The Federal Reserve's greatest strength, in my eyes, is its status as a lender of last resort. You want to have a central bank around when the shit hits the fan (9/11's financial effect is a good example). There is still rigorous debate over how much the Fed should do otherwise.
The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing
- Thread starter MSI Magus
- Start date
[quote name='mykevermin']I disagree, and I disagree strongly. You do too, kinda. Look at how you frame it - what motivates these voters? It's not 'liking' someone, it's not even 'holding your nose and voting'. They're voting because they're motivated by their unbridled hatred of Obama. Since Obama's going to be running in November no matter what, they have all the motivation they need to get to the polls.
This election, for as poor as the GOP candidates are (and I mean *poooooooooooooooorrrrrrrr*), is not a done deal for Obama. And it won't be come November, either. A large enough portion of the public can be convinced any old dumb
can be smart enough to run for President (Bush, Palin - why are Santorum or Romney any different?). It's how you frame them and present them. Focus on attacking Obama so as to detract from the poor quality of your candidates and rile up those who are motivated by hating Obama. Hundreds of millions in SuperPAC money going to no particular candidate but making claims about Obama. Swift boat vets in 2004 will look like nice fellas compared to what we'll see this year.
It's much easier to disguise a terrible candidate that you think. This is entirely loseable for Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Yah, we definitely disagree. I don't think they hate Obama enough to support someone they also despise. This isn't Clinton-Obama during the last election (although there were a handful of Clinton supporters who refused to back Obama until she said they should). For example, if Romney gets it, some of those southern contests could be fairly close. High delegate states like CA, NY, FL, OH, PA should all be locks for Obama. Those "swing states" will all fall in line for him. This race hasn't been much different than others. The Gore and Kerry elections were close because Bush was despised at a near record percentage, and even those very weak candidates couldn't win. You put any of the GOP candidates against Obama, and you're going to have Dole-Clinton all over again.
Obama has already been through the nasties by all the crap people threw at him last election. No he's not a muslim (even if the inbreds in Alabama and Missisissippi don't realize it), no he wasn't born in Kenya (thank you for confirming that Mr. Trump), no he wasn't friends with a terrorist, and no he's not a bigot who supported an outspoken pastor. They are going to have to run on his record, and from a foreign policy standpoint, it's the exact same as Bush. The economy is slowly improving, and anyone who thinks the President controls gas prices isn't smart enough to vote to begin with.
This will be a landslide. The Republican candidates are dangerous enough that I'm actually going to vote against them and for a candidate that I don't really support much (Obama).
Like in sports, some catastrophic choke-job by Obama could occur, and "that's why they play the game", but if any of those clowns beat Obama, it would be a bigger upset than the Washington Generals over the Globetrott...ehh...OK, that analogy could be inappropriate so let's just say it would be an historic upset. Haa haa.
Sweet, and a link to support my earlier opinion: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html
This election, for as poor as the GOP candidates are (and I mean *poooooooooooooooorrrrrrrr*), is not a done deal for Obama. And it won't be come November, either. A large enough portion of the public can be convinced any old dumb
can be smart enough to run for President (Bush, Palin - why are Santorum or Romney any different?). It's how you frame them and present them. Focus on attacking Obama so as to detract from the poor quality of your candidates and rile up those who are motivated by hating Obama. Hundreds of millions in SuperPAC money going to no particular candidate but making claims about Obama. Swift boat vets in 2004 will look like nice fellas compared to what we'll see this year. It's much easier to disguise a terrible candidate that you think. This is entirely loseable for Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Yah, we definitely disagree. I don't think they hate Obama enough to support someone they also despise. This isn't Clinton-Obama during the last election (although there were a handful of Clinton supporters who refused to back Obama until she said they should). For example, if Romney gets it, some of those southern contests could be fairly close. High delegate states like CA, NY, FL, OH, PA should all be locks for Obama. Those "swing states" will all fall in line for him. This race hasn't been much different than others. The Gore and Kerry elections were close because Bush was despised at a near record percentage, and even those very weak candidates couldn't win. You put any of the GOP candidates against Obama, and you're going to have Dole-Clinton all over again.
Obama has already been through the nasties by all the crap people threw at him last election. No he's not a muslim (even if the inbreds in Alabama and Missisissippi don't realize it), no he wasn't born in Kenya (thank you for confirming that Mr. Trump), no he wasn't friends with a terrorist, and no he's not a bigot who supported an outspoken pastor. They are going to have to run on his record, and from a foreign policy standpoint, it's the exact same as Bush. The economy is slowly improving, and anyone who thinks the President controls gas prices isn't smart enough to vote to begin with.
This will be a landslide. The Republican candidates are dangerous enough that I'm actually going to vote against them and for a candidate that I don't really support much (Obama).
Like in sports, some catastrophic choke-job by Obama could occur, and "that's why they play the game", but if any of those clowns beat Obama, it would be a bigger upset than the Washington Generals over the Globetrott...ehh...OK, that analogy could be inappropriate so let's just say it would be an historic upset. Haa haa.
