2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

My opinion of the RNC was, it was remarkably similar to a Klan rally.

Hyperbole. Rhetorically speaking, most of the speeches haven't been bad. Some funny moments, too. Condi's lipstick malfunction, I'm looking at you. For some bizarre reason I find that woman rather likeable.

Yes because the first thing I think of at a Klan rally is a bunch of Latino and Black speakers.

Obvious pandering is obvious. Not going to work either, since neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan has a non-Caucasian bone in their body.

On the subject of likeability, Roy, I assume you don't find Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be at all an attempt to cater to those types of voters? As I understand it, the opinion of him on the street is that he's rather dreamy (though sorry, girls, he's married!).

[Dark Sage]

On the subject of likeability, Roy, I assume you don't find Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be at all an attempt to cater to those types of voters? As I understand it, the opinion of him on the street is that he's rather dreamy (though sorry, girls, he's married!).

The thought did cross my mind. Most people assumed that was the reason why Bush the Elder went with Quayle, and we all know how THAT turned out.

[Plantae]

The thought did cross my mind. Most people assumed that was the reason why Bush the Elder went with Quayle, and we all know how THAT turned out.

On one hand, I can see things going that way, especially if picking Ryan wins Romney Wisconsin. However, I'd be careful with that comparison; Barack Obama is no Michael Dukakis. If Obama's attack on Ryan's budget proposals ramps up, voters might turn against him pretty quickly.

But maybe Obama should have ditched Biden for Eva Longoria or something.

[Blademaster]

I'd prefer an attractive young star to some washed-up has-been.

Well fuck you too!

[Plantae]

Well fuck you too!

Made me laugh. Mad face is a nice touch.

Sorry, Roy. In my rush to make Star Wars jokes, I forgot about these earlier comments. Also, as a side note, as much of a time-sink as this debate must be, it is at least helping me understand the nuances of political media, haha.

Of which she had no proof, and was found to be utterly false.

And I agree. But I think the assertion that "Mitt Romney is a felon" is Obama's attack line is false.

There is not even a political comparison to be made, one is to suggest the candidate's biggest victory was one in which he had little to do with it, the other is suggesting the candidate is a accessory to murder. There is NO comparison to be made.

There is a comparison. If we were to believe the false ads that suggest that Obama was not involved in the operation, and moreover, that his Administration leaked information that led to the arrest of a Pakistani spy (which was also alleged), that significantly damages his image in foreign policy. Thinking of Romney as involved in some sort of negligence is also quite damaging. I'll acquiesce that being seen as a murderer is probably worse than being seen as a failed terrorist-hunter. But I'm not sure that's the comparison here.

No one called Romney an accessory to murder. To the extent that any such (false) charge is made, it is implied to be non-criminal negligence, not homicide. No one could possibly listen to that ad and come to the conclusion that Romney was directly responsible for a woman's death. If they do, I doubt their intelligence.

Obama is not responsible for an ad placed by a Super PAC. And he's also not responsible for going on a witch hunt to disprove some typical, overblown political allegation. The idea that he would do so is ludicrous, as Romney definitely wouldn't do the same for him. It should be more than enough that Obama rejected the fallacious claim that the ad suggests.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html

So you're falsely accusing the Obama campaign of collusion with a Super PAC, similar to the way that Stephanie Cutter falsely accused Romney of lying to the SEC? Which one are you today, the pot or the kettle?

Except if one is to portray himself as Post Partisan despite what Congress does, that does not give them the right to suddenly do a about face and turn on the nastiness. Furthermore it is perfectly right to call the person out about such a about face.

You can call him nasty if you like. I'm just saying that calling it a "betrayal" is an exaggeration. And either way it probably doesn't matter too much to the coming election.

Except not every drill was made by the same company, nor drilled the same way, why should they be effected when they have no ties to what happened? Is not such a blanket moratorium excessive?

Does that apply to all the drilling sites? Or to a selected few?

Except that is a false dichotomy, a proper moratorium could be in place that targets the rigs that could be in danger, while allowing for the rigs not in danger to keep going.

I don't see how it could be that easy to determine which rigs are in danger. What exactly does a "proper moratorium" constitute? That seems pretty vague to me.

