|
|
On November 06 2012 17:13 Mysticesper wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It probably sounds about right. Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:08 frontliner2 wrote:Could someone PM me about when the voting has become final? I mean when it is certain who has won? Is that 10 hours? 2 days? I have no clue  Thanks It varies a lot by election... I would say checking back in about 20-24 hours will give you a good idea. If it's as close as everyone says, it may take a while due to recounts and crap.
Very exciting. THis is so important to world politics..
|
On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc.
Welcome to democracy pal, where people are free to choose note to vote unless they live in Australia.
Now here is another thing that will boil your noodle. The vote of an Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin and in the future North Carolina, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico voter is much more valuable than that of a Californian or a New Yorkers
|
Apparently I side with this Jill Stein the most too. No real surprise to me, I am one of them evil socialistic Europeans  No surprise to me at all that I don't agree with Romney, although maybe it should be. I'm sure at some point he said something that agreed with my views, before renouncing it and claiming he doesn't remember.
On a side note, can I ask y'all to raise a glass with me and toast the end of what has been an exhausting election cycle - the end is nigh, my friends. Keep in mind whoever wins tomorrow the US will keep on chugging.
|
On November 06 2012 17:29 Sanctimonius wrote:file://localhost/Users/Mendokusai/Desktop/I%20side%2093%25%20with%20Jill%20Stein.html Apparently I side with this Jill Stein the most too. No real surprise to me, I am one of them evil socialistic Europeans No surprise to me at all that I don't agree with Romney, although maybe it should be. I'm sure at some point he said something that agreed with my views, before renouncing it and claiming he doesn't remember. On a side note, can I ask y'all to raise a glass with me and toast the end of what has been an exhausting election cycle - the end is nigh, my friends. Keep in mind whoever wins tomorrow the US will keep on chugging.
You'll have to download more RAM to show that picture.
I too sided with Jill Stein, followed by Obama.
|
Just went back ten pages.
Where's XDaunt? I thought he'd be here raging on Nate Silver's latest update.
I've already taken that test. Jill Stein, no surprises there.
To people somewhat confused about agreeing more with Gary Johnson than Romney, please remember that the political divide is not binary, and is more akin to a 2-axis system with social issues on one axis and economic issues on the other. Liberals are high social freedom, high economic control. Conservatives are high social control, high economic freedom. Pretty much oil and water. However, most of the self-identified Republicans on TL are actually libertarians, who value high social and high economic freedom. They tend to fall in the cracks of the two-party system unless they live in Ron Paul's district.
|
On November 06 2012 17:27 frontliner2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:13 Mysticesper wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It probably sounds about right. On November 06 2012 17:08 frontliner2 wrote:Could someone PM me about when the voting has become final? I mean when it is certain who has won? Is that 10 hours? 2 days? I have no clue Thanks It varies a lot by election... I would say checking back in about 20-24 hours will give you a good idea. If it's as close as everyone says, it may take a while due to recounts and crap. Very exciting. THis is so important to world politics..
This is all going to be over sometime 9-10 pm Eastern Time zone. If Ohio goes Obama then its all over but the crying. Of course Romney could try to contest this but if it goes by the margin of the polls, 2-3% then thats it. If its much more narrower I am sure the Republicans will file a lawsuit, you dont dump a billion dollars of your own money into your hand pick guy and then call it a day.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On day of US #election2012, first ballots cast in tiny New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch - Obama and Romney each got five votes.
xD tiny town ftw xD
|
On November 06 2012 17:29 Sanctimonius wrote:Apparently I side with this Jill Stein the most too. No real surprise to me, I am one of them evil socialistic Europeans No surprise to me at all that I don't agree with Romney, although maybe it should be. I'm sure at some point he said something that agreed with my views, before renouncing it and claiming he doesn't remember. On a side note, can I ask y'all to raise a glass with me and toast the end of what has been an exhausting election cycle - the end is nigh, my friends. Keep in mind whoever wins tomorrow the US will keep on chugging.
haha this is fun, evil European socialist high-five, got Jill Stein with 92% and a 1% match with Republicans lmao
|
Gee...where is the Ron Paul cult? Every time I enter a political thread on TL, they are usually flooding the place.
|
On November 06 2012 17:40 Shiragaku wrote:
Gee...where is the Ron Paul cult? Every time I enter a political thread on TL, they are usually flooding the place.
I guess you haven't read the box at the top of the page.
3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere.
The mods tend to enforce this when Paul fanatics get out of hand.
|
On November 06 2012 17:43 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:40 Shiragaku wrote:
Gee...where is the Ron Paul cult? Every time I enter a political thread on TL, they are usually flooding the place. I guess you haven't read the box at the top of the page. Show nested quote +3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere. The mods tend to enforce this when Paul fanatics get out of hand.
But with the talk of Jill Stein, I thought that rule was given some leniency.
|
On November 06 2012 17:44 Shiragaku wrote:
But with the talk of Jill Stein, I thought that rule was given some leniency.
It's all to do with the political quiz posted a page or two ago. That's why Gary Johnson's cropped up a couple times, too.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 06 2012 17:44 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:43 Jumbled wrote:On November 06 2012 17:40 Shiragaku wrote:
Gee...where is the Ron Paul cult? Every time I enter a political thread on TL, they are usually flooding the place. I guess you haven't read the box at the top of the page. 3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere. The mods tend to enforce this when Paul fanatics get out of hand. But with the talk of Jill Stein, I thought that rule was given some leniency.