Sweet, and a link to support my earlier opinion: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
It would be a landslide if it were anything resembling a fair election, sure. About half the states have passed or are in the process of passing laws making it harder to register to vote and harder to vote. They're going to prevent a few million people from voting. A few million of mostly a certain kind of people, that vote a certain way. When the whole contest only comes down to a few states, Republican shenanigans are going to be critical. Ohio and Florida have both passed voter ID laws, for example. PA is trying to split their electoral votes, at the same time that they are trying to prevent Nebraska from splitting that single electoral vote for Obama again. A lot of those swing states have Republican governors and legislatures. I would not consider any of them locks at all.
Europe could tank the world economy sometime between now and the election for a near automatic loss.
Democratic enthusiasm is going to be lower this time as well. It really has to be. 2008 was historic and there just isnt any way to get to that level again. There are a number, albeit relatively small, of disillusioned Democratic voters. A lot of people didnt realize that Obama would basically be a right winger from 10-20 years ago, from the tax cuts/free trade, expanded gun rights, expanded drug war, expanded regular war, a wholly Republican health care plan, etc.
There really is more to it than voters and present polling. I dont see any way where its going to be a landslide. It should be closer than last time. In any case, complacency is very dangerous. We "elected" W and Reagan twice. There is no scenario where you can go, 'surely America wouldnt do that'
Europe could tank the world economy sometime between now and the election for a near automatic loss.
Democratic enthusiasm is going to be lower this time as well. It really has to be. 2008 was historic and there just isnt any way to get to that level again. There are a number, albeit relatively small, of disillusioned Democratic voters. A lot of people didnt realize that Obama would basically be a right winger from 10-20 years ago, from the tax cuts/free trade, expanded gun rights, expanded drug war, expanded regular war, a wholly Republican health care plan, etc.
There really is more to it than voters and present polling. I dont see any way where its going to be a landslide. It should be closer than last time. In any case, complacency is very dangerous. We "elected" W and Reagan twice. There is no scenario where you can go, 'surely America wouldnt do that'
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='berzirk']I don't think they hate Obama enough to support someone they also despise.[/quote]
This is the foundation of our disagreement. I definitely see them voting for an (R). People invested in the political process will vote. Campaign ads will be nasty like they have been for decades. We'll get a new spin on the LBJ "daisy" ad suggesting that Obama will literally (and I mean literally) destroy the country. We haven't had a post-Citizens United presidential election yet.
This shit is gonna be off the charts. I'm going to guess a $6B overall campaign spending package (just for the general, and including SuperPAC money - since 2008 campaign expenditures were around $4B). I have no faith that people who hate a candidate will sit home, even if he is a...Mormon? I guess that's bad enough to hate someone over (yeesh, and they say we liberals hate religion).
Not a chance.
Some of those states are swing states, but CA and NY aren't. FL and OH will be tough for the reasons DMK noted. PA will be a challenge (though I predict Obama will have an easier time of it, ironically, if Santorum is the nominee).
The 2000 and 2004 elections couldn't have been any more different from each other in any number of ways. War, the economy, the relevance of blowjobs, popular vote versus electoral vote, budget surplus vs budget deficit, gas prices, 9/11, and $300 CHECKS FROM GEORGE DUBYA BUSH! OMG WE'RE GOING SHOPPING AT IKEA.
Also, that whole Supreme Court stopping the recount thing was a bit unique to 2000.
Those two elections are not comparable in the slightest.
I wish. I'll give you this much - 2012 is shaping up that way - inheriting a shitty economy, congressional Republican sweep two years later, milquetoast (R) candidate put up as fodder for the (D) incumbent. So I'll give you that - it does seem like 1996 again.
Foreign policy isn't relevant, politically, right now. Sadly.
The economy is improving, but it's doing so slowly. Frame the issue in two ways, though, and you can easily hide that fact: (1) deficit spending by Obama means we're all going to end up indentured servants to the Red Chinese in the future and/or be subject to hyperinflation like we're 1920's Germany, and (2) the price of volatile commodities means that your dollar doesn't go as far, therefore the economy is shit. Individual voters don't feel or see an aggregated unemployment rate in their day to day life, but they do see $4.00/gal gasoline. They do see $5.00/gal gasoline. They aren't smart enough to care about speculators, investors, and futures trading as concepts. They're pissed that Obama hasn't waved his magic wand and brought prices down. That's why Newt Gingrich (bad example perhaps, as he's all but out of the primary) has his main logo as a gas pump w/ "$2.50" inside of it.
Yes, they may be too dumb to vote, but they get to vote, and they do vote.
Not as polarized as the country is. Democrats don't win landslides, Republicans do (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988). When was the last Democrat win w/, say, 400+ electoral votes?
That's my thesis. The Mormons-are-duh-debil Republicans in the south will do the same for Romney. Hell, they've already embraced Santorum, and he's CATHOLIC. That means he'll burn in hell for an eternity for being an idolator (i.e., worshiping the pope and Mary). But that's good enough for President.
Like DMK said, voting laws are changing, gerrymandering just occurred. The Washington Generals may be jobbers, but they got to revise the rules of basketball, by themselves, before going up against the Globetrotters. Think the revisions were done just to make the game more fair and equitable, to generate a competitive outcome? Or that the Generals, I mean the Republicans, cribbed noted from Al Davis: Just win, baby, win?
Fair enough. That's much larger than anything he ever held over McCain:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
(trend lines, second graph down)
But we're in a bit of a different spot here, as this shit is gonna go until mid-Summer before we get a GOP candidate. June is my guess. Almost (almost) to the day, 4 years ago McCain became the GOP nominee (3/8/2004). Between that, state voting law changes, and Citizens United, I think a lot of our traditional views of election trends are going to get turned upside down.
