• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:57
CEST 23:57
KST 06:57
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event5Serral wins EWC 202543Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9
Community News
Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments5[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10EWC 2025 - Replay Pack4Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced63
StarCraft 2
General
Rogue Talks: "Koreans could dominate again" uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Official Ladder Map Pool Update (April 28, 2025)
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays RSL Season 2 Qualifier Links and Dates
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars
Brood War
General
ASL Season 20 Ro24 Groups BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ StarCraft player reflex TE scores BW General Discussion Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced
Tourneys
KCM 2025 Season 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 2
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Gaming After Dark: Poor Slee…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 685 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1134

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1504 Next
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
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
October 31 2012 19:40 GMT
#22661
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:36 StarStrider wrote:
Standing in a line for an early vote today. Gary Johnson has absolutely zero chance of getting elected... but I feel that if my vote is wasted on a mainstream candidate, then I might as well use it to send a message, and truly vote for the principles i believe in, instead of the lesser of two evils.


5% does the LIbertarian Party WONDERS. I don't understand why they don't spread that message more. 5% gets them a lot of benefits for the next cycle.

Because they've never gotten even close to 5%, and this election is no different. It's wishful thinking to even consider it imo.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Signet
Profile Joined March 2007
United States1718 Posts
October 31 2012 19:42 GMT
#22662
On November 01 2012 04:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Ummm, that doesn't say they can't have a voluntary program. That language makes it clear that they can't simply go ahead and do it. Many of the backers of Prop 32 have said on the record that it doesn't outlaw voluntary deductions. It wouldn't hold up in court if it was the way you're saying it is. The lawyers for the anti-32 side would have a field day presenting pro-32 backers' own words to the judge(s).

And no one who has a brain has said Romney will win independents two to one, a 10-15 point lead among independents isn't 2:1 and no one has ever said it was.

I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me.

The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ )
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
October 31 2012 19:42 GMT
#22663
On November 01 2012 04:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:36 StarStrider wrote:
Standing in a line for an early vote today. Gary Johnson has absolutely zero chance of getting elected... but I feel that if my vote is wasted on a mainstream candidate, then I might as well use it to send a message, and truly vote for the principles i believe in, instead of the lesser of two evils.


5% does the LIbertarian Party WONDERS. I don't understand why they don't spread that message more. 5% gets them a lot of benefits for the next cycle.

Because they've never gotten even close to 5%, and this election is no different. It's wishful thinking to even consider it imo.


I would love it if the Libertarian Party and the Green Party managed 3% of the votes together.
Writer
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18828 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-31 19:44:00
October 31 2012 19:43 GMT
#22664
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.


Ok, so it says no more payroll deductions for political purposes, pretty clear language.

(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.

The bolded text explicitly upholds the blanket application of part a towards payroll deductions, regardless of employee wishes. This law bans all forms of payroll deductions for political purposes.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
October 31 2012 19:44 GMT
#22665
On November 01 2012 04:43 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


Show nested quote +
85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.


Ok, so it says no more payroll deductions for political purposes, pretty clear language.

Show nested quote +
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.

The bolded text explicitly upholds the blanket application of part a towards payroll deductions, regardless of employee wishes. This law bans all forms of payroll deductions for political purposes.


It's okay man, I got this!
Writer
BluePanther
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2776 Posts
October 31 2012 19:45 GMT
#22666
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.


eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
October 31 2012 19:45 GMT
#22667
On November 01 2012 04:43 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


Show nested quote +
85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.


Ok, so it says no more payroll deductions for political purposes, pretty clear language.

Show nested quote +
(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee’s written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.

The bolded text explicitly upholds the blanket application of part a towards payroll deductions, regardless of employee wishes. This law bans all forms of payroll deductions for political purposes.


No it doesn't, no matter how many times you say it does. The language does not mean what you think it means, sorry!
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
October 31 2012 19:46 GMT
#22668
On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.


eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that.


You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p
Writer
BluePanther
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2776 Posts
October 31 2012 19:46 GMT
#22669
On November 01 2012 04:42 Signet wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Ummm, that doesn't say they can't have a voluntary program. That language makes it clear that they can't simply go ahead and do it. Many of the backers of Prop 32 have said on the record that it doesn't outlaw voluntary deductions. It wouldn't hold up in court if it was the way you're saying it is. The lawyers for the anti-32 side would have a field day presenting pro-32 backers' own words to the judge(s).

And no one who has a brain has said Romney will win independents two to one, a 10-15 point lead among independents isn't 2:1 and no one has ever said it was.

I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me.

The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ )


unskewed polls is hogwash.
BluePanther
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2776 Posts
October 31 2012 19:48 GMT
#22670
On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.


eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that.