As far as I can tell, the danger is not just the equipment on each particular rig, but also the protocols and safety regulations involved in deep sea drilling in general. I'm not sure how you would even start to identify which rigs posed the most danger without first halting operation to carry out an inspection. The problem clearly isn't just purely physical; it's also operational. Figuring out where there might be both mechanical and human error takes time. Six months? On all 33 rigs? I'm not sure. I'll admit that I'm not qualified to answer that. But it's certainly not a split decision based on existing criteria.

And I don't see why it matters which company built the rig. The problem seems to be pretty general. Why should we assume that there's no risk to the rigs of other companies just because they have a different name on the side?

As opposed if some of those rigs move, in which case the jobs may never come back and those towns that are hurting for a season or two, dry up completely.

And those fisheries might never recover either. Again, there's a risk in taking either approach. It's not an easy decision.

No.. decreasing gas prices is a matter of how much supply is on the market, and seeing how demand is not going to be reduced anytime soon, the only choice we have is to increase the amount on the market from friendly sources.

By the way the U.S. actually has a significant amount of oil, far more than the 2% that the Democrats would like you to believe.

My point is that our supply is too small to be significant, and will remain small for the foreseeable future.

The Rand Corporation doesn't seem to understand the distinction between technically recoverable oil and economically recoverable oil. The latter, which is actually feasible to recover, is estimated at around 70 billion barrels by the Minerals Management Service. But even if Obama started funneling money into oil production today, there would probably be a 10-year project delay. And even then, 70 billion barrels might not significantly affect gas prices.

Actually, even if there were a trillion barrels of economically recoverable oil, ramping up research and development now won't translate to a drop in gas prices in the immediate or near future. However many new leases Obama might open today, there is no way we will see a significant change in gas prices due to domestic oil production within the next decade.

And the assurance from that is what? She can say what ever she wants, the fact that she has the ability to gut the program says otherwise.

No, it doesn't. There's no way to tell whether or not she would remove the work requirement until she does it. All we have is her assurances as of this moment. But consider the political fallout. Even if she would consider removing the work requirement, she certainly won't be doing it any time soon. As I pointed out several replies earlier, this is essentially an issue of whether or not to trust that HHS will issue waivers only under rigorous guidelines. Neither opinion can be proven without evidence. As it is, there's certainly nothing here to support the accusation that Obama wants to gut welfare reform. Because there's not much to support either conclusion. What's certainly untrue is that the work requirement has already been "gutted" by the Obama Administration. No such thing has occurred. Last time I checked, the work requirement is currently still in place.

The closure was planned no doubt, but you would think with Obama's promise to keep the plant open, and the fact that the U.S. did so much for GM, that he would have worked to keep his promise to those workers, as the Government did help the company.

Obama did not make this promise. His remarks are freely available, and they do not say this. This is merely how they have been interpreted by Paul Ryan. And you can't tell me that Obama is responsible for saving every GM Plant in existence.

t should be noted that because of the lag time in payments, reduction in payments, etc etc before Obamacare even started, has caused doctors to begin to turn away patients. A further reduction in hospital reimbursements could see the same happen.

I'm aware. This seems to me to be a problem of the timescale of implementation. This will hopefully be alleviated once more Americans are insured.

Seeing how your post was a Red Haring [sic] as it had nothing to do with the actual ratings of the network, lets continue on shall we?

You're right. It doesn't have anything to do with the ratings of the network (unfortunately). I was just expressing my hope that Fox News viewers might turn to a more appropriate channel for their information (which they won't).

The evidence is based on voter rolls and changes from state to state. As I said you can find evidence, not hearsay, but actual evidence of voter fraud changing close elections. Now will it effect blow outs? No. But in some of the closest down ballot elections, it can make all the difference.

Citation needed. I can't find appropriate data to test this claim.

[Dark Sage]

In the meantime, Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's bizarre speech made him "cringe".

Movie critic Roger Ebert tweeted that Eastwood's routine was "unworthy of him".

Clearly, it was not the veteran actor's finest moment.

[Roy Karrde]

In the meantime, Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's bizarre speech made him "cringe".