This is the foundation of our disagreement. I definitely see them voting for an (R). People invested in the political process will vote. Campaign ads will be nasty like they have been for decades. We'll get a new spin on the LBJ "daisy" ad suggesting that Obama will literally (and I mean literally) destroy the country. We haven't had a post-Citizens United presidential election yet.
This shit is gonna be off the charts. I'm going to guess a $6B overall campaign spending package (just for the general, and including SuperPAC money - since 2008 campaign expenditures were around $4B). I have no faith that people who hate a candidate will sit home, even if he is a...Mormon? I guess that's bad enough to hate someone over (yeesh, and they say we liberals hate religion).
Not a chance.
Some of those states are swing states, but CA and NY aren't. FL and OH will be tough for the reasons DMK noted. PA will be a challenge (though I predict Obama will have an easier time of it, ironically, if Santorum is the nominee).
The 2000 and 2004 elections couldn't have been any more different from each other in any number of ways. War, the economy, the relevance of blowjobs, popular vote versus electoral vote, budget surplus vs budget deficit, gas prices, 9/11, and $300 CHECKS FROM GEORGE DUBYA BUSH! OMG WE'RE GOING SHOPPING AT IKEA.
Also, that whole Supreme Court stopping the recount thing was a bit unique to 2000.
Those two elections are not comparable in the slightest.
I wish. I'll give you this much - 2012 is shaping up that way - inheriting a shitty economy, congressional Republican sweep two years later, milquetoast (R) candidate put up as fodder for the (D) incumbent. So I'll give you that - it does seem like 1996 again.
Foreign policy isn't relevant, politically, right now. Sadly.
The economy is improving, but it's doing so slowly. Frame the issue in two ways, though, and you can easily hide that fact: (1) deficit spending by Obama means we're all going to end up indentured servants to the Red Chinese in the future and/or be subject to hyperinflation like we're 1920's Germany, and (2) the price of volatile commodities means that your dollar doesn't go as far, therefore the economy is shit. Individual voters don't feel or see an aggregated unemployment rate in their day to day life, but they do see $4.00/gal gasoline. They do see $5.00/gal gasoline. They aren't smart enough to care about speculators, investors, and futures trading as concepts. They're pissed that Obama hasn't waved his magic wand and brought prices down. That's why Newt Gingrich (bad example perhaps, as he's all but out of the primary) has his main logo as a gas pump w/ "$2.50" inside of it.
Yes, they may be too dumb to vote, but they get to vote, and they do vote.
Not as polarized as the country is. Democrats don't win landslides, Republicans do (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988). When was the last Democrat win w/, say, 400+ electoral votes?
That's my thesis. The Mormons-are-duh-debil Republicans in the south will do the same for Romney. Hell, they've already embraced Santorum, and he's CATHOLIC. That means he'll burn in hell for an eternity for being an idolator (i.e., worshiping the pope and Mary). But that's good enough for President.
Like DMK said, voting laws are changing, gerrymandering just occurred. The Washington Generals may be jobbers, but they got to revise the rules of basketball, by themselves, before going up against the Globetrotters. Think the revisions were done just to make the game more fair and equitable, to generate a competitive outcome? Or that the Generals, I mean the Republicans, cribbed noted from Al Davis: Just win, baby, win?
Fair enough. That's much larger than anything he ever held over McCain:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
(trend lines, second graph down)
But we're in a bit of a different spot here, as this shit is gonna go until mid-Summer before we get a GOP candidate. June is my guess. Almost (almost) to the day, 4 years ago McCain became the GOP nominee (3/8/2004). Between that, state voting law changes, and Citizens United, I think a lot of our traditional views of election trends are going to get turned upside down.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
And now PA is on the voter ID law.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...y_be_next_stop_in_Pa__voter_ID_law_fight.html
.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...y_be_next_stop_in_Pa__voter_ID_law_fight.html
.
[quote name='mykevermin']And now PA is on the voter ID law.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...y_be_next_stop_in_Pa__voter_ID_law_fight.html
.[/QUOTE]
From a race perspective, this is really interesting because while everyone is trotting out the minority majority thing, things like this is exactly why it won't matter that much.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...y_be_next_stop_in_Pa__voter_ID_law_fight.html
.[/QUOTE]From a race perspective, this is really interesting because while everyone is trotting out the minority majority thing, things like this is exactly why it won't matter that much.
Can someone summarize why voter ID requirements is a bad thing? To me, on the surface it's people trying to take a poke at illegal immigrants, but I don't understand why it's dubious to require a person to have official ID in order to vote. I'm sure I'm missing something, and I have admittedly not spent much time looking in to it. Doh or Myke, if you have a sec, can you summarize the issues with it?
[quote name='berzirk']Can someone summarize why voter ID requirements is a bad thing? [/QUOTE]
Because studies show that blacks and hispanics are much more likely to lack official state ID than whites (more likely not to drive and just use public transit etc.).
So voter ID laws disproportionately exclude minorities from voting as they're more likely to lack IDs, and many will just stay home and not vote rather than hassling with getting an ID (or paying to do so).
It's kind of putting the horse before the buggy. If they want to have Voter ID laws, then they need to make having a state ID a legal requirement, and have programs for low income people to get the IDs for free, so they aren't disproportionately excluding voting blocs along race and class lines.
