|
|
On October 26 2012 15:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:19 Lmui wrote:Also, relevant image that I've found: Coupled with 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. Worries me a lot. Furthermore, that article accuses Wisconsin as vote-rigging. We only use automated counters that leave a paper trail (and have been counted in the past). They are verified as being legit. Now I do some election law, and our system is by NO means good (our government agency is incompetent as can be). However, I have no reason to think there is any sort of voting system rigging going on.
I'm okay with this, but Americans get Alaska, it already is a solid Republican state after all. You can have Illinois as compensation.
|
On October 27 2012 00:10 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 22:47 Rassy wrote:Ima put some monney on Obama to win. Then if romney looses i am at least still somewhat happy. It also seems like a good deal. I mean: the change that obama wins is like 90% and you get 60-40 odds  Those numbers are very crooked. I am pretty sure that it is no longer a 90% sure victory for Obama. Essentially it takes a singe north-eastern state to turn the table, if we can count New Hampshire as Romneys (it is shown as Obamas, but it is a single poll with 9 point lead for Obama with a small Romney lead in all the rest!). If Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin tips over, Romney will be US president. Much of the US elections are about getting people off the couch and down voting for both parties. Stealing voters is not as important as getting the bases to vote. Last election Obama got a lot of excited minority groups to vote, while many are less fired up about voting this time around! How bad that trend is will determine a good part of the election.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TFq
Is what I think is most likely. You can toss in NH + IA and its still an Obama win, and this is being pretty generous for Romney. Of course, if OH goes Romney all bets are off but I still think its about 70-30 for Obama.
|
On October 27 2012 00:32 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:10 radiatoren wrote:On October 26 2012 22:47 Rassy wrote:Ima put some monney on Obama to win. Then if romney looses i am at least still somewhat happy. It also seems like a good deal. I mean: the change that obama wins is like 90% and you get 60-40 odds Those numbers are very crooked. I am pretty sure that it is no longer a 90% sure victory for Obama. Essentially it takes a singe north-eastern state to turn the table, if we can count New Hampshire as Romneys (it is shown as Obamas, but it is a single poll with 9 point lead for Obama with a small Romney lead in all the rest!). If Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin tips over, Romney will be US president. Much of the US elections are about getting people off the couch and down voting for both parties. Stealing voters is not as important as getting the bases to vote. Last election Obama got a lot of excited minority groups to vote, while many are less fired up about voting this time around! How bad that trend is will determine a good part of the election. http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TFqIs what I think is most likely. You can toss in NH + IA and its still an Obama win, and this is being pretty generous for Romney. Of course, if OH goes Romney all bets are off but I still think its about 70-30 for Obama.
I agree with your assesment and it is supported by the polls. Still 90% is far bigger than 70%.
|
|
|
On October 26 2012 20:12 ahappystar wrote:Such a shame the Third party debates get so little attention. Wheres the democracy in there only being two parties at the 'official' televised debates. The Democrats and the Republicans have been pedaling the same politics for years, it doesn't matter who comes to power its the same crap over and over. It's like people don't have a choice in america  EDIT: I just realized that maybe my post goes against that third part in the note at the top of the thread, it's just sad to see Romney vs. Obama the only thing being shown in the media because the people that own the media are the same ones financing the 'main' parties, and the same people are financing both parties so it doesn't matter who wins.
To win an election you need a majority of the votes. To get a majority of the votes, your political views have to fall within the mainstream of political thought. The reason why candidates become 3rd party candidates is precisely because their views fall outside of the mainstream. If their views did fall within the mainstream, they'd just join one of the two major parties. So now you see why we'll never have anything other than a 2 party system. It has nothing to do with anybody wanting to hold them back. Ron Paul participated in every televised Republican primary debate and never won a single one.
|
Until I get a better source than "Clinton's unidentified legal counsel said she did according to a right-wing news channel's show" I'm a bit skeptical. I mean, there's no actual reason to do this, Obama isn't a lunatic.
|
So I looked up this Ed Klein guy, and here's what I found from Wikipedia:
Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005.[2] Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." [3]. The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.” In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[1]
I'm going to need some evidence, not just the word of some discredited author with an apparent grudge against Clinton and Obama.
|
Ed Klein hasn't done himself any favors to make me believe him. Got a more credible source?
|
On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true. No, not really. Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets. So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS.
Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true.
|
The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.
I stopped reading at "the news broke on TheBlaze". I've lost track of the times they've come up damning, game-changing articles about Obama that have fizzled and flopped.
|
I love your wording.
Unfortunately Comrade Obama will appoint more Czars, to rule over people and drain their life force, also known as Freedom!
//sarcasm end.
|
|
|
On October 27 2012 01:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true. No, not really. Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets. So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS. Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true.
Obama has made many statements on the topic - not just one statement in one way.
The politifact article wasn't good. You can't just label a normal business expense a tax break for shipping jobs overseas.
Nor can you complain about other countries having lower tax rates, and companies taking advantage of that, without explaining how you are going to tax foreign companies.
And even assuming Obama can pull the tax change off what good will it do? Companies based in other countries will just move to the lower tax zone and put the US company out of business anyways.
|
On October 27 2012 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 01:19 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true. No, not really. Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets. So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS. Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true. Obama has made many statements on the topic - not just one statement in one way. The politifact article wasn't good. You can't just label a normal business expense a tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Nor can you complain about other countries having lower tax rates, and companies taking advantage of that, without explaining how you are going to tax foreign companies. And even assuming Obama can pull the tax change off what good will it do? Companies based in other countries will just move to the lower tax zone and put the US company out of business anyways.
The statement Obama made which was evaluated in the politifact article was that the federal tax code had "loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas". This was perfectly true - the article mentioned such loopholes giving incentives. What other statement on the topic by Obama is, according to you, false?
|
Untrue. Silver's "adjusted polling" numbers have been better for Romney than his unadjusted numbers for about a month now. And while in some cases an Obama-friendly poll is given greater weight than a Romney-friendly poll, in other cases the exact opposite happens. The NRO author was just cherry-picking examples to fit his story.
|
You guys listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning? He destroyed Obama on the Benghazi attack, on the regime's half-hearted apology to the families of the Benghazi victims, and on Obama's new sex ad. The show's not even over yet and I only listened to a little bit of it. Way to go Rush! I'll post a transcript once it becomes available online.
|
On October 27 2012 02:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
You guys listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning?
you know it
|
On October 27 2012 02:25 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 02:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
You guys listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning? you know it
All day, erryday.
|
On October 27 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 01:19 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true. No, not really. Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets. So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS. Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true. Obama has made many statements on the topic - not just one statement in one way. The politifact article wasn't good. You can't just label a normal business expense a tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Nor can you complain about other countries having lower tax rates, and companies taking advantage of that, without explaining how you are going to tax foreign companies. And even assuming Obama can pull the tax change off what good will it do? Companies based in other countries will just move to the lower tax zone and put the US company out of business anyways. The statement Obama made which was evaluated in the politifact article was that the federal tax code had "loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas". This was perfectly true - the article mentioned such loopholes giving incentives. What other statement on the topic by Obama is, according to you, false?
From the first debate:
It was one of the most heated and perplexing moments in the presidential debate last night. Barack Obama pledged to "close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas" and instead "provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States." As things stand, he added, "you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue."
He made it out to sound like you can take some special offshoring tax deduction that the government could easily strike out. In reality you'd either need a very complicated scheme to figure out what counts as an expense related to shipping a job overseas or a simple one that only counts things like moving expenses (which would raise exactly dick for revenue). Either way you are doing exactly zero to stop businesses from offshoring.
The Politifact article was misleading in outlining "loopholes" in the US tax code that encouraged jobs to go overseas. Its not the "US loophole" that creates the incentive, its the foreign country offering a lower tax rate that creates the incentive. I have no idea how Obama plans on dealing with that without creating large unintended consequences. In fact, I don't think he sees it as a genuine issue at all. I think he's just trying to get people to say "GRRRR TAXES UNFAIR! GRRRRR!!!" and get more votes that way.
|
Sorry everyone, but it will probably be a while until I can post a transcript, as his show will still be on for at least another hour and a half.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v6m70.gif)