Movie critic Roger Ebert tweeted that Eastwood's routine was "unworthy of him".

Clearly, it was not the veteran actor's finest moment.

Dude I would like to see ANYONE that has a problem with it, do better improving on a stage for 10 minutes infront of a world wide audience. Remember that, he had no teleprompter, no script, he made it up as he went along. And considering he went up there and did it, he clearly sees the trouble of another 4 years of this Presidency.

[Dark Sage]

I'm not one to speak, but if I was Clint's agent, I would have suggested rehearsing a bit.

Btw, Roy, remember when you said this?

Aww some one a little jealous that the Republicans got a mega star like Clint Eastwood? Don't worry, the Democrats have their own little movie star Eva Longoria from movies like Arther Christmas and The Sentinel.

Nope, not jealous at all. Because he bombed big time.

[Roy Karrde]

Nope, not jealous at all. Because he bombed big time.

Really? We can go into his speech, and how good or bad it was, how genuine or not he came off. But the RNC had interest peeked for a week on who the "Mystery Guest" was, it made news sites and was talked about on broadcasts. It drove people to tune in, especially when it was found out that it was Eastwood much more so if it was just "Marco Rubio" that was going to speak.

A snap poll from Florida shows that 22% changed their vote from undecided to Romney, while only 12% changed their vote from undecided to Obama.

You can scoff, but I have a feeling that Eastwood drove in a few percentage points for Romney from Florida.

Edit: Also to note from the Florida poll 49% liked the speech, only 24% didn't, and that includes a majority of seniors and independents.

[Roy Karrde]

On the subject of likeability, Roy, I assume you don't find Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be at all an attempt to cater to those types of voters? As I understand it, the opinion of him on the street is that he's rather dreamy (though sorry, girls, he's married!).

No I honestly do not think that he picked him because of his looks ( BTW I hate his nose ), there are many beautiful people in the GOP right now, but many of them are not ready for prime time. If Mitt picked some one that was all looks but not ready, he would be slammed as picking another Sarah Palin. On the other hand Paul Ryan has proven his smarts, he has been called one of if not the smartest person in Washington. He shows that at the campaign stump.

BTW I figured I would add this:

Things heard at a Klan Convention according to Dark Sage: And on a personal note, a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the south where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced that even if she cannot have it hamburger at Woolworths, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be, and she becomes the secretary of state.

[Dark Sage]

Things heard at a Klan Convention according to Dark Sage: And on a personal note, a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the south where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced that even if she cannot have it hamburger at Woolworths, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be, and she becomes the secretary of state.

Nice. They did a great job on showing the difference in what we can expect with a Romney-Ryan Win. When the only speaker who said anything honest and sincere at all at this Convention is the black woman who worked for someone they did not even invite (Bush), then the irony of it all just jumps out at you, doesn't it??

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime? Not that this has much to do with it, but just saying...

[Gavin Luper]

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime? Not that this has much to do with it, but just saying...

Not that I see how this topic serves any argument at all in this thread, but this rings a bell. Didn't Gaddafi have a thing for Condaleeza Rice?

[Dark Sage]

Not that I see how this topic serves any argument at all in this thread, but this rings a bell. Didn't Gaddafi have a thing for Condaleeza Rice?

Yeah, according to his journals, he had a big crush on her. But then again, he was insane.

[Plantae]

Election Fraud Offenses Prosecuted, Oct. 2002 - Sep. 2005:

PERSONS CHARGED: 95
CONVICTIONS: 55
DISMISSALS BY THE GOVERNMENT: 8
ACQUITTALS: 5

So the basic idea here is that there are many types of election offenses, but those that fail under the actual definition of "voter fraud," which is what the requirement of a photo ID is designed to stop, make up a very small minority and are so rare that they are essentially inconsequential? If that's the case, then the "voter fraud" laws that have been proposed are both unsubstantiated and inadequate in addressing more important election offenses.

On the other hand Paul Ryan has proven his smarts, he has been called one of if not the smartest person in Washington. He shows that at the campaign stump.

