|
|
On September 23 2012 05:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 05:37 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 23 2012 05:32 Defacer wrote:On September 23 2012 00:24 JinDesu wrote:On September 23 2012 00:14 coverpunch wrote:Beyond the insistence that this would be ineffectual, I don't think there's been any attempt to parse out WHY Republicans are trying to do this. Here's a similar story about the IRS requiring Social Security numbers for claiming dependents. When they did that, 7.2 MILLION children disappeared from the tax rolls, nearly 10% of all dependents. It looks like Republicans imagine the same thing would happen if they required ID at polls, that thousands of people who are dead or fake or ineligible wouldn't be able to vote. But the issue I think is that most studies have returned that there are so few voter fraud cases, and so there's no evidence really for mass voter fraud to warrant doing this RIGHT before a major election. And I agree with Doublereed that doing this is fine - if implemented over a long term period. I also like what I suggested before - make it free, and give it support. I don't mind voter ID laws. Just make it so everyone can get an ID, and make it somewhat efficient. In British Columbia, voters must bring an ID with their current address. If your ID doesn't have your address on it, you can bring something like your social insurance card (has you name but no address), plus a piece of mail from the power company, your paystub, your tax return --- anything which has your current address and name. Just supplement any government issued ID with a document with your current mailing address. BOOM. I just saved the US millions of dollars. Assuming of course, that the people behind the laws want this to be easy. It's not about making it easy for the common voter, it's about making it hard for the secret underground networks of millions of voters, all of whom are voting multiple times in order to collectively change the result of a national election with an electorate in the hundreds of millions. You have to remember, these guys are organised, they have discipline, they are incredibly stealthy. They've managed to recruit a colossal army of members and taught them how to cheat the voting system without a single person they attempted to recruit going to the police or letting it slip what they're doing. What's more, with both democrats and republicans casting phoney votes it's turning into an arms face between the two underground networks as each tries to commit more electoral fraud than the other. If something isn't done then this election could see billions of votes cast, swamping the system and bringing down the government. We need to act now.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, TL frowns upon those. 
On September 23 2012 06:30 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:21 IIMARCII wrote:
I don't even think Romney has any chances to get more than 25% of the votes. You're severely overestimating Americans' logic.
I would concur, look for it to be closer than it should be.
|
Romney will get 49% because he has an R in front of his name. That's how it works.
|
On September 23 2012 06:21 IIMARCII wrote:
I don't even think Romney has any chances to get more than 25% of the votes.
No. You might think so but Obama isn't THAT much better than Romney and there's always partisanship.
53-47 is considered a solid victory (what Obama got in 2008). Just from the way things have gone and the disappointment in Obama, he definitely doesn't deserve a landslide victory better than that. I think it will be around 52-48, a victory but not a drubbing. For the Electoral College, I think Obama will coast.
At least, for now. A lot can change in the next 47 days, with the debates and lots of dry powder on the global stage.
|
hoping for obama's victory here
|
On September 23 2012 06:21 IIMARCII wrote:
I don't even think Romney has any chances to get more than 25% of the votes.
Romney would get 40 % of the votes after being filmed shooting a few hundred people. It is not about the squeeler, It is about the letter before his name...
|
On September 23 2012 06:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 05:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2012 05:37 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 23 2012 05:32 Defacer wrote:On September 23 2012 00:24 JinDesu wrote:On September 23 2012 00:14 coverpunch wrote:Beyond the insistence that this would be ineffectual, I don't think there's been any attempt to parse out WHY Republicans are trying to do this. Here's a similar story about the IRS requiring Social Security numbers for claiming dependents. When they did that, 7.2 MILLION children disappeared from the tax rolls, nearly 10% of all dependents. It looks like Republicans imagine the same thing would happen if they required ID at polls, that thousands of people who are dead or fake or ineligible wouldn't be able to vote. But the issue I think is that most studies have returned that there are so few voter fraud cases, and so there's no evidence really for mass voter fraud to warrant doing this RIGHT before a major election. And I agree with Doublereed that doing this is fine - if implemented over a long term period. I also like what I suggested before - make it free, and give it support. I don't mind voter ID laws. Just make it so everyone can get an ID, and make it somewhat efficient. In British Columbia, voters must bring an ID with their current address. If your ID doesn't have your address on it, you can bring something like your social insurance card (has you name but no address), plus a piece of mail from the power company, your paystub, your tax return --- anything which has your current address and name. Just supplement any government issued ID with a document with your current mailing address. BOOM. I just saved the US millions of dollars. Assuming of course, that the people behind the laws want this to be easy. It's not about making it easy for the common voter, it's about making it hard for the secret underground networks of millions of voters, all of whom are voting multiple times in order to collectively change the result of a national election with an electorate in the hundreds of millions. You have to remember, these guys are organised, they have discipline, they are incredibly stealthy. They've managed to recruit a colossal army of members and taught them how to cheat the voting system without a single person they attempted to recruit going to the police or letting it slip what they're doing. What's more, with both democrats and republicans casting phoney votes it's turning into an arms face between the two underground networks as each tries to commit more electoral fraud than the other. If something isn't done then this election could see billions of votes cast, swamping the system and bringing down the government. We need to act now. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, TL frowns upon those.
