-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ronin
why is the vote on a Tuesday anyway?
Because in 1845 it made a ton of sense. Source.
For a society in which most people lived on farms, November was a good month to vote. The harvest was in, and snow hadn’t yet closed the roads. Why Tuesday? Records of lawmaker debate show that officials thought Sunday wouldn’t work, because many people were in church. Monday wouldn’t work, because most polling places were in county seats, and folks from outlying areas could not always get there in time.
Tuesday was the earliest day everybody could make it into town. So Tuesday it was.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I think this elections decide if a war with Iran will start in the next 4 years, or if there is a 95% chance a war with Iran will start in the next 4 years.
I honestly think your politicians are so close in their values, that I can't be bothered. And regardless, isn't it the big monye controlling things as always, regardless of who is president?
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Because in 1845 it made a ton of sense.
Source.
For a society in which most people lived on farms, November was a good month to vote. The harvest was in, and snow hadn’t yet closed the roads. Why Tuesday? Records of lawmaker debate show that officials thought Sunday wouldn’t work, because many people were in church. Monday wouldn’t work, because most polling places were in county seats, and folks from outlying areas could not always get there in time.
Tuesday was the earliest day everybody could make it into town. So Tuesday it was.
ahhh America...so forward and backwards at the same time.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I cannot wait for this thing to be over. With Virginia up for grabs, the number of phone calls is getting ridiculous.
Best one yet: Numerous calls to the house with caller ID saying "Burlington, Vermont", no message left on the machine. So the 4th time they call I pick up out of curiosity. "Hello?", nothing, lots of background noise. "Hello?" Finally a guy's voice says, "Um, can I speak to [last name]?" Not my complete name, just my last name. Plus it sounded like this guy was on his third bowl. "That is my last name, what do you want?" "I'd like to speak to you about Tim Kaine..." and I hang up. For the non-Virginians on the board, Tim Kaine(D) is a former governor of Virginia, former DNC chairman, and is running for Jim Webb's Senate seat against George Allen(R), former governor and previous Senator before Webb. My termination of the call had nothing to do with Kaine, just the fact that I don't want to talk about it. But the facts around the call made me wonder. Why is Tim Kaine paying Vermont stoners to harass voters? In these tough economic times, could he not have found some unemployed methheads here in the Commonwealth to do this? Is this the kind of man I want representing me and my state in the Senate? ~D
Most of the rest are the standard robocalls, heavy on the RNC side. Wednesday will be a blessing, regardless of which idiot wins.
edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike
Guys, I'll say it again.
The Redskins lost, there is nothing left to talk about
I wouldn't put too much stock in that trend. The Redskins tend to lose a lot these days. ~;)
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
A Princeton mathematician runs the numbers, and sees a 9% chance of a Bush v Gore-style mismatch between popular and Electoral College vote. He says that's great. I say 9% is still too damn high. Not good for the country when that happens.
Getting a popular vote and electoral vote mismatch can happen two ways: President Obama wins EV but not PV, or Romney does the same. These add up to 9%. This is a pretty low risk.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
Guys, I'll say it again.
The Redskins lost, there is nothing left to talk about
Can someone explain this to me? As someone who doesnt follow football, who does the Redskins represent and why is it important?
EDIT: Googled it, Romney must be happy right now. But do Mormons watch football?
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the whole early/absentee voting for everyone thing. It's ripe for fraud and absentee ballots have a much higher rate of rejection that in-person voting so your ballot is less likely to be counted that way.
In other news, the latest
CNN poll says it's all tied up at 49% but ,when you look at the crosstabs, it looks bad for Obama- he's losing independents by 22%. The only thing keeping it tied is the sample, which is assuming a larger Democrat turnout than in 2008- unlikely.
I am going to have to go with Nate Silver, instead of one CNN poll. There is a reason he puts Obama at 86% chance to win.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
Panthers 21 Redskins 13
Interesting that the last time an election broke the Redskin rule was the last mid-term presidential election. Spoooooooky!
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hooahguy
EDIT: Googled it, Romney must be happy right now. But do Mormons watch football?
Unfortunately, Utah doesn't host a professional team, but for many Mormons, BYU football is one of the central doctrines of the church.
Ajax
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Interesting that the last time an election broke the Redskin rule was the last mid-term presidential election. Spoooooooky!
Yeah but didnt they revise the rule to say that if the incumbent president loses the popular vote but still wins the next election prediction is flipped? Regardless, Obama won the popular vote last election so it wont matter. Im eager to see who wins really only for this rule, plus the University of Colorado report a few months ago which said that Romney would win.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Some more possible prediction tools: http://xkcd.com/1122/.
Ajax
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
God help me, I love the American voter. I really do.
