On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
It's so close, I think anybody can see it. No way either campaign thinks they have it won.
On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote: Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power.
It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance.
It would not exist in a free market.
Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else.
The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended.
why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention
It does not need the limited liability because there is a high risk, it needs the limited liability because the potential cost of a single payout for something going wrong would likely bankrupt the insurance company that insured whoever had the accident. The only way to prevent that from happening would be to either not insure the reactor or to charge absurd amounts to insure them (and insure a lot of them to spread the risk out a lot). The first one is likely illegal and the second makes the reactors not worth it to build. Realistically, how is an insurance company going to price a policy that has a would have one payout nationwide once in the next 10,000 years, but that payout could easily run upwards of a trillion dollars? Insurance does not really work very well in situations like that, if the government wants reactors, then they can pass the liability limit and provide the implcit backing in case something goes wrong.
On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to see Romney win the popular and Obama win the EC? I wonder what the Dems would say then?
On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
It's so close, I think anybody can see it. No way either campaign thinks they have it won.
There's still plenty of time for either candidate to fuck up colossally.
On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to see Romney win the popular and Obama win the EC? I wonder what the Dems would say then?
I'd say it doesn't matter because we all know if we took away the Electoral College then liberals would have the bigger advantage with just a popular vote. :D
On that note, I'm not sure, but I think Gary Johnson's gonna swipe quite a few votes from the Republican Party.
" it needs the limited liability because the potential cost of a single payout for something going wrong would likely bankrupt the insurance company that insured whoever had the accident."
Isnt that the same as high risk? High risk does not only need to mean a big change on an accident, it can also mean a verry small change on an accident but with verry high damage.
@ below: ya but isnt that the risk we talking about? Or did he only mean with risk the change that something goes wrong, without considering the seize of the effects when it goes wrong? No insurance company (or government) could and should work with such a definition of risk, i hope you agree on that. The costs incase of disaster have to be taken into account.
On October 26 2012 07:41 Rassy wrote: " it needs the limited liability because the potential cost of a single payout for something going wrong would likely bankrupt the insurance company that insured whoever had the accident."
Romney raises $111 Million in the first 17 days of October:
Mitt Romney's campaign boasts that it raised $111.8 million in the first 17 days of October. The number includes the $12 million the campaign said it raised in the first 48 hours after Romney's strong performance after the first presidential debate.
On October 26 2012 07:41 Rassy wrote: " it needs the limited liability because the potential cost of a single payout for something going wrong would likely bankrupt the insurance company that insured whoever had the accident."
Isnt that the same as high risk?
Low risk huge catastrophe.
This is correct. Insurance works great for things where the expected payout stays somewhat constant over time (a few years) so you can set a rate accurately. It does not work very well for rare events that require a high payout since the insurance company wants to break even and budget over 3-5 years and not over 500 years.
Mitt Romney's campaign boasts that it raised $111.8 million in the first 17 days of October. The number includes the $12 million the campaign said it raised in the first 48 hours after Romney's strong performance after the first presidential debate.
On October 26 2012 08:03 Savio wrote: Romney raises $111 Million in the first 17 days of October:
Mitt Romney's campaign boasts that it raised $111.8 million in the first 17 days of October. The number includes the $12 million the campaign said it raised in the first 48 hours after Romney's strong performance after the first presidential debate.
Wouldn't be surprised if that was yet another lie to add into his collection.
That's a brilliant comment. Good on you.
It is a bit of a surprising number, but generally donations peak in October because it's all or nothing. I would expect Obama to have a similar number.
On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to see Romney win the popular and Obama win the EC? I wonder what the Dems would say then?
I was just reading about Romney's top donor so far this campaign:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/romneys_top_5_campaign_donors.html No. 1: Sheldon Adelson, 79, owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire.
Total: $34.2 million
Adelson is the largest declared donor to the Romney campaign and supporting political committees, providing more than $34.2 million this election season. He and his wife, Miriam, a physician who heads the Nevada-based Adelson Drug Clinic, have given $10 million to the Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Romney. Adelson also joined relatives to give $24 million to committees backing former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. And he has made public pledges vowing to give $10 million to Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC and as much as $100 million this election more broadly to the GOP. Worth an estimated $25 billion, Adelson oversees the Las Vegas Sands Corp., which runs casino and resort interests in Las Vegas, Singapore and Bethlehem, Pa., and Sands China Ltd., a cluster of casinos in the Chinese territory of Macau. He would benefit from loosened trade restrictions and a rise in the Chinese currency rate against the dollar. His company devoted $60,000 this year to lobby on tax issues, foreign tourist visas, travel and Internet gambling issues -- and has spent $1.86 million lobbying on legislation dealing with China trade, gambling and travel since 2002. A staunch supporter of Israel, he also is a contributor to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which spent $920,000 since 2002 backing bills aimed at pressuring Iran and enhancing U.S. security cooperation with Israel. Adelson's casino company has advised shareholders that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Investigators were said to be focusing on the Macau casinos and reports of missing money and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
People like this shouldn't be allowed to donate -- I'm seriously not even sure he should be allowed to vote.
