2012 Election Thread

[quote name='willardhaven']It's not really a conspiracy when Republicans are going on camera stating they are passing voter ID to flip states.

Do you really think rigging a machine is out of bounds?

I'll be disappointed no matter what tomorrow, just slightly less so if Obama wins.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't really my point. My point is that in the 24-hour news media, everything, no matter how big or small, how factual or how stupid it may be, becomes a headline.

We talk about voting machine frauds when years ago there hanging chads, butterfly ballots, lock boxes, etc. Never underestimate someone's ability to bend the system to their will for gain. And don't act like it's a big thing every election, because it happens every single time.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']Who else is excited to go out and vote tomorrow with their Election Erection :D. I know I am! Happy voting to everybody![/QUOTE]

You have a better chance of dying on your way to the polling station than you do of having your vote influence the election.

Do the sensible thing, peeps: stay home and do something enjoyable with your time.
 
You know I've always thought that telling people that was one of the worst things a person could do during an election. Realize that yeah, one person's vote is unlikely to matter, but if enough people believe that, you get a large number of people not voting, and all those people together could actually matter. i mean we already have a painfully low voter turnout every year as it is.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know I've always thought that telling people that was one of the worst things a person could do during an election. Realize that yeah, one person's vote is unlikely to matter, but if enough people believe that, you get a large number of people not voting, and all those people together could actually matter. i mean we already have a painfully low voter turnout every year as it is.[/QUOTE]

This. I hate that cynical "my vote doesn't matter" bullshit. Every since '08, I've made an effort to vote even in local elections here in NC.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']This. I hate that cynical BS of my vote doesn't matter. Every since '08, I've made an effort to vote even in local elections here in NC.[/QUOTE]

You weren't do so before because...?

I've been voting in every election since 03, when I first became eligible. No matter how big or small, I voted. I knew it was important then, just as I do now.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You weren't do so before because...?

I've been voting in every election since 03, when I first became eligible. No matter how big or small, I voted. I knew it was important then, just as I do now.[/QUOTE]

Because I freely admit that I was apathetic to a lot of things at the time. All I cared about in my early 20's was gaming and hanging out. Then I realized I was celebrating ignorance and indifference, so I decide to actually give a damn. Combined with how pissed off I got with the direction the country was going, I decided to learn more about politics and actually registered to vote.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know I've always thought that telling people that was one of the worst things a person could do during an election. Realize that yeah, one person's vote is unlikely to matter, but if enough people believe that, you get a large number of people not voting, and all those people together could actually matter. i mean we already have a painfully low voter turnout every year as it is.[/QUOTE]

Voting gives sanction to politicians who start wars, trash the environment, and champion civil liberties abuses. If voter turnout ever fell to hilariously low levels, like 3% of the eligible populace, the sanction would vanish. That's the real reason to not vote.
 
No it wouldn't, someone would still win the election, just by a smaller number of votes. I get you're apathetic and all, but if that's the case vote for a third party. Yeah they won't win, but like they say, you can't bitch about who wins if you didn't participate.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ains-for-obama-leave-romney-with-longer-odds/

Last round of polls yesterday show forward momentum for Obama nationally and in swing states.

The blog has his chances of winning now forecast at 91.6%.[/QUOTE]

and what they dont tell you is they are using the 2008 turn outs and over sampling dems

whole contest is rigged anyways and big brother picks who they want anyways :) LOL


went into vote today and the person checking people in eating a big bowl of oatmeal ... i mean come on do you really need to be shoving food into your face when your checking people in..... in an out in around 10 mins but they said the line was long as an hour around 7am

by the way EXPECT LAWSUITS there was someone at my polling place already screaming they were not giving the chance to vote something about they did not want to use the machines they wanted a absentee ballot and if she was not given one she would sue
 
[quote name='slidecage']and what they dont tell you is they are using the 2008 turn outs and over sampling dems[/quote]

This kind of blather was running the rounds of conservative talk radio yesterday. I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and neither he, nor you, know fuck all about survey methodology.

Limbaugh was kvetching about some poll (Gallup?) yesterday having a sample size of Democrats that was 11% greater than the sample size of Republicans.

