after they made it harder to register to vote in Florida(?). Meanwhile, Republican registration remains about the same.

I'll get a screencap as soon as they update the stream. I couldnt believe it when I saw it.

This Ann Romney speech is the most ridiculous thing. She's trying to make like they've once in their lives, EVER known the hardships that regular people face. And I'm sure its being bought hook, line and sinker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Did anyone just see the new Democratic voter registration graph on MSNBC's coverage? From 259k in the 2008 cycle to 11k now after they made it harder to register to vote in Florida(?). Meanwhile, Republican registration remains about the same.

I'll get a screencap as soon as they update the stream. I couldnt believe it when I saw it.

This Ann Romney speech is the most ridiculous thing. She's trying to make like they've once in their lives, EVER known the hardships that regular people face. And I'm sure its being bought hook, line and sinker.[/QUOTE]

I really don't get this attitude towards Romney. When did being well off equate to being bad or not understanding hard work. There was a line in a movie when a women who was poor asked a rich man "do you even know the price of milk?" he didn't. Fact is neither do I. I'm not rich by any means but I've achieved a level of success. Doesn't mean I don't understand hard work, doesn't mean I can't understand and empathize with people with less and draw on my experiences to help. I grew up dirt poor homeless at one point in fact. Some very well off people I met were the nicest people you want to meet would give a helping hand even when not asked. And I'm not talking just money but opportunities they could provide to get people on their feet. I met some poor people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. And lets be honest it's not like there are going to be a bunch of poor people meeting next week either at the Dem's convention. Hate his policies, I can get with that but this attitude that because he is rich (really rich) they know no hardships and all their experiences are invalid to me is crazy.
 
It doesn't mean they don't understand hard work. Plenty of rich people work their asses off.

What they don't understand is that not everyone has the same opportunities to achieve success. Thus they lack empathy for the unfortunate and think everyone who is poor is so simply because they didn't work hard enough.

Thus they want to slash welfare and other assistance for the poor, slash spending on education, make comments about not being concerned about the very poor (like Romney did a while back), talk about how they pay at least 13% in taxes and how it jumps up to 20% with private donations (like Romney said a week or so ago) like it's some great thing when middle class families are effective tax rates higher than his taxes and charity combined.

Yes their are rich people who are compassionate, give tons to charity and truly care about the poor and unfortunate and don't view them as lazy pieces of shit who just didn't work hard enough. Romney just isn't one of them. And neither are many wealthy conservatives as bootstrapping is the conservative MO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its not about rich or poor, its about opportunities and access to it, plain and simple. Over the decades, access to opportunities to climb the ladder from poor to middle class to rich has eroded has more resembling a 3rd world country in the US. 3rd world countries have tons of poor and few really really wealthy and no/less avenues to climb. Romney and Republicans just can't seem to understand this.

Problem with Obama, his solution is just to spend more money, but he spends it in the wrong place and wrong way.
 
The Romney/Ryan ticket is going to make the statement tonight that their goal is to create 12 million jobs in 4 years. That is 250,000 jobs a month for 48 straight months. While I would love that to happen I have not heard one policy that would possibly do this. I am not saying it is impossible but the only Republican president to create 10+ million jobs during a term was Reagan. The other 4 times it happened was with Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter (who every conservative calls a failure), and twice under Clinton. Since Clinton, we have added roughly 1 million jobs net in 12 years. I would just like to know how they are going to magically create these jobs.

Also, actually getting to 12 million would be more than at any 4 year term ever.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-29/gop-convention-ryan-mccain/57403826/1
 
That 250k job a month is just freakin' insane. The Republicans in charge had practically 4 years since the meltdown to do this by influencing policy and such but they've changed their priorities by making their no. 1 goal Obama a 1 term president. And the kicker is that their new plan is to just tout the same old platform, lower taxes on the rich, screw over the poor? The really sad part is that the media is going to believe them, despite their "liberal bias."
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']That 250k job a month is just freakin' insane. The Republicans in charge had practically 4 years since the meltdown to do this by influencing policy and such but they've changed their priorities by making their no. 1 goal Obama a 1 term president. And the kicker is that their new plan is to just tout the same old platform, lower taxes on the rich, screw over the poor? The really sad part is that the media is going to believe them, despite their "liberal bias."[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but this time, it'll work because...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, but this time, it'll work because...[/QUOTE]

We don't need facts...I just know it in my gut.