Canvassing in Allentown, PA today, I met a young white woman coming out of her apartment, lighting up a cigarette. [...] Then she pointed to her forearm and said, "what about that chip?"
I had heard this once before. A Hispanic girl of about 13, translating for her mother who remained far from the door, asked us whether Obama was going to put a chip in everyone's arm through which we could be controlled. I asked one of the district coordinators about this, and she said they had heard the tale occasionally, and thought one of the churches was spreading the rumor (she may have said a Seventh Day Adventist church, or that may be my memory embellishing).
I just looked up "obama care chip in arm" and found a 5-minute YouTube clip narrated by a professed Ron Paul acolyte: Obamacare Mandates RFID Chips to be Implanted in All Americans by March 23, 2013? It begins with a mock commercial in which vaguely zombie-ish dupes speak enthusiastically of having their medical conditions effectively monitored by the wonderful device. Then comes an earnest, wonkish sounding young man with the inside story: the ACA mandates that an RFID chip be implanted in each of us. Your bank account will be linked to it; it will have a GPS, so the government knows where you are all the time, as well as your whole medical history. It will enable the government to track all of us illegally; there will be no 4th amendment any more, etc etc. And the ACA mandates that all American citizens have this chip implanted by March 23, 2013. He then reads off ominous-sounding language, allegedly from the ACA pp 1000-1008 (who reads a 2000-page bill, he asks near the end) establishing a medical device registry.
Even on the face of it, the quoted language sounds like exactly what it is: a registry of existing medical devices for the purpose of tracking effectiveness. In any case, the registry is not in the ACA; it was included in a version of the bill that did not pass. Snopes.com has a complete debunk. And as a quick Google search demonstrates, this fever dream is connected with End of Days fantasies; the chip is the mark of the beast.
As Snopes points out, these rumors have been kicking around since the days of Hillarycare; more broadly, rumors of government implants "have been around just about as long as microchips have." Still, it's disturbing that these smears are having a noticeable effect.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
The mediocre performance of the Skins is a matter of public record, now you are just rubbing it in. ~;)
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Legalize drugs, abolish the civil institution of marriage, illegalize abortion, an armory in every household, lower all taxes and cut spending. If any of you can agree to any of these basic ideas, lets form a political party.
First things first, lets encourage our States to allot electors by popular vote. This will benefit everyone and take us from being a nation with one of the lowest turnout and political involvement of citizens and bring us to the top.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I have to admit, I would be kind of scared if Mitt Romney gets elected.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Half of that seems like sarcasm, the other half seems deadly serious. Interesting.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
As a Libertarian myself, I cannot agree that the FBI and all those other "fascist" organizations be disbanded, especially the FBI. Argue all you want about the CIA and NSA, but I firmly believe that we need at least the FBI. I would go much more into this but this isnt the thread for it. They need to be reformed to stop infringing on our private lives, but we need a centralized law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction throughout the US.
As for taxing the crap out of the rich, there is no point. If there was a policy like that here and I was rich, Id just send all my money away somewhere it wouldnt be taxed. That or I would stay at my medium-low paying job and never look to advance. Because why work hard if theres no reward to do so? You cannot punish success or there wont be any. Granted, before we take the radical step and tax the wealthy to oblivion, we should close the tax loopholes and see what happens then.
I agree that the government shouldnt be interfering with our private lives, but the general responsibilities of a government need to apply. Like FEMA. And other stuff like that.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hooahguy
As a Libertarian myself, I cannot agree that the FBI and all those other "fascist" organizations be disbanded, especially the FBI. Argue all you want about the CIA and NSA, but I firmly believe that we need at least the FBI. I would go much more into this but this isnt the thread for it. They need to be reformed to stop infringing on our private lives, but we need a centralized law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction throughout the US.
As for taxing the crap out of the rich, there is no point. If there was a policy like that here and I was rich, Id just send all my money away somewhere it wouldnt be taxed. That or I would stay at my medium-low paying job and never look to advance. Because why work hard if theres no reward to do so? You cannot punish success or there wont be any. Granted, before we take the radical step and tax the wealthy to oblivion, we should close the tax loopholes and see what happens then.
I agree that the government shouldnt be interfering with our private lives, but the general responsibilities of a government need to apply. Like FEMA. And other stuff like that.
This is a terrible post.
Taxes in this country do not work like you think they do. If you think staying at middle management is somehow avoiding than horror that is being upper class, then I have some beachfront in Arizona to tell you
The FBI has killed far more American citizens and trampled over more liberties than the CIA could ever dream of. Granted I know you want to work for them so obviusly they must be the exception in this massive government cut
The last sentence is just bullshit
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
As for taxing the rich, it is just the only option. I'm not saying we need 90% taxes or anything, but at least 50%. During our most successful years, the rich paid far higher taxes than they do today.
