2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

I was just stating what a survey of some law clerks who worked for the Justices said.

You know Politico breached that today, and many other pundits and law professors that were predicting victory before the arguments even started.

In the orgy of panel discussions, interviews and feature articles previewing this week’s arguments, law professors, Supreme Court litigators and journalists confidently predicted that the justices would uphold the individual mandate as a logical extension of the federal government’s well-established ability to regulate the health insurance market.

Harvard law professor Charles Fried, a solicitor general himself in the Reagan era, famously promised a couple of years ago to eat his Kangaroo skin hat if the Supreme Court struck down the law.

Within the first few minutes of Tuesday’s arguments, that bravado seemed to go out the window.

“Eventually, the conventional wisdom will catch up with reality,” Goldstein joked. “It’s absolutely true that this argument has gotten the back of the hand from the legal glitterati, including myself.”

The final word won’t come for months, Goldstein said, “but I’ll tell you [the challengers] are doing the high-fives today. … They’re not doing them at the Department of Justice.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...2-EE824B8E1A77

I think the fact that those supporting the law have a tougher battle was dismissed until, well the bitch slap that was given to the supporters this morning. And the stuttering, scared, lawyer who had trouble making coherent statements in support of the law in front of the court did not help them at all.

[Dark Sage]

Back to the Prsidential Election.

New today, three polls taken by Quinnipiac University in three critical swing states show good news for Mr. Obama.

In Florida, Obama tops Mitt Romney 49 percent to 42 percent; while beating Rick Santorum 50 percent to 37 percent.

In Ohio, Obama beats Romney 47 to 41 percent and Santorum 47 to 40 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Obama edges Romney 45 to 42 percent, while topping Santorum 48 to 41 percent.

Also, another poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC has more bad news for Romney. It basically says that, well, people just don't like him.

In the new poll, 50 percent of all adults and 52 percent of registered voters express unfavorable opinions of Romney, both higher -- although marginally -- than Obama has received in Post-ABC polling as far back as late 2006. However, the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is on the other side of the ledger: 53 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the president; for Romney, that number slides to 34 percent.

Edit: Getting back to the matter of the Supreme Court's decision. Here's something to think about:

Obama might win politically if the Court finds the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. Democrats will blame it on conservatives in Supreme Court, and will work harder to re-elect Obama to prevent more conservative Justices from being appointed.

And Congress makes the laws, they passed the ACA after butchering it. The Court will say Congress abridged its power by passing the ACA, not Obama. So Republicans will gain nothing in the Presidential contest.

In fact, the GOP had a potential winning issue campaigning against the individual mandate. It would have been hard on Obama with Romney as his opponent, using it against him, but if it goes away, the GOP will have almost nothing.

[Roy Karrde]

Back to the Prsidential Election.

New today, three polls taken by Quinnipiac University in three critical swing states show good news for Mr. Obama.

In Florida, Obama tops Mitt Romney 49 percent to 42 percent; while beating Rick Santorum 50 percent to 37 percent.

In Ohio, Obama beats Romney 47 to 41 percent and Santorum 47 to 40 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Obama edges Romney 45 to 42 percent, while topping Santorum 48 to 41 percent.

Also, another poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC has more bad news for Romney. It basically says that, well, people just don't like him.

Thank you for showing why the ABC Washington Post poll is absolutely invalid. First lets look at the QPac poll, specifically Florida.

Obama tops Mitt Romney 49 percent to 42 percent

Now lets look at the partisan break down of that poll.

D/R/I is 33/29/33

That is a rather dramatic 4 point swing from the last election.

2010 it was 36/36/29

Infact it comes closer to mirroring the 2008 election when Obamamania was at it's highest.

2008 exit polls was 37/34/29,

Now any pollster will say it is ignorant to do head to head during the middle of a primary. But even worse it is insane to give the Democrat's such a partisan advantage with no reason to show for it. This is the reason ABC Washington Post needs to show their partisan break downs, with out it the polls are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Edit: Getting back to the matter of the Supreme Court's decision. Here's something to think about:

Obama might win politically if the Court finds the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. Democrats will blame it on conservatives in Supreme Court, and will work harder to re-elect Obama to prevent more conservative Justices from being appointed.

