President Obama Re-Elected - Page 81

On May 07 2012 09:53 Jon Huntsman wrote:
I wish there was a stock market for Ron Paul wins the presidency bonds.

Basically it'd be made up of 90% idiots who invest in Paul winning the Presidency. I would buy and sell the shit out of those shares and exploit their retarded waste and loss of their own money. For people who believe in free markets, they obviously don't have any idea of how to predict anything in reality. There is a 0% chance of Paul winning - and if Ron Paul were a company, any intelligent right wing entrepreneur would be liquidating the shit out of it ASAP.

On May 07 2012 10:03 aksfjh wrote:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

Specifically:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=669534

Intrade has never had him over $0.90, or basically 9% chance. While his followers are extremely loyal, the mainstream never had much faith in him.

On May 07 2012 11:00 liberal wrote:

So how does this work.... I sell the 100 shares of Ron Paul offered at 35 cents each, and then when he officially loses I get $35 for nothing? Sounds too easy...

And if he somehow won the price would jump to $10 and I lose $1000?

The act of abstention is when a participant in a vote is present for the roll call before the vote, but then purposefully casts either a blank vote or marking the ballot incorrectly. In many cases, the abstention of voting may be considered an act of protest. In fact, during the Republican National Convention in 2008, 14 delegates did not vote. These delegates were present during the roll call, but would not vote for any of the candidates at the time. Ron Paul supporters claim this would improve the ratio of votes in Ron Paul’s favor. An example of this is explained with no one abstaining (and a tiny voting pool) Mitt Romney would get ten votes while Ron Paul would get five votes. Mitt Romney would win, having obtained the 50% +1 needed to grasp the nomination. With delegates abstaining, this could change drastically. Mitt Romney could get five votes, Ron Paul would maintain his five votes, and five voters would abstain. As long as all the abstentions had participated in the roll call, no one would win the 50% +1 votes needed to become the nominee and on to the next round and a brokered convention.

This was a considered option for Hilary Clinton supporters in the 2008 election and was widely discussed. The question remains will delegates be kicked out of the convention if they abstain from voting.

EUCLID, Ohio (AP) — Campaigning in the backyard of America's auto industry, Mitt Romney re-ignited the bailout debate by suggesting he deserves "a lot of credit" for the recent successes of the nation's largest car companies.

That claims comes in spite of his stance that Detroit should have been allowed to go bankrupt.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee told a Cleveland television station on Monday that President Barack Obama followed his lead when he ushered auto companies through a managed bankruptcy soon after taking office.

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet," Romney said in an interview inside a Cleveland-area auto parts maker. "So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."

Romney has repeatedly argued that Obama ultimately took his advice on the auto industry's woes of 2008 and 2009. But he went further on Monday by saying he deserves credit for its ultimate turnaround.

On May 09 2012 00:52 s3rp wrote:
Why exactly is this two party only system in the US in the first place? I never understood this seems so limiting and i don't see how the whole spectrum of political believes can work in just two parties. Ok these days most politicians seem to be bought by big companies anyways and you don't really have what i would call a left. (Seriously what you guys call lefties are moderates or slightly slightly left in most other countries)

On May 09 2012 00:28 darkness wrote:
I'm not American, but it seems to me republicans presented another candidate who is surely going to lose. I mean McCain and Romney.

On May 09 2012 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:


Winner takes all is the reason.

If you win a state you win all of that state, 51-49 is the same as 100-0 so smaller parties that would otherwise get some votes from everything are infact totaly useless forcing the political spectrum into 2 sides just to have a chance.

On May 09 2012 02:41 gchan wrote:


I also want to point out that one of the reasons why the US is winner-takes-all is because the US has a Constitutional Republic system rather than a Parliamentary system. Our states have substantially more power than local regions in other countries (a byproduct of what the founding fathers wanted, for better or for worse). It's most evident in our electoral college voting system and the fact that our Senate is quite powerful.

* Obama’s strategy is clear – he has no substantive successful record to run on so they are running with any distraction that the obliging media will broadcast such as spinning the fight with the Catholic church over mandated contraception as a GOP war on women a tactic that finally spectacularly backfired with Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney being a stay at home mum.

* The GOP prmary has significantly sharpened and toughened Romney and his campaign – they have fought the war on women meme hard and eventually won that round due to the Dems own goal with Rosen (a inner circle Obama campaign advisor).

A Latino-vote outreach program on Tuesday plans to stress to voters that the president has failed on immigration reform and deported a record number of people, said the Republican National Committee's top Hispanic outreach coordinator.

But so far, it doesn't have a message on what Republicans would do on the issue themselves, and specifically the plans of presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In fact, coordinator Bettina Inclan told reporters, Romney didn't have his immigration policy mapped out and the RNC would not yet be able to talk about it to Latino voters.

The RNC quickly tried to take back the statement, telling reporters who tweeted it that Inclan's words were misunderstood -- or that she was misquoted. Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the RNC, said message coordination between the RNC and the Romney campaign is still in its early stages because challenger Rick Santorum only dropped out of the race two weeks ago.

Still, the statement by Inclan seemed to indicate the RNC's lack of message on immigration, despite an increased effort to turn out Latino voters. Below is the full quote from Inclan, that Kukowski would later say was misconstrued:

I think that as a candidate, to my understanding that he's still deciding what his position on immigration is, so I can't talk about what his proposal is going to be because I don't know what Romney exactly -- he's talked about different issues, and what we saw in the Republican primary is that there's a diverse opinion on how to deal with immigration. I can't talk about something that I don't know what his position is.

On May 09 2012 02:41 gchan wrote:


I also want to point out that one of the reasons why the US is winner-takes-all is because the US has a Constitutional Republic system rather than a Parliamentary system. Our states have substantially more power than local regions in other countries (a byproduct of what the founding fathers wanted, for better or for worse). It's most evident in our electoral college voting system and the fact that our Senate is quite powerful.