It seems to me over the past few decades, with this brave new world of globalization, that there are many people and corporations (or should I say "people"), who despite their citizenship, which could seemingly change in the future, their actual livelihood -- their wealth -- is not country-bound. This guy is just as much invested in China's and Israel's welfare as America's. Not something that could probably ever be feasibly legislated, but I find it terrifying and disturbing that so much money being sent to our politicians could just as well have been sent in the form of Yen. Too many conflict of interests in today's globalized world to just let this money flow into our political system like this. It's insane and inexcusable.
I'm sure this is a bipartisan problem, although it's much more pronounced in the Republican party.
On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to see Romney win the popular and Obama win the EC? I wonder what the Dems would say then?
i know what i will say, one word, Bushed
Made me lol pretty good. It will become a new term imo.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/romneys_top_5_campaign_donors.html No. 1: Sheldon Adelson, 79, owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire.
Total: $34.2 million
Adelson is the largest declared donor to the Romney campaign and supporting political committees, providing more than $34.2 million this election season. He and his wife, Miriam, a physician who heads the Nevada-based Adelson Drug Clinic, have given $10 million to the Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Romney. Adelson also joined relatives to give $24 million to committees backing former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. And he has made public pledges vowing to give $10 million to Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC and as much as $100 million this election more broadly to the GOP. Worth an estimated $25 billion, Adelson oversees the Las Vegas Sands Corp., which runs casino and resort interests in Las Vegas, Singapore and Bethlehem, Pa., and Sands China Ltd., a cluster of casinos in the Chinese territory of Macau. He would benefit from loosened trade restrictions and a rise in the Chinese currency rate against the dollar. His company devoted $60,000 this year to lobby on tax issues, foreign tourist visas, travel and Internet gambling issues -- and has spent $1.86 million lobbying on legislation dealing with China trade, gambling and travel since 2002. A staunch supporter of Israel, he also is a contributor to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which spent $920,000 since 2002 backing bills aimed at pressuring Iran and enhancing U.S. security cooperation with Israel. Adelson's casino company has advised shareholders that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Investigators were said to be focusing on the Macau casinos and reports of missing money and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
People like this shouldn't be allowed to donate -- I'm seriously not even sure he should be allowed to vote.
It seems to me over the past few decades, with this brave new world of globalization, that there are many people and corporations (or should I say "people"), who despite their citizenship, which could seemingly change in the future, their actual livelihood -- their wealth -- is not country-bound. This guy is just as much invested in China's and Israel's welfare as America's. Not something that could probably ever be feasibly legislated, but I find it terrifying and disturbing that so much money being sent to our politicians could just as well have been sent in the form of Yen. Too many conflict of interests in today's globalized world to just let this money flow into our political system like this. It's insane and inexcusable.
I'm sure this is a bipartisan problem, although it's much more pronounced in the Republican party.
whine whine whine.
Rich Americans have just as much right to give funds as you or I.
From his wikipedia profile:
Adelson was born and grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Sarah (née Tonkin) and Arthur Adelson.[2][3][4] His father drove a taxi and his mother, who immigrated from the U.K., ran a knitting store. His family was Jewish.[5] He worked as a mortgage broker, investment adviser and financial consultant. He started a business selling toiletry kits, and in the 1960s he started a charter tours business.[2] Adelson went to college at the City College of New York, but dropped out.
Be fair to the man, he earned it. Each and every penny he owns was through his efforts, not his ancestors.
His reasoning for giving so much money?
Adelson told Forbes magazine that he is "against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition."
On October 26 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
Now, keep in mind that it's not just the battleground states that disagree with the national numbers; most states aren't perfectly aligned with national projections. If you took state-by-state prospective vote totals, the result differs substantially from the national polls.
It's not really an electoral college issue; it's a "which polls are better" issue.
I'd say it doesn't matter because we all know if we took away the Electoral College then liberals would have the bigger advantage with just a popular vote. :D
On that note, I'm not sure, but I think Gary Johnson's gonna swipe quite a few votes from the Republican Party.
Im a registered republican voting for Gary Johnson instead of Mitt Romney. Basically the majority of people under 30 who "should be" republican are leaning libertarian, mostly because of Ron Paul. Im not sure how it will effect Romney since they count the "youth" vote as Obama supporters anyways.