I'm not about to call him the smartest person alive. Certainly, his budget plan shows a lack of foresight. But he's certainly better than Sarah Palin. I'm still not sure, though, that it wouldn't have been wiser for Mitt Romney to pick someone like Marco Rubio.

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime?

Support his regime would be a little strong here. Taking someone off the list of nations that support terrorism still doesn't scream friendship. Bush held Libya at arm's length. He just normalized relations with them so that the CIA could use their country for the extraordinary rendition program (allegedly).

[kurai]

So the basic idea here is that there are many types of election offenses, but those that fail under the actual definition of "voter fraud," which is what the requirement of a photo ID is designed to stop, make up a very small minority and are so rare that they are essentially inconsequential? If that's the case, then the "voter fraud" laws that have been proposed are both unsubstantiated and inadequate in addressing more important election offenses.

yes, that is what the data suggests. ID-related agitation and actual instances of voter fraud have become highly conflated.

for example, we can examine Michael Walsh's editorial in the New York Post (August 2012):

The vote of one idiot can cancel out the vote of a single genius — such is the glory of our one-man, one-vote system. But what about the vote of an illegal alien? The deceased? Or a convicted felon? Should they be allowed to spoil the electoral process — and perhaps change history?

And why — in the name of “civil rights” — is Attorney General Eric Holder using the power of the Justice Department to hamstring states trying to put a stop to voter fraud by requiring a secure ID in order to vote?

The answer is clear: In an election that promises to be every bit as close as Bush v. Gore in 2000, each side is going to need every vote it can get. And one way, historically, that Democrats have been able to swing close elections is through fraud. Consider:

* In the 2004 Washington state governor’s race, the Republican’s early lead was overcome by the miraculous discovery of previously uncounted ballots squirreled away in the Democratic stronghold of Seattle, handing the election to the Democrat.

* In the close governor’s race in Connecticut in 2010, a mysterious shortage of ballots in Bridgeport kept the polls open an extra two hours as allegedly blank ballots were photocopied and handed out in the heavily Democratic city. Dannel Malloy defeated Republican Tom Foley by nearly 7,000 votes statewide — but by almost 14,000 votes in Bridgeport.

* Now a new book — “Who’s Counting?” by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky — charges that Al Franken’s 2008 defeat of incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be directly attributable to felons voting illegally.

Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken’s eventual margin of “victory”? A mere 312 votes.

on examination:

item 1 has nothing to do with voter ID but rather attempts to describe alleged corruption among election officials. evidently, no indictments followed.

item 2 also has nothing to do with voter ID, and does not actually appear to allege anything problematic. if there is a shortage of ballots, should not more ballots be provided? is it actually suspicious that a heavily democratic city voted heavily for the democratic candidate? also, no indictments.

item 3 has some obvious conceptual and mathematical problems. we begin at 1099 "illegally cast ballots", but suddenly fall to 243 prosecutable crimes. if we take the reported data to be valid and fully informed, this was less than the margin of victory. as the 1099 number likely arose from misuse of data (it is not illegal for felons to vote in minnesota once their sentences have been completed, and as cited below, this starting figure is not even correct), we must also question the categorization of those 243 offenses. additionally, this entire premise has nothing to do with voter ID: felon status is not listed on one's identification, and thus such requirements would not stop illegal actions at registration or ballot time.

let us consider the relevance of the 243 offenses in the legitimization of voter ID legislation:

The survey gathered data regarding seven types of voting issues:

1. Voter Impersonation. The total number of voters investigated for voter impersonation (7) and the total number of 2008 voters (2,921,498), allows us to see that the total percentage of all voters who were investigated for voter impersonation was 0.0002%. No one was convicted. County Attorneys did not express a concern about voter impersonation.

2. Double Voting. In regards to double voting, a total of 165 voters, or 0.0056% of 2008 voters, were investigated for this reason. No one was convicted and, as noted earlier, in some cases, such as in Anoka County, upon investigation, they determined that individuals with the same name and birth date were, in fact, separate people.

3. Non-Citizens Voting. A total of 9 voters, or 0.0003% of 2008 voters, were investigated for this reason. No one was convicted. And, while Nobles County reported others had expressed this particular concern, County Attorneys did not express a concern about this issue.