Because studies show that blacks and hispanics are much more likely to lack official state ID than whites (more likely not to drive and just use public transit etc.).
So voter ID laws disproportionately exclude minorities from voting as they're more likely to lack IDs, and many will just stay home and not vote rather than hassling with getting an ID (or paying to do so).
It's kind of putting the horse before the buggy. If they want to have Voter ID laws, then they need to make having a state ID a legal requirement, and have programs for low income people to get the IDs for free, so they aren't disproportionately excluding voting blocs along race and class lines.
Some more polls on the election showing Obama gaining momentum over Romney.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/obama-mentum/?hp
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/obama-mentum/?hp
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's kind of putting the horse before the buggy. If they want to have Voter ID laws, then they need to make having a state ID a legal requirement, and have programs for low income people to get the IDs for free, so they aren't disproportionately excluding voting blocs along race and class lines.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you believe that it's politically motivated to keep dirty dirty nonwhites and poor people from the polls, this is a deliberate attempt to do things in the wrong order. There's no noble motive to ensure the people disadvantaged by these laws should be empowered to vote. It's done this way intentionally.
It's also a legal change in search of a problem to solve. "Voter fraud" is the cry, but there is no substantive evidence that it exists in large enough patterns to require an ID (or that an ID will stop fraud).
It's no coincidence that it's happening in three states that are led by crazy (R) governors with crazy (R) legislators, but have historically been swing states. There will be little to no surprise from me, come November, if you see 2 or all 3 of these states go strongly in favor of the (R) - by that I mean 55%+ for the (R) candidate.
Unless those ID laws are struck down, in which case that won't happen.
Well, if you believe that it's politically motivated to keep dirty dirty nonwhites and poor people from the polls, this is a deliberate attempt to do things in the wrong order. There's no noble motive to ensure the people disadvantaged by these laws should be empowered to vote. It's done this way intentionally.
It's also a legal change in search of a problem to solve. "Voter fraud" is the cry, but there is no substantive evidence that it exists in large enough patterns to require an ID (or that an ID will stop fraud).
It's no coincidence that it's happening in three states that are led by crazy (R) governors with crazy (R) legislators, but have historically been swing states. There will be little to no surprise from me, come November, if you see 2 or all 3 of these states go strongly in favor of the (R) - by that I mean 55%+ for the (R) candidate.
Unless those ID laws are struck down, in which case that won't happen.
[quote name='berzirk']Can someone summarize why voter ID requirements is a bad thing? To me, on the surface it's people trying to take a poke at illegal immigrants, but I don't understand why it's dubious to require a person to have official ID in order to vote. I'm sure I'm missing something, and I have admittedly not spent much time looking in to it. Doh or Myke, if you have a sec, can you summarize the issues with it?[/QUOTE]
In order to vote, you have to be registered. This means that the name and address of the registered person would be in a log book of registered voters for that particular area. So in order for someone to fraudulantly vote in a polling site, they would have to know the name and address of the person they are voting in the place of. In order to accomplish the level of voting fraud that conservatives would have you believe and affect elections in any meaningful way, it would need to be highly coordinated and involve so many people that it would be easy to trace. This is one of the practical arguments against it and explains why actual voter fraud is a non-issue.
A big part of the reason as to why it's seen a resurgance is because of the ACORN fiasco with fake voter registrations in the last election. The problem with that is ACORN was required by law to submit every single voter registration form regardless of the authenticity of the information on it and even notified whichever agency handles these things. Now the funny part of this is the reason why they are required by law to submit every single form: it's because it was Republicans in the Southwest(?) that submitted fraudulant forms, dumped Democratic registrations, and/or changed D's to R's. I forget which was the case in 05/06, but they did all three in various drives, which basically created the quandry that ACORN was involved in. Voter registration fraud isn't a big deal either because even if they were put on the rolls, you would have people that didn't exist living at addresses that might or might not exist along with the same issues as my first argument.
As for actually requiring an id, not everyone is going to have an in-state id which obviously will not have an in-state address. People in-state also move and don't always get a new id or have a change of address sticker on it. An argument to that would be to just bring some official mail, but then the amount of people that would need to be verified would unnecessarily extend the amount of time it would take to get people in and out of the polls. I don't know about your poll in the last election, but mine was at least 50 people deep all day with some points being over 200 with a 45 minute wait. The simple logistics of it again makes it impractical.
You have to understand that it goes beyond just "poking at illegals," but that Republicans, and those that align with them, aren't trying to keep things honest, but literally keep people from voting. There's a long LONG history of it. This is why most people knowledgable with the voter id issue roll their eyes and automatically say it's racist bullshit when it comes from the right.
edit: nice summary guys.
In order to vote, you have to be registered. This means that the name and address of the registered person would be in a log book of registered voters for that particular area. So in order for someone to fraudulantly vote in a polling site, they would have to know the name and address of the person they are voting in the place of. In order to accomplish the level of voting fraud that conservatives would have you believe and affect elections in any meaningful way, it would need to be highly coordinated and involve so many people that it would be easy to trace. This is one of the practical arguments against it and explains why actual voter fraud is a non-issue.