You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p


Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
October 31 2012 19:48 GMT
#22671
He doesn't have to, because the language doesn't mean what you keep saying it does. You can interpret it the way you want to but that is not what the Prop 32 backers have said. If anyone tried to prevent a voluntary deduction program, the very fact that the language does not specifically prohibit voluntary deductions and the backers have said that it doesn't means that voluntary deductions would be upheld in court. Get your panties untwisted.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-31 19:51:30
October 31 2012 19:49 GMT
#22672
On November 01 2012 04:42 Signet wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Ummm, that doesn't say they can't have a voluntary program. That language makes it clear that they can't simply go ahead and do it. Many of the backers of Prop 32 have said on the record that it doesn't outlaw voluntary deductions. It wouldn't hold up in court if it was the way you're saying it is. The lawyers for the anti-32 side would have a field day presenting pro-32 backers' own words to the judge(s).

And no one who has a brain has said Romney will win independents two to one, a 10-15 point lead among independents isn't 2:1 and no one has ever said it was.

I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me.

The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ )


Unskewed polls methodology is gibberish. They claim to want to report accurately and avoid skewing and weighting, then weight every single poll by completely arbitrary assumptions about the party makeup of the country.

This is bad and they should feel bad.

Edit: At least Rasmussen is reporting the results their polls actually show.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-31 19:52:32
October 31 2012 19:52 GMT
#22673
Unskewed polls methodology isn't gibberish, it's just mind-numbingly simplistic and bad. They say that the actual results of elections is that Democrats usually have a 1% party ID advantage, so they reweight the polls to D+1. This has no basis in reality other than the results of a few elections, they ignore elections where Democrats or Republicans had a bigger advantage in the actual poll results.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-31 19:53:55
October 31 2012 19:52 GMT
#22674
On November 01 2012 04:48 BluePanther wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.


eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that.


You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p


Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you.


Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things.

But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes.

Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words.

On November 01 2012 04:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:
He doesn't have to, because the language doesn't mean what you keep saying it does. You can interpret it the way you want to but that is not what the Prop 32 backers have said. If anyone tried to prevent a voluntary deduction program, the very fact that the language does not specifically prohibit voluntary deductions and the backers have said that it doesn't means that voluntary deductions would be upheld in court. Get your panties untwisted.


The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source...
Writer
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
October 31 2012 19:53 GMT
#22675
On November 01 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:48 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.


eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that.


You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p


Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you.


Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things.

But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes.

Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words.

Which corporations are backing this bill, exactly?
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Risen
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States7927 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-31 19:56:42
October 31 2012 19:54 GMT
#22676
So are the libertarians in this thread still trying to convince people that government intervention into a voluntary organization is a good thing?

On November 01 2012 02:53 xDaunt wrote:
Alright, I went and looked the union thing up because the issue was pissing me off. The rule is this: union membership cannot be compulsory. However, paying union dues, regardless of whether you are a member are not, can be compulsory in non-right to work states.

EDIT: And it is the compulsory union dues that makes union membership seem compulsory.

EDIT: So what is handled on a state by state, city by city, and district by district basis is the extent to which non-union members can be compelled to pay union dues.


Not just union dues, your use of extent is somewhat misleading to someone who didn't read the supreme court findings. They can be forced to pay fees for things that benefit them, such as collective bargaining. The fees may not be applied to political/ideological use. Fight against non-union workers being forced to pay collective bargaining fees and other such things, but that has nothing to do with prop. 32.

If you feel government should be able to tell voluntarily joined organizations what they can/can not do with their money, vote to support prop. 32. If you feel organizations which are voluntary to join shouldn't be told by the government how to spend their money, then don't support prop. 32.

Apparently I'm more libertarian than jdseemoreglass. Who knew?

Edit: I'm against non-union workers being forced to pay fees to unions for services rendered without permission.
Pufftrees Everyday>its like a rifter that just used X-Factor/Liquid'Nony: I hope no one lip read XD/Holyflare>it's like policy lynching but better/Resident Los Angeles bachelor
Signet
Profile Joined March 2007
United States1718 Posts
October 31 2012 19:55 GMT
#22677
On November 01 2012 04:46 BluePanther wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:42 Signet wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Ummm, that doesn't say they can't have a voluntary program. That language makes it clear that they can't simply go ahead and do it. Many of the backers of Prop 32 have said on the record that it doesn't outlaw voluntary deductions. It wouldn't hold up in court if it was the way you're saying it is. The lawyers for the anti-32 side would have a field day presenting pro-32 backers' own words to the judge(s).

And no one who has a brain has said Romney will win independents two to one, a 10-15 point lead among independents isn't 2:1 and no one has ever said it was.