4. Under-age Voting. One voter, or 0.00003% of 2008 voters, was investigated for this reason. No one was convicted. County Attorneys did not express a concern about this issue.

5. Voting outside of jurisdiction. A total of 56 voters or 0.0019% of 2008 voters were investigated for this reason. No one was convicted. County Attorneys did not express a concern about this issue.

6. Felon Voting. A total of 1,179 voters (or 0.0404% of 2008 voters) were investigated for this reason. Based on the date that the survey was received, 26 convictions or 0.0009% of all 2008 voters were convicted for this reason. The 26 convictions represent 2.21% of all investigations into felon voting. However, not all investigations were completed when the survey was returned to us.

7. Coercion of voters with disabilities or who are vulnerable. Neither were there investigations into this nor were there expressions of concerns from County Attorneys.

There were a total of 1,581 (or 0. 0541% of 2008) voters who were investigated for ineligible voting and possible voter fraud. Based on the data, voter impersonation is not an issue in Minnesota. Thus, a photo identification requirement is unnecessary.

Facts About Ineligible Voting and Voter Fraud in Minnesota, November 2010. (Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota)

the conclusions to be drawn about walsh's argument are obvious.

as similar arguments are being advanced in the push for voter ID legislation, it is necessary to critically examine which problem such an effort is attempting to solve. if there are negative side-effects to the prevention of a trivial issue, why act at all? why act in 2012?

[i am compiling a number of recent sources on such side-effects to be posted at a later time]

[Roy Karrde]

Nice. They did a great job on showing the difference in what we can expect with a Romney-Ryan Win. When the only speaker who said anything honest and sincere at all at this Convention is the black woman who worked for someone they did not even invite (Bush), then the irony of it all just jumps out at you, doesn't it??

She was the ONLY one who said something sincere at this convention? No wonder you are so clueless, you didn't watch any of it.

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime? Not that this has much to do with it, but just saying...

Gaddafi had a crush on her, but there is nothing to suggest that they were good friends.

And Plantae I will address your post later on tonight, got a lot of stuff to do today.

[Plantae]

She was the ONLY one who said something sincere at this convention? No wonder you are so clueless, you didn't watch any of it.

Sorry, Dark Sage, I'm with Roy on this one. There was sincerity in spades, probably even within the speeches that were a little blurry on the facts. On the other hand, good intentions aren't really enough here.

And Plantae I will address your post later on tonight, got a lot of stuff to do today.

This will be acceptable, Roy-san.

[Dark Sage]

Cheerfully withdrawn. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as a wise man once said.

You know, Roy, I just realized... It's funny that you should compare Romney's upcoming advertising campaign to the Death Star...

If I remember correctly, both Death Stars proved to be failures, and the destruction of the second one played the biggest part in the fall of the Empire.

In the end, in fact, the Death Star became the symbol of the Empire's greatest fault: Their belief that technology could defeat human willpower. Kind of like the GOP's belief that money is the greatest force in the world, and that everything worth having can be bought, including votes.

Ross Perot would certainly disagree. He was the richest man who ever ran for President. Even then, people saw him as a joke.

[Roy Karrde]

Cheerfully withdrawn.

You know, Roy, I just realized... It's funny that you should compare Romney's upcoming advertising campaign to the Death Star...

If I remember correctly, both Death Stars proved to be failures, and the destruction of the second one played the biggest part in the fall of the Empire.

In the end, in fact, the Death Star became the symbol of the Empire's greatest fault: Their belief that technology could defeat human willpower. Kind of like the GOP's belief that money is the greatest force in the world, and that everything worth having can be bought, including votes.

Ross Perot would certainly disagree. He was the richest man who ever ran for President. Even then, people saw him as a joke.

You forget to note that money can buy alot of things, from advertising, to a GOTV effort, which is why noted Liberal Michael Moore last night said Liberals should get used to saying "President Romney" as he has clearly shown he can outraise Obama. And if last night was any indication, give a speech just on par with some of Obama's best.

But hey, now is the Democrats chance, which is looking like instead of being about Optimism and Hope like the Republican Convention, it will be about Abortion and Anger.