A big part of the reason as to why it's seen a resurgance is because of the ACORN fiasco with fake voter registrations in the last election. The problem with that is ACORN was required by law to submit every single voter registration form regardless of the authenticity of the information on it and even notified whichever agency handles these things. Now the funny part of this is the reason why they are required by law to submit every single form: it's because it was Republicans in the Southwest(?) that submitted fraudulant forms, dumped Democratic registrations, and/or changed D's to R's. I forget which was the case in 05/06, but they did all three in various drives, which basically created the quandry that ACORN was involved in. Voter registration fraud isn't a big deal either because even if they were put on the rolls, you would have people that didn't exist living at addresses that might or might not exist along with the same issues as my first argument.
As for actually requiring an id, not everyone is going to have an in-state id which obviously will not have an in-state address. People in-state also move and don't always get a new id or have a change of address sticker on it. An argument to that would be to just bring some official mail, but then the amount of people that would need to be verified would unnecessarily extend the amount of time it would take to get people in and out of the polls. I don't know about your poll in the last election, but mine was at least 50 people deep all day with some points being over 200 with a 45 minute wait. The simple logistics of it again makes it impractical.
You have to understand that it goes beyond just "poking at illegals," but that Republicans, and those that align with them, aren't trying to keep things honest, but literally keep people from voting. There's a long LONG history of it. This is why most people knowledgable with the voter id issue roll their eyes and automatically say it's racist bullshit when it comes from the right.
edit: nice summary guys.
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, if you believe that it's politically motivated to keep dirty dirty nonwhites and poor people from the polls, this is a deliberate attempt to do things in the wrong order. There's no noble motive to ensure the people disadvantaged by these laws should be empowered to vote. It's done this way intentionally.
[/QUOTE]
Oh I agree it was done this way intentionally. Didn't mean to imply otherwise, was just outlining why it's a problem due to not first giving easy access to state ids and the class/racial bias in who doesn't currently have an id.
[/QUOTE]
Oh I agree it was done this way intentionally. Didn't mean to imply otherwise, was just outlining why it's a problem due to not first giving easy access to state ids and the class/racial bias in who doesn't currently have an id.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I agree it was done this way intentionally. Didn't mean to imply otherwise, was just outlining why it's a problem due to not first giving easy access to state ids and the class/racial bias in who doesn't currently have an id.[/QUOTE]
Right, it's like instituting a poll tax, which is illegal.
Right, it's like instituting a poll tax, which is illegal.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
Did you guys see this, I am guessing you already did but just in case.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...ertorico-idUSBRE82D16Z20120314?mrefid=twitter
Ricky San travels to Puerto Rico tells them if you dont start speaking English then you cant be in our club! (kidding)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...ertorico-idUSBRE82D16Z20120314?mrefid=twitter
Ricky San travels to Puerto Rico tells them if you dont start speaking English then you cant be in our club! (kidding)
Its amazing to me that something like doesnt cause the "DONT TAKE OUR RIGHTS!" crowd to go up and arms.
[quote name='Soodmeg']Did you guys see this, I am guessing you already did but just in case.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...ertorico-idUSBRE82D16Z20120314?mrefid=twitter
Ricky San travels to Puerto Rico tells them if you dont start speaking English then you cant be in our club! (kidding)
Its amazing to me that something like doesnt cause the "DONT TAKE OUR RIGHTS!" crowd to go up and arms.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he already issued an "apology." Gotta admire the balls of the guy though...or the sheer stupidity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...ertorico-idUSBRE82D16Z20120314?mrefid=twitter
Ricky San travels to Puerto Rico tells them if you dont start speaking English then you cant be in our club! (kidding)
Its amazing to me that something like doesnt cause the "DONT TAKE OUR RIGHTS!" crowd to go up and arms.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he already issued an "apology." Gotta admire the balls of the guy though...or the sheer stupidity.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I'm not sure Puerto Ricans give a flying about being denied statehood. They consider it a decennial tradition, in fact, to deny it themselves.
about being denied statehood. They consider it a decennial tradition, in fact, to deny it themselves.
[quote name='mykevermin']And now PA is on the voter ID law.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...y_be_next_stop_in_Pa__voter_ID_law_fight.html
.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry about it myke. You just have to close your eyes.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/b...y_be_next_stop_in_Pa__voter_ID_law_fight.html
.[/QUOTE]Don't worry about it myke. You just have to close your eyes.
Is anyone following the STOCK act? In short, the point of it is to stop insider trading from members of Congress. It's already passed in the senate, but may not in the House. I'm sure the fact that Louise Slaughter (who introduced the legislation) is a Democrat has nothing to do with it.
Had a phone call - automated POS.
Do you have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama - Answer "Yes" or "No".
-silence, wondering where's the "'meh" option.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Do you have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama?
-silence...
Are you planing to vote in the 2012 Illinois Republican Presidential Primary?
-Yes
Are you planning to vote for Rick Santorum?
-No
Are you planning to vote for Mitt Romney?
-No
Are you planning to vote for Newt Gingrich?
-No
Are you planning to vote for Ron Paul?
-Yes
blah blah, national polls have Obama beating Gingrich and Paul in the next election, only Rick Santorum stands for Truth, Justice, Mom, Apple Pie and the American way. Does this little speech influence your vote?
-**** No.
Thank you for your time, please visit our website at >not directing anyone to the website< for more information...