Perhaps you think they should be sure to survey 50% Democrat and 50% Republicans? If you think that, please revisit my prior remark about not knowing a fucking thing about survey methodology. The country is not evenly divided into half Rs and half Ds.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

As recently as June of this year (sorry, too lazy to find something more current if there is one), 40% of the nation identified as Republican, compared to 48% as Democrat. So a survey that was +8 for Democrats in sample size would be ACCURATE, and I'm sure you and Rush would still claim bias. Why? Because he's a cheerleader with a vested interest in one particular outcome, facts be damned. And you are a fool.

whole contest is rigged anyways and big brother picks who they want anyways :) LOL


went into vote today and the person checking people in eating a big bowl of oatmeal ... i mean come on do you really need to be shoving food into your face when your checking people in..... in an out in around 10 mins but they said the line was long as an hour around 7am
Click to expand...

When I read comments like these I get angry that bars aren't allowed to serve until 6PM on election day. Why are you allowed to have your permanent cognitive impairment when you go to the booth, yet I can't have mine?
 
Just a cross-reference for the Election Day Thread: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331336

By federal law, they have to give her a paper ballot if she asks for one.

Also, RV != LV. A lot of people just stay home because they aren't enthused about the process or any candidate. It's a simple fact. And polling data for registered voters is extremely pointless, showing the signs of a weak poll.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] I'm sure you and Rush would still claim bias. Why? Because he's a cheerleader with a vested interest in one particular outcome, facts be damned. And you are a fool.[/QUOTE]

Also the more he can convince listeners that Romney is a shoo-in, the more he can claim that the election was stolen when Obama wins.

It's not about giving folks polling info, it's about pumping up right-wing ideology and keeping listeners from changing the dial.
 
[quote name='Clak']No it wouldn't, someone would still win the election, just by a smaller number of votes. I get you're apathetic and all, but if that's the case vote for a third party. Yeah they won't win, but like they say, you can't bitch about who wins if you didn't participate.[/QUOTE]

Yeah.

Then you just get called a smug, non-partisan fence sitter.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You have a better chance of dying on your way to the polling station than you do of having your vote influence the election.

Do the sensible thing, peeps: stay home and do something enjoyable with your time.[/QUOTE]

No thanks! :D

HAPPY ELECTION ERECTION TO YOU TOO!
 
Even if little impact per vote on the presidential election, there's still all the state and local races and ballot measures that are often much closer.
 
[quote name='camoor']Also the more he can convince listeners that Romney is a shoo-in, the more he can claim that the election was stolen when Obama wins.

It's not about giving folks polling info, it's about pumping up right-wing ideology and keeping listeners from changing the dial.[/QUOTE]

Liberals and Conservatives alike should listen to him tomorrow. It's ALWAYS his best show. Nothing comes close, win or lose.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah.

Then you just get called a smug, non-partisan fence sitter.[/QUOTE]
Aww did I hurt little bobby's feelings?:lol:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Even if little impact per vote on the presidential election, there's still all the state and local races and ballot measures that are often much closer.[/QUOTE]

THIS. The propositions in Cali are what I am more interested in. It affects me directly.


HAPPY ELECTION ERECTIONS! :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Even if little impact per vote on the presidential election, there's still all the state and local races and ballot measures that are often much closer.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, those are the elections average folks know nothing about and shouldn't be voting in anyway.

Someone hit me up yesterday:
S - "So, who all should I vote for tomorrow?"
M - "That kinda defeats the purpose of voting if I just tell you who to vote for."
S - "But I don't know anyone who's running in any of the local elections. You go to all the city council meetings - who should I vote for for city council?"
M - "City council elections aren't even until April..." ::facepalm::

These are the kinds of dear ol' folks who come up with methods like voting for the person they see the most signs for on the way to the polling booth. The average person knows enough to make a reasonably justifiable decision on who to vote for in the Presidential race where they make virtually no difference. Meanwhile, they know nothing about state/local elections where their vote actually does matter.
 
[quote name='Clak']Aww did I hurt little bobby's feelings?:lol:[/QUOTE]

Not at all. It's just funny how you manage to talk out of both sides of your... is that your face?
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']THIS. The propositions in Cali are what I am more interested in. It affects me directly. [/QUOTE]

Yes! Label those GMOs!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yes! Label those GMOs![/QUOTE]

Actually im voting NO on that. Haha. Sorry


Edit: before you get too mad. I'm all for what the prop wants to do but after reading it I strongly feel it's doing it incorrectly and vaguely. The exemptions and enforcement clause are poorly written and need to be revised to be strict. The prop just reminds me of SOPA. Good intentions. Poor implementation. Needs to be revised.
 