Sounded like satire to me.
|
Uhm. Romney isn't running on how great he is. He's running on how bad Obama is. So why would the vote change that much. People are voting against Obama. No one cares about Romney.
Anyway, what about the congressional elections? It looks to me like a huge blowback against republicans after how obstructionist they've been.
|
On September 23 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhm. Romney isn't running on how great he is. He's running on how bad Obama is. So why would the vote change that much. People are voting against Obama. No one cares about Romney.
Anyway, what about the congressional elections? It looks to me like a huge blowback against republicans after how obstructionist they've been.
Care to summarize for me? I actually haven't kept up 
|
On September 23 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 23 2012 05:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2012 05:37 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 23 2012 05:32 Defacer wrote:On September 23 2012 00:24 JinDesu wrote:On September 23 2012 00:14 coverpunch wrote:Beyond the insistence that this would be ineffectual, I don't think there's been any attempt to parse out WHY Republicans are trying to do this. Here's a similar story about the IRS requiring Social Security numbers for claiming dependents. When they did that, 7.2 MILLION children disappeared from the tax rolls, nearly 10% of all dependents. It looks like Republicans imagine the same thing would happen if they required ID at polls, that thousands of people who are dead or fake or ineligible wouldn't be able to vote. But the issue I think is that most studies have returned that there are so few voter fraud cases, and so there's no evidence really for mass voter fraud to warrant doing this RIGHT before a major election. And I agree with Doublereed that doing this is fine - if implemented over a long term period. I also like what I suggested before - make it free, and give it support. I don't mind voter ID laws. Just make it so everyone can get an ID, and make it somewhat efficient. In British Columbia, voters must bring an ID with their current address. If your ID doesn't have your address on it, you can bring something like your social insurance card (has you name but no address), plus a piece of mail from the power company, your paystub, your tax return --- anything which has your current address and name. Just supplement any government issued ID with a document with your current mailing address. BOOM. I just saved the US millions of dollars. Assuming of course, that the people behind the laws want this to be easy. It's not about making it easy for the common voter, it's about making it hard for the secret underground networks of millions of voters, all of whom are voting multiple times in order to collectively change the result of a national election with an electorate in the hundreds of millions. You have to remember, these guys are organised, they have discipline, they are incredibly stealthy. They've managed to recruit a colossal army of members and taught them how to cheat the voting system without a single person they attempted to recruit going to the police or letting it slip what they're doing. What's more, with both democrats and republicans casting phoney votes it's turning into an arms face between the two underground networks as each tries to commit more electoral fraud than the other. If something isn't done then this election could see billions of votes cast, swamping the system and bringing down the government. We need to act now. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, TL frowns upon those. Sounded like satire to me.
I know it was satire that's why I put the and referred to TL frowning upon it because he's a moderator.
|
On September 23 2012 07:03 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:21 IIMARCII wrote:
I don't even think Romney has any chances to get more than 25% of the votes. Romney would get 40 % of the votes after being filmed shooting a few hundred people. It is not about the squeeler, It is about the letter before his name...
Somewhat disagree here. That moron Republican Senator in Missouri, I think it was, came out with that statement about a woman's natural defense to getting pregnant from rape is an example. Republicans jumped his shit more than anyone and unless he drops out, it's a sure win for the Democrat, who, incidentally helped his primary candidacy because she wanted him to be the Republican nominee.