Dear Santorum campaign advisers - Telling me Ron Paul can't beat Obama isn't going to change my vote - I'm already ****ing voting for Ron Paul, I'm not ****ing voting for someone just because they "can win". Stupid ****s.
Do you have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama - Answer "Yes" or "No".
-silence, wondering where's the "'meh" option.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Do you have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama?
-silence...
Are you planing to vote in the 2012 Illinois Republican Presidential Primary?
-Yes
Are you planning to vote for Rick Santorum?
-No
Are you planning to vote for Mitt Romney?
-No
Are you planning to vote for Newt Gingrich?
-No
Are you planning to vote for Ron Paul?
-Yes
blah blah, national polls have Obama beating Gingrich and Paul in the next election, only Rick Santorum stands for Truth, Justice, Mom, Apple Pie and the American way. Does this little speech influence your vote?
-**** No.
Thank you for your time, please visit our website at >not directing anyone to the website< for more information...
Dear Santorum campaign advisers - Telling me Ron Paul can't beat Obama isn't going to change my vote - I'm already ****ing voting for Ron Paul, I'm not ****ing voting for someone just because they "can win". Stupid ****s.
Wasn't sure which of the three election oriented threads was the right one to post in, so I'll resurrect the oldest.
Apparently it had been so long since I voted that I'm no longer registered. Had to re-register in anticipation of the Presidential election. This is the one where I will start voting again, instead of use my intentional non-vote as a vote. So I'm voting for Obama. I don't really care for most of his policies, but I don't think he's dangerous and a maniac like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney.
So I print out my registration, get ready to mail it off...and it requires postage? Seriously? There's nowhere to drop it off, and I have to put my own stamp on it? $.45 might not seem like an awfully large barrier to entry on this one, but for a guy who really would prefer neither party wins, and is just voting so I can feel marginally more involved, the damn principle of the thing is enough for me to say screw it. It's certainly no state ID requirement, but I'm curious if others see that as a potential barrier to voting, or if I'm missing something and this can all be done online or without using a stamp.
Again, the amount isn't what I'm bristling up about, it's the idea that I need to spend money to vote for a candidate that I dislike less than the alternative.
Apparently it had been so long since I voted that I'm no longer registered. Had to re-register in anticipation of the Presidential election. This is the one where I will start voting again, instead of use my intentional non-vote as a vote. So I'm voting for Obama. I don't really care for most of his policies, but I don't think he's dangerous and a maniac like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney.
So I print out my registration, get ready to mail it off...and it requires postage? Seriously? There's nowhere to drop it off, and I have to put my own stamp on it? $.45 might not seem like an awfully large barrier to entry on this one, but for a guy who really would prefer neither party wins, and is just voting so I can feel marginally more involved, the damn principle of the thing is enough for me to say screw it. It's certainly no state ID requirement, but I'm curious if others see that as a potential barrier to voting, or if I'm missing something and this can all be done online or without using a stamp.
Again, the amount isn't what I'm bristling up about, it's the idea that I need to spend money to vote for a candidate that I dislike less than the alternative.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='berzirk']Wasn't sure which of the three election oriented threads was the right one to post in, so I'll resurrect the oldest.
Apparently it had been so long since I voted that I'm no longer registered. Had to re-register in anticipation of the Presidential election. This is the one where I will start voting again, instead of use my intentional non-vote as a vote. So I'm voting for Obama. I don't really care for most of his policies, but I don't think he's dangerous and a maniac like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney.
So I print out my registration, get ready to mail it off...and it requires postage? Seriously? There's nowhere to drop it off, and I have to put my own stamp on it? $.45 might not seem like an awfully large barrier to entry on this one, but for a guy who really would prefer neither party wins, and is just voting so I can feel marginally more involved, the damn principle of the thing is enough for me to say screw it. It's certainly no state ID requirement, but I'm curious if others see that as a potential barrier to voting, or if I'm missing something and this can all be done online or without using a stamp.
Again, the amount isn't what I'm bristling up about, it's the idea that I need to spend money to vote for a candidate that I dislike less than the alternative.[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting list of minor quibbles that can certainly aggregate and alienate someone who (like you) is clearly sour towards the whole process. Sure, it's just a stamp, it's just 45¢, but it is the principle of it all, honestly. I can see how that is quite aggravating to you.
What strikes me as fascinating is your expired voter registration. How were you notified of that? What caused it (i.e., how long a period of not voting)? This kind of concept really says "easily exploitable loophole that can be used to keep a giant block of people from voting." Don't notify people of expired registries, and then make the registration-by date longer (i.e., more than 30 days before election day).
That sounds like something that can really, really be used to disenfranchise voters.
Apparently it had been so long since I voted that I'm no longer registered. Had to re-register in anticipation of the Presidential election. This is the one where I will start voting again, instead of use my intentional non-vote as a vote. So I'm voting for Obama. I don't really care for most of his policies, but I don't think he's dangerous and a maniac like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney.
So I print out my registration, get ready to mail it off...and it requires postage? Seriously? There's nowhere to drop it off, and I have to put my own stamp on it? $.45 might not seem like an awfully large barrier to entry on this one, but for a guy who really would prefer neither party wins, and is just voting so I can feel marginally more involved, the damn principle of the thing is enough for me to say screw it. It's certainly no state ID requirement, but I'm curious if others see that as a potential barrier to voting, or if I'm missing something and this can all be done online or without using a stamp.