I've seen polls with high 50s to low 30s in Independents, yes that isn't strictly 2:1 (more like 1.7 or 1.8 to 1), bite me.

The point is, conservative voters won't self-ID as independents on election day. The final results even if Romney wins will look a lot more like the national polls right now than like what the national polls would look like if you reweighted for self-reported party ID. Right now that method gives Romney 54% popular vote with 359 EVs. ( http://unskewedpolls.com/ )


unskewed polls is hogwash.

Well, yes

Because as has been explained before, self-reported party ID isn't a reliable sample-weighting variable. If it was, unskewed polls would be dead on accurate. They're just doing basic algebra to take the polls with D+8 or whatever, and converting it back to historical norms for reported party ID in presidential exit polls. Their math isn't remotely controversial. It's the assumption that's silly.

I can see there being a mix of poll undersampling and self-reporting issues, the former of which could swing things maybe 1-2 points further in Romney's direction. Errors of that size aren't even unusual. Besides he's already nearly +1 in the RCP average... at this point it's become more of a question of whether the national polls or state polls are more accurate.
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
October 31 2012 19:57 GMT
#22678
Requiring permission to take someone's money is anti-libertarian how?
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-31 19:58:18
October 31 2012 19:57 GMT
#22679
The backers? You mean the corporations, businesses and the billionaires who are all looking out for the good of the people? And you call the LA Times a bad source...


That isn't a reply to what I said. It's just juvenile snark. Try again: when even the backers are saying that it won't prevent voluntary deductions, how can you say that it will? Because the language isn't 110% precise? Do you really think legal efforts to prevent voluntary deductions would hold up in court under the language of Prop 32?
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
October 31 2012 19:59 GMT
#22680
On November 01 2012 04:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 01 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:48 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:46 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:45 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:40 Souma wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:37 BluePanther wrote:
On November 01 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I see what you guys are saying now. You're saying if the employees want to have it automatically deducted from their payroll they won't be allowed to.

Let me say that again.

If the employees WANT to have it automatically deducted they can't.

So this goes back to the original point:

This is obviously not common sense campaign finance reform.


Unless they give their permission, as explained in sub (b).

So basically the employer has to have written permission to make that deduction.


(b) says that anything from sub (a) is not allowed, so it cannot be an automatic deduction. Which just brings us back to another original point: why not just make it easier for people to opt out of the current system? Because this isn't about fairness. It never was and we all know it. Stupid, stupid proposition wasting our time and money.


eh, I can think of legal ways to get around that.


You should become a lawyer for the unions then. :p


Well, it still requires the consent of the individual getting paid. This would effectively shut down automatic deductions. But I'd imagine you could set up some sort of contract/trustee agreement whereby you donate a portion of your payroll to the union before it actually gets to you.


Maybe. It's unclear if the courts would strike that down or not. As it is, the sensible thing to do is to make it easier for employees to opt out of the whole thing all together when 1) they first sign the union forms, or 2) whenever they suddenly feel discontent with the way the unions are doing things.

But really, this isn't fair campaign finance reform and no one's stupid enough here to think that it is. So you really gotta ask yourself, why are the corporations backing this bill and not real campaign finance reform? Obviously because they'll receive major benefits from it if it passes.

Give me fair reform. This kind of shit just wastes our time, money and words.

Which corporations are backing this bill, exactly?


Smart. You know that nonprofit organizations are allowed to withhold donor information so I don't know who 'exactly' (aside form Charles Munger) is donating to the cause. Doesn't take a genius to piece it all together though.
Writer
Prev 1 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL
20:00
Team Wars - Round 2
Dewalt vs Sziky
ZZZero.O78
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ZombieGrub303
SteadfastSC 117
CosmosSc2 54
SpeCial 20
StarCraft: Brood War
ggaemo 228
ZZZero.O 78
NaDa 65
Aegong 60
yabsab 8
Stormgate
JuggernautJason122
UpATreeSC118
Dota 2
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K544
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0101
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu549
Khaldor96
Other Games
tarik_tv11135
gofns10887
summit1g4234
Grubby2851
fl0m767
mouzStarbuck224
Livibee75
Trikslyr58
Sick22
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV39
StarCraft 2
angryscii 35
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 38
• RyuSc2 30
• Adnapsc2 8
• OhrlRock 1
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• Ler44
League of Legends
• Doublelift3944
• TFBlade862
Counter-Strike
• Shiphtur172
Other Games
• imaqtpie1489
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
4h 3m
RSL Revival
12h 3m
SC Evo League
14h 3m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
17h 3m
CSO Cup
18h 3m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 12h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 17h
Wardi Open
2 days
RotterdaM Event
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
LiuLi Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.