Jill Stein's an actual candidate. Ron Paul is not. :p
|
On November 06 2012 17:44 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:43 Jumbled wrote:On November 06 2012 17:40 Shiragaku wrote:
Gee...where is the Ron Paul cult? Every time I enter a political thread on TL, they are usually flooding the place. I guess you haven't read the box at the top of the page. 3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere. The mods tend to enforce this when Paul fanatics get out of hand. But with the talk of Jill Stein, I thought that rule was given some leniency.
Jill Stein and Garry Johnson are on the ballot in most areas. The cult of a certain libertarian is only really having a write-in as their choice.
|
On November 06 2012 17:40 Nesto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:29 Sanctimonius wrote:Apparently I side with this Jill Stein the most too. No real surprise to me, I am one of them evil socialistic Europeans No surprise to me at all that I don't agree with Romney, although maybe it should be. I'm sure at some point he said something that agreed with my views, before renouncing it and claiming he doesn't remember. On a side note, can I ask y'all to raise a glass with me and toast the end of what has been an exhausting election cycle - the end is nigh, my friends. Keep in mind whoever wins tomorrow the US will keep on chugging. haha this is fun, evil European socialist high-five, got Jill Stein with 92% and a 1% match with Republicans lmao
90% with Jill Stein (and I've only just found out who Jill Stein is, so much for a fair political scene).
I'm 18% with Romney though, so I looked into it a bit more and found some curious things -
Should the U.S. intervene in the affairs of other countries?
Mitt Romney: Only if there is a direct threat to our national security
Your similar answer: Only in matters of national security, human rights violations, or specifically asked by the international community
How is that similar!? It's only 33% of it -_-
Should the federal government regulate the internet to deter online piracy?
Mitt Romney: No, the government should prosecute copyright violators but not regulate the internet
Your similar answer: No, and enact legislation preventing any level of government policing the internet
Ah, there it is. I could like Romney more if he stuck to this stance. Actually, after careful inspection (reading!) I realized these are also not similar at all. =/
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 16:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:So I took that quiz. The results are a little surprising to me, they put Romney in last place! I'm more Democrat than Republican apparently, hate to disappoint all you liberals, especially Souma and oneofthem. + Show Spoiler + That's funny. I actually support Romney more than you according to this. + Show Spoiler +...but still dead last. I wonder what your Green party is advocating because there is no way I would match that closely to Elizabeth May in Canada. (It's like the last party I would vote for.)
Well not dead last ... there is Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson (?) running as the Constitutional and Justice Party candidates, respectively.
On November 06 2012 13:03 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 13:01 holy_war wrote:On November 06 2012 12:59 Zaqwert wrote:
Obama will probably win and this thread will erupt in high fives and celebration.
Meanwhile every person under 18 in this country is inheriting $218,676 in national debt.
WOW, we did it you guys! FOUR MORE YEARS!
It's a great irony in life that all the silly children supporting him this time will be the one inheriting the disaster of a country his policies will leave behind. And sadly, neither Obama nor Romney can do much about that debt. Even more sadly (for deficit hawks), both have promised to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that would bring the deficit somewhat under control.
I'm reaching kind of far back in the thread now as I've been off doing other things for the last few hours, but you have no idea what you are talking about. The Fiscal Cliff is not something to be worked towards, it is not and never was a best-case scenario (this being sequestration). In fact it the idea of it was to create something that both parties hated so much that they would be forced to make a real concerted effort to make cuts in areas that don't hit both parties so hard in the kisser. The sequester is the fall-back plan that no one wants to have to see go into effect, and if politicians fail to avoid it it sends bad messages to markets all over the globe.
If you are sitting in your living room hoping for the sequester then you're mad.
edit: To make it clear as you say politicians want to avoid the fiscal cliff. The only way you avoid sequester is if you agree on alternative ways of reaching the same amount of deficit reduction. Its not going to be the end of the world if they can't solve it, if they didn't pass the Budget Control Act a year ago it would have been really really bad. Sequestration certainly is not a good thing - a number of economists predict a double-dip recession if sequestration is not avoided.
|
Good morning America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
People of Earth.
|
The USA really needs to switch to a Mixed-member proportional systen. It's pretty obvious that a lot of republican voters would rather vote libertarian and the same with Democrats and Greens but they're scared of a wasted vote. Switching to MMP would totally fix this problem because the big parties would end up having to make alliances with the smaller ones. A lot of people were skeptical before we switched to it in NZ but now most people appreciate that it's no longer just a 2-party system (as long as a party gets more than 5% of the popular vote they are guaranteed government seats even if they do not win any electoral seats).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
|
On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc.
Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%.
|
On November 06 2012 18:18 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 17:25 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one. It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc. Common sense leads to the conclusion that the 40% are evenly split, or ambivalent to the policies of government and can thus be removed from the 100%.
Common sense further dictates that a vote cannot be equated to one's consent, as those who do not vote are still bound by obligation and restriction to/from the government and the society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/217885067.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aImU4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZPZom.jpg)