Again, the amount isn't what I'm bristling up about, it's the idea that I need to spend money to vote for a candidate that I dislike less than the alternative.[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting list of minor quibbles that can certainly aggregate and alienate someone who (like you) is clearly sour towards the whole process. Sure, it's just a stamp, it's just 45¢, but it is the principle of it all, honestly. I can see how that is quite aggravating to you.
What strikes me as fascinating is your expired voter registration. How were you notified of that? What caused it (i.e., how long a period of not voting)? This kind of concept really says "easily exploitable loophole that can be used to keep a giant block of people from voting." Don't notify people of expired registries, and then make the registration-by date longer (i.e., more than 30 days before election day).
That sounds like something that can really, really be used to disenfranchise voters.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
That'd be weird if they went to a system where you could only vote for President if you had to be registered at least 365 days before Election Day. Although I could honestly see it happening. The excuse would probably be 'oh, we don't want Angry Voters coming to the polls and voting irrationally.' It's scary to me that it sounds like something a Politician would say.
[quote name='mykevermin']This is an interesting list of minor quibbles that can certainly aggregate and alienate someone who (like you) is clearly sour towards the whole process. Sure, it's just a stamp, it's just 45¢, but it is the principle of it all, honestly. I can see how that is quite aggravating to you.
What strikes me as fascinating is your expired voter registration. How were you notified of that? What caused it (i.e., how long a period of not voting)? This kind of concept really says "easily exploitable loophole that can be used to keep a giant block of people from voting." Don't notify people of expired registries, and then make the registration-by date longer (i.e., more than 30 days before election day).
That sounds like something that can really, really be used to disenfranchise voters.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. In the State of Oregon, we have mail in ballots to make it even easier to be lazy, but sometime in the last 10 years or so I stopped receiving them. I didn't much care because I had little to support, and my wife still got hers, but in trying to figure out why I didn't get mine, I contacted some office and it was determined I was no longer registered (or maybe it was the address was no longer valid). Whatever the reason, I was told I had to re-register.
Now it's admittedly hypocritical to bitch about the postage, while waiting on the county to MAIL me my ballot, but as I mentioned, and you noted, it's not the cost, it's the principle.
I too could see this as an easy way to keep people from voting who just forgot about it, weren't intentionally not-voting, like me. Then of course, a big election rolls around, they want to vote, and they can't because they never registered in time.
What strikes me as fascinating is your expired voter registration. How were you notified of that? What caused it (i.e., how long a period of not voting)? This kind of concept really says "easily exploitable loophole that can be used to keep a giant block of people from voting." Don't notify people of expired registries, and then make the registration-by date longer (i.e., more than 30 days before election day).
That sounds like something that can really, really be used to disenfranchise voters.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. In the State of Oregon, we have mail in ballots to make it even easier to be lazy, but sometime in the last 10 years or so I stopped receiving them. I didn't much care because I had little to support, and my wife still got hers, but in trying to figure out why I didn't get mine, I contacted some office and it was determined I was no longer registered (or maybe it was the address was no longer valid). Whatever the reason, I was told I had to re-register.
Now it's admittedly hypocritical to bitch about the postage, while waiting on the county to MAIL me my ballot, but as I mentioned, and you noted, it's not the cost, it's the principle.
I too could see this as an easy way to keep people from voting who just forgot about it, weren't intentionally not-voting, like me. Then of course, a big election rolls around, they want to vote, and they can't because they never registered in time.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
So you weren't notified until you contact them?
Yeesh, it just gets worse.
Yeesh, it just gets worse.
[quote name='UncleBob']
Dear Santorum campaign advisers - Telling me Ron Paul can't beat Obama isn't going to change my vote - I'm already ****ing voting for Ron Paul, I'm not ****ing voting for someone just because they "can win". Stupid ****s.[/QUOTE]
Haha I've hung up on shit like that a bunch of times. Not worth your time but it is funny.
Dear Santorum campaign advisers - Telling me Ron Paul can't beat Obama isn't going to change my vote - I'm already ****ing voting for Ron Paul, I'm not ****ing voting for someone just because they "can win". Stupid ****s.[/QUOTE]
Haha I've hung up on shit like that a bunch of times. Not worth your time but it is funny.
The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that "While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had 'serious reservations' about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA." and, despite claims to the contrary, "The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision... [without] temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." The ACLU also maintains that "the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...t_the_legislation_allows_indefinite_detention
Hence, Ron Paul.
Hence, Ron Paul.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...idential-race/2012/04/10/gIQACvaV8S_blog.html
Santorum has dropped out of the race.
Santorum has dropped out of the race.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Yeah, I heard that when listening to Limbaugh this afternoon. While I was a bit surprised, clearly he saw the overall trendlines, as well as the PA trendlines, and either saw he had no chance of actually getting the nomination, and decided to save face by not losing in his home state to Romney.
eldergamer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']This is an interesting list of minor quibbles that can certainly aggregate and alienate someone who (like you) is clearly sour towards the whole process. Sure, it's just a stamp, it's just 45¢, but it is the principle of it all, honestly. I can see how that is quite aggravating to you.
What strikes me as fascinating is your expired voter registration. How were you notified of that? What caused it (i.e., how long a period of not voting)? This kind of concept really says "easily exploitable loophole that can be used to keep a giant block of people from voting." Don't notify people of expired registries, and then make the registration-by date longer (i.e., more than 30 days before election day).
