| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 26 2012 13:56 Swazi Spring wrote: Another gaffe by Joe Biden: Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/joe-biden-to-father-of-former-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-did-your-son-always-have-balls-the-size-of-cue-balls/ Siiiiiiiiiiiighhhh. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada705 Posts
On October 26 2012 13:59 Swazi Spring wrote: That's worse than when Joe Biden asked a paraplegic veteran in a wheelchair to "stand up." + Show Spoiler + Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. Agreed. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote: Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. | ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
On October 26 2012 13:51 Swazi Spring wrote: Pretty much. You cannot say that this is a Republican thing, especially not after what Obama has been doing against Mitt Romney. The scariest thing about Mitt is that he has at least 3 positions on every single issue. He did that to himself. A vote for Mitt, what does that vote stand for? I wonder if Mitt even knows what he will do if he wins. He's like a Mister Potato Head. He just puts on whatever he thinks is best at the time. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada705 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote: You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf From a purely analyitical standpoint, the numbers are completely out of line compared to what they should be. There's 11 separate cases where it seems that something funny's going on. In short: It appears that there is a reasonable case for investigation into election fraud. The numbers are too far out of line and too consistent across the board to be a statistical anomaly. Edit:: It is an extraordinary observation and indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation. A massive set of detailed data and analysis for all 50 states, beyond the scope of this paper, also confirmed these unlikely results. There may be other reasons for this but given that when analysis of other areas is done, it seems that it settles out to the expected value of a straight line. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Poll: Would you vote for a presidential candidate that was an atheist? Depends. As long as he isn't a complete douche about it, why not? (14) Are you shitting me? I would vote for him BECAUSE he was an atheist! (11) Why would I vote for a godless, souless monster? (2) 27 total votes Your vote: Would you vote for a presidential candidate that was an atheist? (Vote): Why would I vote for a godless, souless monster? | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:20 Defacer wrote: Just wondering ... Poll: Would you vote for a presidential candidate that was an atheist? Depends. As long as he isn't a complete douche about it, why not? (14) Are you shitting me? I would vote for him BECAUSE he was an atheist! (11) Why would I vote for a godless, souless monster? (2) 27 total votes Your vote: Would you vote for a presidential candidate that was an atheist? (Vote): Why would I vote for a godless, souless monster? I think a scientific poll has said something like 60-70% of people would be less likely to vote for someone who is an atheist. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote: No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:20 Defacer wrote: Just wondering ... Poll: Would you vote for a presidential candidate that was an atheist? Depends. As long as he isn't a complete douche about it, why not? (14) Are you shitting me? I would vote for him BECAUSE he was an atheist! (11) Why would I vote for a godless, souless monster? (2) 27 total votes Your vote: Would you vote for a presidential candidate that was an atheist? (Vote): Why would I vote for a godless, souless monster? As long as he isn't a douche about it. I really do not like the aggressive atheist types. I have a genuine respect for religion even if I don't believe in God myself. Only thing I hate is when they try to corrupt politics/government with it. Other than that, all's good. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:20 Lmui wrote: The last time I posted something similar, it didn't get the attention it deserved I think http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf From a purely analyitical standpoint, the numbers are completely out of line compared to what they should be. There's 11 separate cases where it seems that something funny's going on. In short: It appears that there is a reasonable case for investigation into election fraud. The numbers are too far out of line and too consistent across the board to be a statistical anomaly. Does any one know what happens if a candidate during the primaries or in the presidential election is caught rigging the vote? Does the other guy win by default? What if it isn't discovered or proven until after the election is over? | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:24 Defacer wrote: Does any one know what happens if a candidate during the primaries or in the presidential election is caught rigging the vote? Does the other guy win by default? What if it isn't discovered or proven until after the election is over? Ron Paul would immediately become president. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:28 Swazi Spring wrote: Ron Paul would immediately become president. Ron Paul is a joke who wants to return us to the gold standard. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
| ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:24 Defacer wrote: Does any one know what happens if a candidate during the primaries or in the presidential election is caught rigging the vote? Does the other guy win by default? What if it isn't discovered or proven until after the election is over? It will probably be pinned on someone else. If it can't be then they will Nixon out and get Amnesty from the previous vice. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:24 Defacer wrote: Does any one know what happens if a candidate during the primaries or in the presidential election is caught rigging the vote? Does the other guy win by default? What if it isn't discovered or proven until after the election is over? Probably would have a trial and would be impeached, or much more likely they would step down from office, if it happened before the electoral college meets they would hopefully choose not to take Office and concede. If it happens before, the other guy wins by default, if it happened after, maybe we would put the other guy in(if the other guy was supposed to win the election if not for the cheating)? Or maybe we would go to next in line, which is the Vice President(unless he had knowledge of it too..) I really doubt an actual candidate would be involved in election rigging or have evidence of election rigging linked to them, it would probably happen somewhere within the lower ranks of the campaigns, I wouldn't put it past either major political party to cheat, can't imagine either Mitt or Obama admitting to having knowledge of cheating, and why would they? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:20 Lmui wrote: The last time I posted something similar, it didn't get the attention it deserved I think http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf From a purely analyitical standpoint, the numbers are completely out of line compared to what they should be. There's 11 separate cases where it seems that something funny's going on. In short: It appears that there is a reasonable case for investigation into election fraud. The numbers are too far out of line and too consistent across the board to be a statistical anomaly. Edit:: It is an extraordinary observation and indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation. A massive set of detailed data and analysis for all 50 states, beyond the scope of this paper, also confirmed these unlikely results. There may be other reasons for this but given that when analysis of other areas is done, it seems that it settles out to the expected value of a straight line. Actually this has a much more straight-forward explanation (coming from someone who's been in an election war room. Smaller precincts tend to have easier counts, and therefore report sooner. The late reporters tend to be major suburban areas (large populations yet not state of the art systems for counting). This is (in my eyes) Romney's republican primary voting group. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:37 BluePanther wrote: Actually this has a much more straight-forward explanation (coming from someone who's been in an election war room. Smaller precincts tend to have easier counts, and therefore report sooner. The late reporters tend to be major suburban areas (large populations yet not state of the art systems for counting). This is (in my eyes) Romney's republican primary voting group. How would reporting later or earlier influence the results? We're aren't talking about 1-2% differences between the 5% cumulative mean and the 100% total tally. We're talking about 5-10% swings across thousands of precincts, consistently across the board. Also, explain pages 20 and 21 where Romney in 2008 got flat lines. Huckabee got a small curve there but nothing compared to the straight evenly sloped line that's present in Romney's 2012 primary results. Edit:: Reading it again, Historically in other contests not involving GOP candidates, we found no significant correlation between precinct vote tally and the percentage success for each candidate. In other words, for most counties and states, the vote result is unrelated to the number of voters in a precinct. There are random variations between precincts, but no definite linear trend from small to large precincts. Also At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals, the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause. Both seem rather damning. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada705 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote: Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in its foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong). Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're trying to make this into an issue? So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is potentially responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you for attempting to police the world, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama is trying to build a strong relationship with Russia. But that's not foreign policy, foreign policy is about military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote: Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