Oh, so you actually support GMO identification, but not this bill?

I can't get too mad, I haven't followed that election very closely, TBH. Not my state.
 
While that's fair, if the GMO labeling bill is voted down, who knows when a new one will get put in place. Seems it would be easier to fix the problems with it after it's approved, than to have to wait for another election to get a new one approved.
 
Mmm.... I don't know about that. Seems to me that people tend to become more complacent about this kind of thing once there's "something" rather than nothing.

Kind of like how outrage at a company when it screws up (e.g. exploits overseas workers or some kind of pollution problem), then the company takes some superficial remedy in front of the press, and the story goes away, even though the problem is still there.
 
I didn't mean that citizens could get things changed.

I assume once the bill is passed, law makers can more easily make changes if they run into problems with implementation as I'd think that wouldn't require going back to a ballot provision.

In any case, this really should be a federal thing, not a state one. GMOs should be labeled and enforced just like the Organic label is by the FDA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, alright. I won't say any more since I have no idea how the lawmakers work in CA. :whistle2:#

I'd love to see a national GMO labeling deal. Can't believe it hasn't been that way from the start.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, so you actually support GMO identification, but not this bill?

I can't get too mad, I haven't followed that election very closely, TBH. Not my state.[/QUOTE]

yes, I do support it even though there is not any significant evidence yet of GMOs being detrimental. But yeah, mainly I have a huge problem supporting a bill that is just too vague for interpretation and enforcement especially. I have a long reasoning why, I won't bore you haha. But yeah it was one of the props that took me the longest to decide because both sides have understandable goals it just needs to be revised. To be honest this should be more of a national issue than just California I feel.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Oh, alright. I won't say any more since I have no idea how the lawmakers work in CA. :whistle2:#

I'd love to see a national GMO labeling deal. Can't believe it hasn't been that way from the start.[/QUOTE]

Rather than forcing all companies to comply with yet another regulation, a better solution would have been to cut off the ties of Monsanto and governments everywhere, which would have stopped the lawsuits against natural product firms when they try to label their products as non-GMO.

Short version: if I voted, I'd join Ashes in opposing Prop 37.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']yes, I do support it even though there is not any significant evidence yet of GMOs being detrimental. But yeah, mainly I have a huge problem supporting a bill that is just too vague for interpretation and enforcement especially. I have a long reasoning why, I won't bore you haha. But yeah it was one of the props that took me the longest to decide because both sides have understandable goals it just needs to be revised. To be honest this should be more of a national issue than just California I feel.[/QUOTE]

IMO you're overthinking it.

Politics is about compromise - get what you can when you can because if you don't you're liable to end up with nothing.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Rather than forcing all companies to comply with yet another regulation, a better solution would have been to cut off the ties of Monsanto and governments everywhere, which would have stopped the lawsuits against natural product firms when they try to label their products as non-GMO.

Short version: if I voted, I'd join Ashes in opposing Prop 37.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean? How would that alert consumers to genetically modified products at grocery stores?
 
[quote name='ID2006']What do you mean? How would that alert consumers to genetically modified products at grocery stores?[/QUOTE]

Non-GMO products would proudly display their status on their label, and wouldn't worry about being sued for doing so by Big Ag.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Non-GMO products would proudly display their status on their label, and wouldn't worry about being sued for doing so by Big Ag.[/QUOTE]

Still needs to be some government enforced program to inspect the farms, meat shops etc. to make sure there really were no GMOs in the food. Just like they do for the Organic label.

It doesn't matter whether the label is listing GMOS or saying "GMO Free" or whatever. What matters is that there are regulations on the labeling and penalties for companies who lie and falsely advertise their products as GMO free when it's not. It's being able to have some confidence in the labels that matters.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Rather than forcing all companies to comply with yet another regulation, a better solution would have been to cut off the ties of Monsanto and governments everywhere, which would have stopped the lawsuits against natural product firms when they try to label their products as non-GMO.