Problem is that it takes Obama's biggest domestic triumph off the table, he can try to argue for more liberal justices, but that won't help him with independents who like the court as centrist as it is right now.

And Congress makes the laws, they passed the ACA after butchering it. The Court will say Congress abridged its power by passing the ACA, not Obama. So Republicans will gain nothing in the Presidential contest.

In fact, the GOP had a potential winning issue campaigning against the individual mandate. It would have been hard on Obama with Romney as his opponent, using it against him, but if it goes away, the GOP will have almost nothing.

Problem is that Obama pushed Congress heavily for this, a Democratic congress at that, and was seen trumping it up afterwards, the health care law will still be poison even if it is struck down on not. Difference is that if it is struck down, it makes Obama look like a idiot for signing a unconstitutional law while being a 'constitutional scholar". And lets not forget that this actually helps Romney, on a national level when ever Obamacare is brought up, Obama could say "I was just following your lead" if struck down, Romney's argument of it being a state's rights issue becomes much much stronger.

[Dark Sage]

Problem is that it takes Obama's biggest domestic triumph off the table.

His "biggest domestic triumph"? You GOPers call it his biggest failure.

And if fewer Republicans are being polled, Roy, maybe that means fewer Republicans are responding. Meaning that there are fewer Republicans who are actually going to vote.

[Roy Karrde]

His "biggest domestic triumph"? You GOPers call it his biggest failure.

No I believe the Stimulus was his biggest failure, but I am looking at it from the side of the Obama Campaign as to what they are going to push. He is rather limited in his domestic successes, and he really cannot claim the Stimulus was a success so he will need to rely on this.

Edit: BTW CNN is now calling this a "Plane Wreck"

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin: “This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law? Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?”

[Dark Sage]

Roy, if those exact same polls had both shown Romney in the lead, would you have then said that they were accurate? Give me your honest opinion.

Remember, I said the exact same polls. But with different results, showing Romney in the lead.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, if those exact same polls had both shown Romney in the lead, would you have then said that they were accurate? Give me your honest opinion.

Remember, I said the exact same polls. But with different results, showing Romney in the lead.

If the partisan break down had Republicans so far ahead, I would have dismissed it. And I already dismiss the Washington Post poll. However if brought up I would note that it spells trouble for Obama to be losing to Romney while the Republican field is split, but it is still early in the year and anything can happen. Because unless something massive happens that gives off a 'rally around the flag moment' I am really expecting Obama's approval rating to drop drastically this summer when gas prices skyrocket.

But lets go further, lets say it is 2012 and Romney is President, and Hillary and Obama are slugging it out, and those polls come out with the D/R/I switched, and Romney in the lead, and Obama having unfavorability ratings over 50%. Should we really be trusting them? Obama and Hillary are in a slug match right now, meaning the base is split for him in both polls, and that not only increases his unfavorables but decreases his polling among Republicans.

[Dark Sage]

First, Iasked a yes-no qustion, which you didn't answer.

Second, only a fool thinks that the Republican field is split. Santorum will never win the nomination.

Third, Obama is clearly not losing.

Now please answer the question. If the exact same poll showed Romney in the lead, would you call it authentic. It's a hypothetical question, yes, but it is easy to answer.

[Roy Karrde]

First, Iasked a yes-no qustion, which you didn't answer.

Second, only a fool thinks that the Republican field is split. Santorum will never win the nomination.

Third, Obama is clearly not losing.

Now please answer the question. If the exact same poll showed Romney in the lead, would you call it authentic. It's a hypothetical question, yes, but it is easy to answer.

I gave you my answer, no, if the partisan break down was different. Now if the partisan break down was say 35/35/30 then I would give credence to the poll as there was no partisan difference.

Now as for Santorum, he may not win the nomination but he has a significant amount of supporters right now who are disinfranchised with Romney because of the long nomination battle. Only a fool would think that doesn't play into current polling.