On October 26 2012 09:17 Leporello wrote: I'm not surprised by that $111M figure.
I was just reading about Romney's top donor so far this campaign:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/romneys_top_5_campaign_donors.html No. 1: Sheldon Adelson, 79, owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire.
Total: $34.2 million
Adelson is the largest declared donor to the Romney campaign and supporting political committees, providing more than $34.2 million this election season. He and his wife, Miriam, a physician who heads the Nevada-based Adelson Drug Clinic, have given $10 million to the Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Romney. Adelson also joined relatives to give $24 million to committees backing former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. And he has made public pledges vowing to give $10 million to Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC and as much as $100 million this election more broadly to the GOP. Worth an estimated $25 billion, Adelson oversees the Las Vegas Sands Corp., which runs casino and resort interests in Las Vegas, Singapore and Bethlehem, Pa., and Sands China Ltd., a cluster of casinos in the Chinese territory of Macau. He would benefit from loosened trade restrictions and a rise in the Chinese currency rate against the dollar. His company devoted $60,000 this year to lobby on tax issues, foreign tourist visas, travel and Internet gambling issues -- and has spent $1.86 million lobbying on legislation dealing with China trade, gambling and travel since 2002. A staunch supporter of Israel, he also is a contributor to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which spent $920,000 since 2002 backing bills aimed at pressuring Iran and enhancing U.S. security cooperation with Israel. Adelson's casino company has advised shareholders that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Investigators were said to be focusing on the Macau casinos and reports of missing money and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
People like this shouldn't be allowed to donate -- I'm seriously not even sure he should be allowed to vote.
It seems to me over the past few decades, with this brave new world of globalization, that there are many people and corporations (or should I say "people"), who despite their citizenship, which could seemingly change in the future, their actual livelihood -- their wealth -- is not country-bound. This guy is just as much invested in China's and Israel's welfare as America's. Not something that could probably ever be feasibly legislated, but I find it terrifying and disturbing that so much money being sent to our politicians could just as well have been sent in the form of Yen. Too many conflict of interests in today's globalized world to just let this money flow into our political system like this. It's insane and inexcusable.
I'm sure this is a bipartisan problem, although it's much more pronounced in the Republican party.
whine whine whine.
Rich Americans have just as much right to give funds as you or I.
Adelson was born and grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Sarah (née Tonkin) and Arthur Adelson.[2][3][4] His father drove a taxi and his mother, who immigrated from the U.K., ran a knitting store. His family was Jewish.[5] He worked as a mortgage broker, investment adviser and financial consultant. He started a business selling toiletry kits, and in the 1960s he started a charter tours business.[2] Adelson went to college at the City College of New York, but dropped out.
Be fair to the man, he earned it. Each and every penny he owns was through his efforts, not his ancestors.
Adelson told Forbes magazine that he is "against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition."
His reasoning stinks. George Soros doesn't even come close to how much money Adelson has donated this election.
Yes, Adelson earned his money. I'll give him credit for that absolutely. I have nothing against his business. I think gambling is as fair a business as any.
But if you control major assets (not just investments) in foreign countries, sorry, you have conflicts of interest. America is not your only interest. And so your money should be left out of our politics. Just my opinion on that.
It has nothing to do with being rich either, it's the fact that Adelson's wealth is anchored to other countries as much as this one.
For example, he has a very direct interest in seeing China's currency values rise. This has also been a talking-point of the Romney campaign, and he mentioned it just in the last debate, that he wants to see China's currency deflate.
Let's sell our economic policies!!! Yay!
In other news:
Whoever in Obama's camp thought this ad was a good idea should be fired and ridiculed immediately, and have all their academic achievements revoked. This might be the dumbest, most clueless ad I've ever seen. Republicans are calling it offensive. I don't know it it's offensive, unless you're offended by stupidity because it sure as hell has plenty of that.
If you actually mean it, I could invest the time to provide sources for all of that.. If you're just being facetious (and don't want to use Google to see if I'm full of shit or not) then let me know now, so that I don't waste my time ._.
All of that stuff is fairly accurate though.
I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof falls on the guy making the stupid statements.
Aside from the tax thing, which he edited out, what did he say that was "stupid?" Was he being incredibly blunt and stating the obvious? Yes. But to call him stupid...
Edit: When I posted this, I had only read his opening post. Having read some of his other posts now, I take back this statement.
Oh my God that Lena Dunham ad is one of the most incredibly strange things I've ever seen in my entire life. It reenforces my hatred of her show Girls all the more. I'm seriously dying over here.
EPT