Having said that, many Republicans will vote from him, even though they despise him, only because it's a number and getting a majority in the Senate is more important overall than one douchebag's idiocy.
|
On September 23 2012 08:00 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhm. Romney isn't running on how great he is. He's running on how bad Obama is. So why would the vote change that much. People are voting against Obama. No one cares about Romney.
Anyway, what about the congressional elections? It looks to me like a huge blowback against republicans after how obstructionist they've been. Care to summarize for me? I actually haven't kept up
I wouldn't expect so much blowback against Congressional Republicans for being obstructionists. The voters put them in Congress to do exactly that. Republican primaries for 2010 was a large sweep of moderates out because voters wanted their Republican Reps to oppose Obama's liberal policies. Those voters have not changed their minds in the last two years, so unless something changes in the American political scene, don't expect Republican support to wane for their conservative Republican Congress.
|
On September 23 2012 08:15 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 08:00 JinDesu wrote:On September 23 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhm. Romney isn't running on how great he is. He's running on how bad Obama is. So why would the vote change that much. People are voting against Obama. No one cares about Romney.
Anyway, what about the congressional elections? It looks to me like a huge blowback against republicans after how obstructionist they've been. Care to summarize for me? I actually haven't kept up I wouldn't expect so much blowback against Congressional Republicans for being obstructionists. The voters put them in Congress to do exactly that. Republican primaries for 2010 was a large sweep of moderates out because voters wanted their Republican Reps to oppose Obama's liberal policies. Those voters have not changed their minds in the last two years, so unless something changes in the American political scene, don't expect Republican support to wane for their conservative Republican Congress.
The thing is though that there are two weaknesses to your theory. One is that a presidential electorate is different from a midterm electorate which is typiclaly older and whiter (more republican). Then there is the problem that when you look at the senate a lot of the very conservative senators who got a lot of focus lost so the question becomes will people support them if they see what they are selling?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 23 2012 05:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 05:37 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 23 2012 05:32 Defacer wrote:On September 23 2012 00:24 JinDesu wrote:On September 23 2012 00:14 coverpunch wrote:Beyond the insistence that this would be ineffectual, I don't think there's been any attempt to parse out WHY Republicans are trying to do this. Here's a similar story about the IRS requiring Social Security numbers for claiming dependents. When they did that, 7.2 MILLION children disappeared from the tax rolls, nearly 10% of all dependents. It looks like Republicans imagine the same thing would happen if they required ID at polls, that thousands of people who are dead or fake or ineligible wouldn't be able to vote. But the issue I think is that most studies have returned that there are so few voter fraud cases, and so there's no evidence really for mass voter fraud to warrant doing this RIGHT before a major election. And I agree with Doublereed that doing this is fine - if implemented over a long term period. I also like what I suggested before - make it free, and give it support. I don't mind voter ID laws. Just make it so everyone can get an ID, and make it somewhat efficient. In British Columbia, voters must bring an ID with their current address. If your ID doesn't have your address on it, you can bring something like your social insurance card (has you name but no address), plus a piece of mail from the power company, your paystub, your tax return --- anything which has your current address and name. Just supplement any government issued ID with a document with your current mailing address. BOOM. I just saved the US millions of dollars. Assuming of course, that the people behind the laws want this to be easy. It's not about making it easy for the common voter, it's about making it hard for the secret underground networks of millions of voters, all of whom are voting multiple times in order to collectively change the result of a national election with an electorate in the hundreds of millions. You have to remember, these guys are organised, they have discipline, they are incredibly stealthy. They've managed to recruit a colossal army of members and taught them how to cheat the voting system without a single person they attempted to recruit going to the police or letting it slip what they're doing. What's more, with both democrats and republicans casting phoney votes it's turning into an arms face between the two underground networks as each tries to commit more electoral fraud than the other. If something isn't done then this election could see billions of votes cast, swamping the system and bringing down the government. We need to act now.
We need a movie on this, directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The perpetrators will naturally end up being illegal aliens trying to take over America's jobs.
|
I can't understand Americans... They're not voting on the policies (Really fucking bad ones) Romney is kind of telling us about (not really he is actually not explaining anything), they're just voting on anyone to take Obama out. I can understand if people are frustrated with the job Obama has done (arguably he has done a pretty good one with the situation he was put into) but voting for the most flip flop, idiotic, for the rich, racist moron just isn't the right idea. How is this complicated.