[Dark Sage]

I didn't say "if the partisan breakdown was different". I said it with emphasis: The exact same poll.

[Roy Karrde]

I didn't say "if the partisan breakdown was different". I said it with emphasis: The exact same poll.

Exact same poll, with Democrats having a 4 point swing and Romney was in the lead. I would say Obama is in a lot of trouble, as it is weighted toward Democrats, and taken during a nomination battle, and Obama cannot beat Romney with those favorables given to him.

[Blademaster]

Realty check.

Spellcheck.

Who here made predictions? I know you do but I do not.

I knew that that would be useful to keep around...

[Roy Karrde]

I knew that that would be useful to keep around...

Okay okay, RECENTLY made predictions

Now days I am a bit more careful with my wording xD

[shazza]

lol

[Roy Karrde]

lol

No man that is nothing compared to this!

And today he said that mettle — and the “serious problems” Obama faced upon taking office — put the president in a class of his own.

“I think I can say … no president, and I would argue in the 20th century and including now the 21st century, has had as many serious problems which are cases of first-instance laid on his table,” Biden said. “Franklin Roosevelt faced more dire consequences, but in a bizarre way it was more straightforward.”

The vice president claimed that the complexity of the 2008 financial crisis presented challenges in a way the Great Depression of 80 years ago did not.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ns-biden-says/

I seriously want to know what Obama was smoking when he picked this functional retard over Hillary Clinton.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I'm sure Obama and Hillary didn't like each other much at the time.

Edit: And by the way, Roy, Obama did make Hillary Secretary of State, which is, in many ways, a more important job than the VP when you look at the two positions. The VP has two official duties: Taking over for the President in case he dies (which is rarely ever taken into consideration, if you look at choices in the past like Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin) and making the deciding vote in the Senate in the case of a tie.

Either that, or Obama made her Sec. of State because the job would require her to be out of the country most of the time. (Okay, that part was a joke.)

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I'm sure Obama and Hillary didn't like each other much at the time.

Edit: And by the way, Roy, Obama did make Hillary Secretary of State, which is, in many ways, a more important job than the VP when you look at the two positions. The VP has two official duties: Taking over for the President in case he dies (which is rarely ever taken into consideration, if you look at choices in the past like Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin) and making the deciding vote in the Senate in the case of a tie.

Either that, or Obama made her Sec. of State because the job would require her to be out of the country most of the time. (Okay, that part was a joke.)

Very true the VP job is only to take over in the President dies, but then again I can't see why Obama would pick Joe Biden, and even keep him on the ticket now. The guy is seriously a walking laugh track.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I'll admit that Biden isn't much of a VP, but we've had worse.

I'm pretty sure he can spell "potato".

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I'll admit that Biden isn't much of a VP, but we've had worse.

I'm pretty sure he can spell "potato".

Dude.. the man told a wheelchair bound man to stand up!



And of course my favorite: "You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."



And he may know how to spell Potato, but I doubt it since he doesn't even know how many letters are in Jobs.



Again... Functional Retard

[Dark Sage]

Fine, Biden is an idiot. I'll admit it.

And if Obama wins re-election, I doubt that Biden has a snowball's chance of being his successor.

[Roy Karrde]

Fine, Biden is an idiot. I'll admit it.

And if Obama wins re-election, I doubt that Biden has a snowball's chance of being his successor.

THAT we can both agree on!

[Dark Sage]

I'm just saying, Roy, that Biden is an idiot, and that tends to be true with most VPs. Let's face it, the folks running for President don't want running mates who will upstage them.

Originally, when the Constitution was first written up, the VP was the candidate who came in second. Back then the VP might have been just as competant as the actual President, but the problem was, the two didn't always agree with each other (and often didn't agree at all) so that idea was scrapped.

In the end, unless a VP does something truly memorable (or something truly bad) or becomes President himself, people tend to forget about him. I doubt anyone can even name Theodore Roosevelt's VP without looking it up, because he really didn't do much while Roosevelt was President. The VP is just that other guy.