It would be some weird genius plan if I was a conspiracy theorist. Big business holding back jobs till the Muslim is out of office to then create 12 million jobs. It would cement the hold of the Republican party on this country for decades. They could do whatever they wanted after that...but that is just a theory.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']I really don't get this attitude towards Romney. When did being well off equate to being bad or not understanding hard work. There was a line in a movie when a women who was poor asked a rich man "do you even know the price of milk?" he didn't. Fact is neither do I. I'm not rich by any means but I've achieved a level of success. Doesn't mean I don't understand hard work, doesn't mean I can't understand and empathize with people with less and draw on my experiences to help. I grew up dirt poor homeless at one point in fact. Some very well off people I met were the nicest people you want to meet would give a helping hand even when not asked. And I'm not talking just money but opportunities they could provide to get people on their feet. I met some poor people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. And lets be honest it's not like there are going to be a bunch of poor people meeting next week either at the Dem's convention. Hate his policies, I can get with that but this attitude that because he is rich (really rich) they know no hardships and all their experiences are invalid to me is crazy.[/QUOTE]

Like others have said, sure, I know of many rich people like that. Mitt isn't anywhere close to them. He seems like the guy who wouldn't even stop over people, he'd put his cleats or spurs on and enjoy stepping on them.
 
[quote name='Clak']I miss McCain circa 2000.[/QUOTE]

He was a neocon then, too. His line in 2000 was that our foreign policy would be called "rogue state rollback." You're thinking of McCain from the 80s/early 90s.
 
Paul Ryan is so much more charismatic than Romney, but something about his face and mannerisms reminds me of President Not Sure.

podium.jpg
stateunion.jpg


And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for $$$s, and neither was writing. People wrote books and movies, movies that had stories, so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting, and I believe that time can come again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Listening to Paul Ryan in the background-

Ryan: "This President put all his effort into Obamacare, which nobody wanted!"
Crowd: "Booooo, socialism, rabblerabblerabble!"

2 minutes later-

Ryan: "I will do everything in my power to protect Medicare so that we can all have it!"
Crowd: "WOO-HOO America!!!! USA USA USA!!!"

wut?
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Listening to Paul Ryan in the background-

Ryan: "This President put all his effort into Obamacare, which nobody wanted!"
Crowd: "Booooo, socialism, rabblerabblerabble!"

2 minutes later-

Ryan: "I will do everything in my power to protect Medicare so that we can all have it!"
Crowd: "WOO-HOO America!!!! USA USA USA!!!"

wut?[/QUOTE]

It's funny right now, but it won't be funny when people vote for Romney/Ryan because they think this way.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He was a neocon then, too. His line in 2000 was that our foreign policy would be called "rogue state rollback." You're thinking of McCain from the 80s/early 90s.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but he hadn't quite gone full retard yet. In the years since then he's changed his opinion on nearly everything.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Listening to Paul Ryan in the background-

Ryan: "This President put all his effort into Obamacare, which nobody wanted!"
Crowd: "Booooo, socialism, rabblerabblerabble!"

2 minutes later-

Ryan: "I will do everything in my power to protect Medicare so that we can all have it!"
Crowd: "WOO-HOO America!!!! USA USA USA!!!"

wut?[/QUOTE]

I had to roll my eyes at that. Then when he got to celebrating his and Romney's religions I had enough and changed the channel.
 
Do you have a link to that version? Just want to be sure it wasn't overlooked (i.e., I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was a clerical error at best).
 
[quote name='Clak']So, just finished watching Daily Show, and apparently Herman Cain is a blithering idiot.[/QUOTE]

No kidding. That shit about Romney getting 0 support among blacks in a recent poll being due to them not accounting for the fact that black people work and have careers and thus weren't home to participate in the poll was one of the dumber comments I've heard in recent memory.

So people of other races don't work and were home to express support for Romney? :roll:

Few things are more frustrating than people who can't even form arguments that contain basic logic/common sense.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']The Romney/Ryan ticket is going to make the statement tonight that their goal is to create 12 million jobs in 4 years. That is 250,000 jobs a month for 48 straight months. While I would love that to happen I have not heard one policy that would possibly do this. I am not saying it is impossible but the only Republican president to create 10+ million jobs during a term was Reagan. The other 4 times it happened was with Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter (who every conservative calls a failure), and twice under Clinton. Since Clinton, we have added roughly 1 million jobs net in 12 years. I would just like to know how they are going to magically create these jobs.

Also, actually getting to 12 million would be more than at any 4 year term ever.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-29/gop-convention-ryan-mccain/57403826/1[/QUOTE]

I kept wondering if I had missed something at the beginning about how 12 million jobs would be created. Then I began thinking well, since they obviously just picked this number out of thin air, why'd they stop at 12 million? Instead, why didn't they vow to create 1 billion jobs? 2 billion jobs? MORE JOBS THAN THERE ARE HUMANS ON THE PLANET!
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Really? Where is the language on a. Constitutional amendment?[/QUOTE]

second sentence.

in other news:

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
Click to expand...

Gotta spoiler the source. Swallow your beverages, take a deep breath, and sit the fuck down. You're about to be blown away:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz2522QCngL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top