Short version: if I voted, I'd join Ashes in opposing Prop 37.[/QUOTE]

You're on point if I read you correctly in that :The government subsidies generate the artificial demand for GM products.
Why not rather than go cold turkey on Cargill and Monsanto, force them to comply with the regulation and create an artificial demand for the organic alternative? If anything , that's what would ween big AGB off the tit. Poison the well.
Its always weird to me that a corporation like Monsanto will hold out one hand for a chunk of change and then scoff and slap you away with the free one when you float the idea of "yet another regulation."
 
so what is the reason for labeling GMO foods? It looks like the measure doesn't even really specify what they are, which is a pretty big issue IMO (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012))

time has a pretty good analysis here: http://science.time.com/2012/11/06/...-gm-food-is-about-politics-more-than-science/

I'm not opposed to people understanding what they are eating, but it isn't like the tomatos many people eat have not been modified over the years. Is there any evidence that GMO foods are dangerous?
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']so what is the reason for labeling GMO foods? It looks like the measure doesn't even really specify what they are, which is a pretty big issue IMO (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012))

time has a pretty good analysis here: http://science.time.com/2012/11/06/...-gm-food-is-about-politics-more-than-science/

I'm not opposed to people understanding what they are eating, but it isn't like the tomatos many people eat have not been modified over the years. Is there any evidence that GMO foods are dangerous?[/QUOTE]

There haven't been enough large-scale studies to determine if there's a universal health risk.

http://ucfoodsafety.ucdavis.edu/files/26423.pdf edit: I could have sworn there was a newer report by UC Davis on this but I haven't found it yet.

It's a bigger issue in Europe, specifically the UK (where it's known as "frankenfood").

I voted no on Measure 32. Far too many exemptions make it ineffective for its purpose.
 
[quote name='eLefAdEr']There haven't been enough large-scale studies to determine if there's a universal health risk.

http://ucfoodsafety.ucdavis.edu/files/26423.pdf

It's a bigger issue in Europe, specifically the UK (where it's known as "frankenfood").

I voted no on Measure 32. Far too many exemptions make it ineffective for its purpose.[/QUOTE]

I understand what the fear is about, I just don't like laws that are written so vaguely. We all eat tomatos that could be defined as 'genetically modified' because they have been selectively bred for field-wide ripening and tough skins.

My view is that there should be *some* evidence that GMO foods are harmful before putting laws like this in place. The report you linked didn't have any such evidence - does it exist?

I understand hating Monsanto and wanting to protect small-scale farmers. It just doesn't seem like this proposal is the way to do it.

edit to add:
How would you prove that something is safe?
 
[quote name='eLefAdEr']There haven't been enough large-scale studies to determine if there's a universal health risk.

http://ucfoodsafety.ucdavis.edu/files/26423.pdf edit: I could have sworn there was a newer report by UC Davis on this but I haven't found it yet.

It's a bigger issue in Europe, specifically the UK (where it's known as "frankenfood").

I voted no on Measure 32. Far too many exemptions make it ineffective for its purpose.[/QUOTE]

Even if there's not a direct health risk there's likely indirect risks as a lot of it is coupled with using antibiotics on the animals which makes bacteria more resistant and can't lessen effectiveness of antibiotics in humans, lead to super germs etc. As well as driving up the cost of drugs for humans as a majority of a lot of antibiotics are used on livestock these days.

Same with Organic foods. A recent study found no boost in nutrients in organic food, and not a huge difference in pesticides. But there are still valid reasons to buy it ranging from less pesticides going into the soil and water supply, supporting sustainable farming practices, supporting farms and slaughter houses that treat livestock more humanely etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='yourlefthand']
edit to add:
How would you prove that something is safe?[/QUOTE]

No idea since I don't work for the FDA but I assume it's if there's a marked increase in allergic reactions or hospitalizations based upon consumption compared to the non-modified version of the same food, then there will be a recall.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']so what is the reason for labeling GMO foods? [/QUOTE]

Um, consumer choice? I should be able to know what I'm putting in my body.
 
[quote name='keithp']Um, consumer choice? I should be able to know what I'm putting in my body.[/QUOTE]

Fine, but why does that require government intervention through a terribly vague law? Are there other examples of the government forcing labelling of something that does not have a scientific basis? I could see a regulation for a "gmo-free" claim, but don't see the benefit of a forced label without a scientific basis.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Enough about GMOs, I updated the first page with a nice link to where you can track the results.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I was looking for a good site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top