So, sorry to say it, Roy, as much as people might want Rubio to be Romney's running mate, I doubt it will happen. Romney will likely do the same thing everyone does, and choose someone that almost no-one has heard of.

Edit: For those who want to know, Roosevelt's VP was a guy named Charles W. Fairbanks. Like I said, he's a guy whom no-one remembers.

[DarkestLight]

>.> This pertains to politics.

Let's say the winner of this weeks Mega Millions decides to give "all" in America 1 million dollars. All being every person that filed a tax return by Apr 17 (therefore, any shoddyness would be minimized (income tax of dead corpses and shiz like that..)-and all those bastards that are late can stay late.)

Would you call this a conservative move, a liberal move and how do you think it would negatively or positively affect the American political arena this year in terms of voting for the President?

[Dark Sage]

Personally, I would say that anyone who gives that much money away is making a very liberal move, and I believe that every American gaining a windfall would benefit Obama greatly, as a lot of issues, including high gas prices and consumer confidence would not be as important as they used to be. In addition, if more people had more money to spend, the economy might improve.

Not that this would ever happen, even if the winner was that generous. If he took the lump sum payment, his winnings would amount to about $340 million after taxes (not enough to give a million to every American) and if he took the yearly payments, he'd get about $19 million per year.

[DarkestLight]

o.O How many people live in America? 350 Million? How many file taxes? Less. So I'd say its possible.

[Jeff]

Well, if, say half the people in the country filed taxes, that would be enough to give everyone a whopping $2.

[Roy Karrde]

>.> This pertains to politics.

Let's say the winner of this weeks Mega Millions decides to give "all" in America 1 million dollars. All being every person that filed a tax return by Apr 17 (therefore, any shoddyness would be minimized (income tax of dead corpses and shiz like that..)-and all those bastards that are late can stay late.)

Would you call this a conservative move, a liberal move and how do you think it would negatively or positively affect the American political arena this year in terms of voting for the President?

It would be a Conservative move as the person is giving the money as charity and not being forced by the Government. It would be a Liberal move if he was being forced by another person to "Spread the wealth" because he was too rich.

[Dark Sage]

Giving to charity is a Conservative action?

Being generous and giving to non-profit causes is not something I picture folks like Donald Trump doing. At least not enjoying doing.

[Roy Karrde]

Giving to charity is a Conservative action?

Being generous and giving to non-profit causes is not something I picture folks like Donald Trump doing. At least not enjoying doing.

Of course it is.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=...1#.T3c7l9WS9I4

As the piece notes, Liberals view Government as being all about helping the downtrodden. Conservatives view Government as needing to get out of the way and letting private organizations helping the downtrodden.

[Dark Sage]

Here's how I see it, Roy.

What was the ultimate cause of the Stock Market meltdown? GREED.

Why is the economy in such bad shape? GREED.

Why are the OWS protestors so angry at the big banks? GREED.

What must you have none of if you are to give to charity and be sincere about it? GREED.

Greed is not good. It is tearing the country apart. And the one percent, the only true Republicans, are full of it.

God, what has happened to the Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln would revoke his membership in it if her were alive today, and would join the Democrats. So would Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. They were far too liberal to be comfortable with the modern GOP.

[Roy Karrde]

Here's how I see it, Roy.

What was the ultimate cause of the Stock Market meltdown? GREED.

Why is the economy in such bad shape? GREED.

Why are the OWS protestors so angry at the big banks? GREED.

What must you have none of if you are to give to charity and be sincere about it? GREED.

Greed is not good. It is tearing the country apart. And the one percent, the only true Republicans, are full of it.

Greed actually is pretty good, greed fuels innovation, and brings about some of our greatest products. By the way, guess which party alot of the one percenters donated to. The Democrats.

http://newamericangazette.com/wp-con...est-people.pdf

God, what has happened to the Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln would revoke his membership in it if her were alive today, and would join the Democrats. So would Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. They were far too liberal to be comfortable with the modern GOP.

Same could be said about the Democratic party, Kennedy would be a Republican right now, and more so he would be disgusted at what his traitorous brother ended up doing for the Democratic Party in 83.