That sounds like something that can really, really be used to disenfranchise voters.[/QUOTE]
In Oregon and Washington where they have vote-by-mail , there's always ballot drop off sites on election night, so you're not -required- to buy postage to mail in your ballot.
State of Alaska just sent me something telling me that since I'm registered to vote in Washington, they'll remove me from the voter rolls there. 5 years after I've last voted in an Alaska election.
Hell, I still get calls from Alaska canidates/issues asking me for their support. My first response, "Do you know where you're calling?" (All of Alaska has the same area code, so if you're dialing something other than 907, that should be a clue)
What strikes me as fascinating is your expired voter registration. How were you notified of that? What caused it (i.e., how long a period of not voting)? This kind of concept really says "easily exploitable loophole that can be used to keep a giant block of people from voting." Don't notify people of expired registries, and then make the registration-by date longer (i.e., more than 30 days before election day).
That sounds like something that can really, really be used to disenfranchise voters.[/QUOTE]
In Oregon and Washington where they have vote-by-mail , there's always ballot drop off sites on election night, so you're not -required- to buy postage to mail in your ballot.
State of Alaska just sent me something telling me that since I'm registered to vote in Washington, they'll remove me from the voter rolls there. 5 years after I've last voted in an Alaska election.
Hell, I still get calls from Alaska canidates/issues asking me for their support. My first response, "Do you know where you're calling?" (All of Alaska has the same area code, so if you're dialing something other than 907, that should be a clue)
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, and his daughter had a setback and has been in the hospital, so he had personal reasons to not drag out a lost cause any longer.[/QUOTE]
Paper this morning said she was out of the hospital, but that doesn't mean she didn't have to go back, or that it isn't taking a toll on the campaign.
Now to sit back and watch the right wingers rekindle their romance with Romney.
Paper this morning said she was out of the hospital, but that doesn't mean she didn't have to go back, or that it isn't taking a toll on the campaign.
Now to sit back and watch the right wingers rekindle their romance with Romney.
[quote name='mykevermin']Paper this morning said she was out of the hospital, but that doesn't mean she didn't have to go back, or that it isn't taking a toll on the campaign.
Now to sit back and watch the right wingers rekindle their romance with Romney.[/QUOTE]
While at the same time Romney runs away from them to reintroduce himself, his name is HOV.
Now to sit back and watch the right wingers rekindle their romance with Romney.[/QUOTE]
While at the same time Romney runs away from them to reintroduce himself, his name is HOV.
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, I heard that when listening to Limbaugh this afternoon. While I was a bit surprised, clearly he saw the overall trendlines, as well as the PA trendlines, and either saw he had no chance of actually getting the nomination, and decided to save face by not losing in his home state to Romney.[/QUOTE]
I know it's off topic, but I just have to ask, why do you listen to that dreck? Your radio stuck or something?:lol:
I know it's off topic, but I just have to ask, why do you listen to that dreck? Your radio stuck or something?:lol:
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
I'll answer your question for him. To see how the other side thinks, and he can be relatively entertaining at times.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Ya, I reckon. The only reason I know the answer to your "q" is I've seen him answer it in the past.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Clak']I know it's off topic, but I just have to ask, why do you listen to that dreck? Your radio stuck or something?:lol:[/QUOTE]
WWE just doesn't do it for me anymore.
WWE just doesn't do it for me anymore.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']I'll answer your question for him. To see how the other side thinks, and he can be relatively entertaining at times.[/QUOTE]
Guess you were wrong
Guess you were wrong
[quote name='perdition(troy']I'll answer your question for him. To see how the other side thinks, and he can be relatively entertaining at times.[/QUOTE]
I like right wing radio for similar reasons, though the main one is to see them dig themselves out of their own irrational nonsense with platitudes. Essentially, how many times can they say "there are severe problems in this country, our govt should do absolutely nothing" because that just makes SO much sense. The fear mongering is really charming too. But my absolute favourite is when they figure out that they've been 100% wrong on something, it just drops off the radar and never gets spoken of again.
I like right wing radio for similar reasons, though the main one is to see them dig themselves out of their own irrational nonsense with platitudes. Essentially, how many times can they say "there are severe problems in this country, our govt should do absolutely nothing" because that just makes SO much sense. The fear mongering is really charming too. But my absolute favourite is when they figure out that they've been 100% wrong on something, it just drops off the radar and never gets spoken of again.
You know, American politics are a funny thing. These folks spend their time campaigning for the nomination, trying to show how different they are from the candidate(s) in the other party, but by the time they get the nomination and head into the general election, they're fighting to be as center as possible. This is why, I believe, nothing ground breaking really gets done. We don't want anyone who is really going to change things, most Americans want the status quo, we deal with a little change here and there, but nothing big. I understand now why there was no way in hell we were ever going to institute a single payer health care system, it's too big of a change too fast. If the current law as written is upheld in court, it's a small step towards it perhaps, but we were never just going to up and institute a single payer system in a single presidency.
To put it simply, we want a president as plain and milquetoast as possible. Not too liberal or conservative, just about down the middle, right where nothing ever gets done.
To put it simply, we want a president as plain and milquetoast as possible. Not too liberal or conservative, just about down the middle, right where nothing ever gets done.
bread's done