As I said, lets close the numerous tax loopholes and see what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
The whole notion of 'punishing success will end success' is just scare-mongering by people who don't want to give up a lavish lifestyle.
Thats debatable.
And Strike, I may be wrong about the economy, as I have no real experience with it other than articles I read online and from Wikipedia. So please, teach me.
And please, show me evidence of the FBI thing. A bit less ambiguous would be lovely. Again, Im not saying that the FBI is perfect. They are far from it and they do need reform. But we need a centralized law enforcement agency.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hooahguy
And Strike, I may be wrong about the economy, as I have no real experience with it other than articles I read online and from Wikipedia. So please, teach me.
There is no may be, you are wrong. How I teach you depends on what kind of taxes you are talking about. The ones where Mitt Romneys first 250,000 gets taxed the same as everyone else. Or the one where Apple sends its money to Ireland, the Holland, then Ireland, Then to the Caymans, all while paying an effective rate of 2%
Quote:
And please, show me evidence of the FBI thing. A bit less ambiguous would be lovely.
Well we could start with Waco and work our way back to wiretapping uppity Negroes.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hooahguy
As for taxing the crap out of the rich, there is no point. If there was a policy like that here and I was rich, Id just send all my money away somewhere it wouldnt be taxed.
Which is what many do already via loopholes, unless you want to stick all your money into tangible assets then ship it outside the country. Either way, if people left, it would create a wealth-creation vacuum where other people who are currently lower on the food-chain pick up from where they left.
Quote:
Because why work hard if theres no reward to do so?
False argument. Considering there is some one in a sweat shop who is working away for $5 an hour, I am sure they would love to hard harder for $50 an hour. What the thing is, the higher brackets are just obscene penile measuring with no actual or practical differences. I put it this way.
The average household income is $45,000 a year. Would you work harder to have $45,000 per month after taxes?
The clear answer is "yes". For the "real person", the amounts of the wages are insane differences to their lifestyles. Those at the very top taking a "hit" will not have any realistic affects to their lifestyles.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
Leonard Peltier's been sitting in prison for decades on a bogus charge, thanks to two FBI agents who decided to start a shootout on an Indian reservation.
But, to be honest, I think the ATF has killed more people in cold blood than the FBI, unless we count gangsters.
Interesting, never heard of Leonard Peltier, but now I know. And I will say again, the FBI is not perfect, and I firmly believe that it does need big changes. But I believe that reform is easier than tearing down and building from scratch. Which was my main point to begin with.
And if you havent seen the South Park episode with the ATF (s03e08), you need to.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes but just look at all those welfare queens driving their cadalics
I HAD BETTER QUIT MY JOB AND LIVE OFF THE DOLE
Quote:
But, I'm pretty sure Waco was the ATF wasn't it?
It was both the FBI came in and sent in the tank.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiaexz
Which is what many do already via loopholes, unless you want to stick all your money into tangible assets then ship it outside the country. Either way, if people left, it would create a wealth-creation vacuum where other people who are currently lower on the food-chain pick up from where they left.
...which is why taxing even more without closing the loopholes is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiaexz
False argument. Considering there is some one in a sweat shop who is working away for $5 an hour, I am sure they would love to hard harder for $50 an hour. What the thing is, the higher brackets are just obscene penile measuring with no actual or practical differences. I put it this way.
That is just silly, the average household income is $45,000 a year. Would you work harder to have $45,000 per month after taxes?
The clear answer is "yes". For the "real person", the amounts of the wages are insane differences to their lifestyles. Those at the very top taking a "hit" will not have any realistic affects to their lifestyles.
Hmm, didnt think about it like that.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hooahguy
...which is why taxing even more without closing the loopholes is worthless.
Agreed. Attempting to close the loop-holes and attempting to do some amnesty "tax corrections" (taking short-term 'loss' from total amount they should be receiving from Tax-dodgers in-exchange for long-term compliance) might balance the budget out so higher taxes are not needed.
Probably to the point where income tax could probably even be considered...
I do believe in a good budget, and there should be a healthy influx of cash which should cover the budget plus small surplus. So having a budget which is well managed is actually the key which can provide for stable taxation. I don't think GC is all for raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes, I don't think anyone actually is. I think it is more the responsibility should fall upon the wealth-creation industries to provide for it (since they have the best means to do so).
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiaexz
Agreed. Attempting to close the loop-holes and attempting to do some amnesty "tax corrections" (taking short-term 'loss' from total amount they should be receiving from Tax-dodgers in-exchange for long-term compliance) might balance the budget out so higher taxes are not needed.
Eh, I think were so far into debt that even with all that its like trying to tear down the Wall of China with a chisel.
Closing the loopholes needs to come with reducing spending.