[kurai]

probably should define your terms before categorizing things

it is a traditionally conservative action because it maintains the hierarchical status quo (as the distribution is only to those filing returns)

'liberal' originally literally meant 'free with money' so there is at least a tenuous connection

classical liberalism is predicated on equality under the law and freedom of individual action - this freedom allows for moral and material progress in society through the power of the self-determining individual. thus it is also a liberal action so defined (because the gift is a free individual action also aimed at the purpose of giving everyone the ability to act, unhindered by the state). this is usually what is meant by modern american conservativism, but the removal of the self-earned aspect pushes it away from being strictly categorized as such (charity is not sustained progress but only a temporary boon - effort is needed for true development).

modern american liberalism still requires the rule of law and individual freedom, but also adds a focus on social justice through the (state-) guaranteed improvement of conditions. though the intent is there, this action would not actually improve conditions because of the ridiculous method and scale of distribution (price inflation). at its core, it is a free redistribution in a mostly egalitarian manner without predication on self-earned welfare, so it qualifies under this category too.

because the modern american political dichotomy has the same origin, and thus a direct relation between the groups, the answer is not one or the other.

(it is not a socialist action as it does nothing to address the fundamental issue of labour and production)

[DarkestLight]

Well, if, say half the people in the country filed taxes, that would be enough to give everyone a whopping $2.

Lump sum payout=460 mil, or 460,000,000
Last count of Census data notes 311,591,917

How in the hell does that give everyone two dollars Jeff? :O. That's a million a person-and that's including the folks that don't file by 4/17 :/. Get all the people that filed on time, and you would be straight and STILL probably have dare I say 150 million for YOURSELF. :/

Unless I'm doing math wrong....which is completely possible.

[kurai]

you are

~145 million individual filings are made:

460,000,000 (dollars) / 145,000,000 (people) = $3.17

to give 1 million to 145 million people you need:

1,000,000 (dollars) x 145,000,000 (people) = $145,000,000,000,000

you can see the problem

[Dark Sage]

Roy, technically, Mr. Obama is one of the one percent. But unlike most of them, he cares about the ninety-nine percent.

Sure, the Democrats get some of their funding from the one percent... But the GOP gets practically ALL of theirs from them.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, technically, Mr. Obama is one of the one percent. But unlike most of them, he cares about the ninety-nine percent.

Sure that is why he passed so many high way bills and did things like Solyndra that rewarded his mega doners.

Sure, the Democrats get some of their funding from the one percent... But the GOP gets practically ALL of theirs from them.

Proof/Tits or GTFO.

[Heald]

Here's how I see it, Roy.

What was the ultimate cause of the Stock Market meltdown? GREED.

Why is the economy in such bad shape? GREED.

Why are the OWS protestors so angry at the big banks? GREED.

What must you have none of if you are to give to charity and be sincere about it? GREED.

Greed is not good. It is tearing the country apart. And the one percent, the only true Republicans, are full of it.

God, what has happened to the Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln would revoke his membership in it if her were alive today, and would join the Democrats. So would Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. They were far too liberal to be comfortable with the modern GOP.

You talk complete shit.

If it wasn't for greed, the USA wouldn't even exist (it was only because colonists were too greedy to continue paying taxes that caused the revolution).

[Roy Karrde]

You talk complete shit.

If it wasn't for greed, the USA wouldn't even exist (it was only because colonists were too greedy to continue paying taxes that caused the revolution).

Damn you brits!

[DarkestLight]

you are

~145 million individual filings are made:

460,000,000 (dollars) / 145,000,000 (people) = $3.17

to give 1 million to 145 million people you need:

1,000,000 (dollars) x 145,000,000 (people) = $145,000,000,000,000

you can see the problem

Yes. Im stupid . 145/145=1 My brain did not make that distinction.

[Dark Sage]

Herald, what the colonists were angry about wasn't the taxes, it was a concept called taxation without representation. What that meant was, they had no say in how they were taxed, or even how they were governed.

And that was only one of the ways that they were taken advantage of.