Obama should simply win 100% of the votes, Romney is an imbecile and this is noted by how he throws words without thinking
http://www.nationalmemo.com/putin-thanks-romney-for-reckless-remarks/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-says-romney-comment-justifies-russias-opposition-to-us-missile-defense-plans/2012/09/11/8db26f56-fc42-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html
“I’m grateful to him for formulating his stance so clearly, because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems,” Putin said of Romney. “The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn’t win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective.”
He isn't even in office and he already made a massive political fuck up. What an idiot.
|
On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world.
F**k yeah
|
On September 21 2012 12:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:36 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 21 2012 12:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2012 11:51 Defacer wrote:On September 21 2012 11:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2012 09:43 sunprince wrote:On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote:The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention. Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood? I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK. Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor. He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves. People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table? He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with. It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic. Absolutely he has political savvy. I think you're confusing the speeches with his politics, personally. Yes, the man turns a pretty phrase. But he was able to convince an entire generation to believe in the first black president. He was able to come through the Chicago political system, be associated with anarchist terrorists and extreme pastors and not come out looking bad - if anything, he comes out cleaner than clean. Compare that with the previous presidents and presidential campaigners and how they've all been made to look like fools, time and again, and I think it's pretty obvious Obama has some political nous. Now, whether he has done anywhere near what he set out, that is very debatable. On the one hand, no, he hasn't. He killed Osama, pushed through Obamacare, set out timetables for ending the two quagmires of wars started by Bush. On the other hand, he hasn't done enough - kept up the Patriot and NCLB acts, keeps up the wire-tapping, extra-judicial renditions, Guantanamo. That said he has had to face a near rabid animosity from both the Congress and the Republicans in this country, frequently compared to being a Nazi, a Socialist, a commie etc, largely, from what I can tell, because he is black. Honestly I struggle to see any other reason - he isn't particularly left-leaning, he hasn't set out to do too much that offends the Republican moderates - hell, Obamacare was based on a blueprint given to him by his presidential rival. Obama is many things, and certainly hard to nail down. But don't confuse the pretty speeches with any lack of political skill. The reason Obama looks far better politically than he actually is is because of the sycophantic liberal press here in the US. It really is that simple. He's gotten basically nothing done domestically, and his foreign policy is going up in flame as we speak.
The scary thing is you actually think that. Let's forget for a second about the very considerable amount of things he's been able to accomplish domestically despite complete Republican obstructionism for half of his mandate (stimulus bill, healthcare reform, saving the auto industry, dodd-frank, fuel efficiency standards, student law reform, repealing don't ask don't tell, etc.) and focus on foreign policy for a second. You've repeated for pages the same simplistic ideas about how looking tough wins the day - we get it, you have the amount of knowledge on foreign policy necessary to impress folks at the local pub. Unfortunately for you, both foreign policy conduct and foreign policy analysis go a little deeper than that. The Bush years are a textbook example of why bully-like foreign policy can often be extremely counterproductive, and Obama's done a good job of restoring much of the soft power of the US - as exemplified in the scientific paper on the 2010 reform of the IMF that I mentioned in my reply to your post asking for examples of Obama's success in influencing others, a reply that you conveniently chose to ignore as you often do when facts contradict your views (which happens a lot). Sorry, but Krauthammer throwing under the bus of Obama's efforts in the Middle-East (and, by the way, his summary of the said efforts is both partial and oversimplified) is as ridiculous as the idea that he was supposed to erase all (or even much) of anti-US sentiment in the region after three years in office.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I feel like two four-year terms is not enough for Presidents, and two-year terms for House Representatives is way too short. I would love it if they'd allow Presidents to serve for up to three terms, or at least two six-year terms. As for the House of Representatives, it would be nice if they had four-year terms with half being re-elected every two years.
|
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama.
I think most people realize that. It's just, pardon us if we think this mentality of, "Oh, I don't like how this pizza tastes so I'm gonna settle for this pile of dog poo," is inane.
|
On September 23 2012 09:40 Souma wrote:
I feel like two four-year terms is not enough for Presidents, and two-year terms for House Representatives is way too short. I would love it if they'd allow Presidents to serve for up to three terms, or at least two six-year terms. As for the House of Representatives, it would be nice if they had four-year terms with half being re-elected every two years.
I don't know what to say about Presidents and Senators, but I'll definitely agree on the House of Representatives. Nowadays, in the crazy political scene, with 2-year terms reps go basically 6 months before revving up some kind of fundraising for the next election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
