2012 US Presidential Election Superthread - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2012, 10:51 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
Are we really going to sit here and compare a congressman who made an idiotic statement, to an ex-domestic terrorist?
I get the impression you think everyone should just shrug off any uneducated and hurtful comments a politician says about rape. That's not how to handle such serious comments, because it shows a lack of sensitivity to what hundreds of women go through each day in this country - forget about elsewhere in the world. I don't think you're entirely insensitive, Caleb8844, but I think you are missing the point.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 10-27-2012, 11:47 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:35 PM
these are U S Senate races, in an election year where each race could determine control, Romney is supposed to weaken this guy? Obama would not do it. Romney and most of the party already threw Akin under the bus and ceded that Senate seat to the Dems,
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 12:33 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 01:35 AM
__________________
Steved1998 is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 01:16 AM   #64
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I get the impression you think everyone should just shrug off any uneducated and hurtful comments a politician says about rape.
This almost wasn't worth responding to, but I will. Because I don't think an off-hand comment about not aborting children conceived through rape is at the same level as "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' I suddenly think that that all comments on rape are totally acceptable? That's ridiculous logic.
__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 01:23 AM   #65
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post

Between Ayers and Mourdock, the latter would have more immediate impact and power over what happens in politics right now.
''I don't regret setting bombs. . . I feel we didn't do enough. . I don't want to discount the possibility[of doing it again].'' ---Bill Ayers, 2001.


Quote:
So yeah, while I'm certainly not supportive of whatever Ayers was once involved in (nor was Obama, I would add-running into someone at an event once does not an endorsement make.)
Running into someone at an event is a tad different from launching your political career from someone's house.

I'm not saying I buy into the Ayers-Obama conspiracy theories, but I am
saying that it's preposterous to compare being associated with Ayers, to being associated with Mourdock.
__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 03:25 AM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
''I don't regret setting bombs. . . I feel we didn't do enough. . I don't want to discount the possibility[of doing it again].'' ---Bill Ayers, 2001.
Is he, unlike Mourdock, running for an office right now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
Running into someone at an event is a tad different from launching your political career from someone's house.

I'm not saying I buy into the Ayers-Obama conspiracy theories, but I am
saying that it's preposterous to compare being associated with Ayers, to being associated with Mourdock.
But that's not what I'm saying. Obviously they are on different levels. But again, the main point is that we on the left are apparently supposed to apologize for every single person who says or does something that is harmful to our side's image. Whether they commit violent acts or simply say horrible things (you did notice I mentioned Reverend Wright in my post, too, right? Unlike Ayers, he wasn't a terrorist. He just said things many found offensive. But people still expected Obama to stop going to that church and to publicly condemn Wright's comments), the right always, always demands we distance ourselves and condemn those people's actions or beliefs, otherwise we'll be in danger of looking like we actively, or passively, support what they say and do.

So it's time for the right to start doing the same thing on their side, whether a person on the right commits violent acts or whether they simply say offensive things. If we have to do it, so do they. That's all I'm getting at.

Besides that, once again, with the GOP having people in power who are as ignorant as they are on women's health issues, this can pose its own dangers for people should they get their way on any legislation related to the topic. It's not terrorism, no, but it's still pretty frightening for a woman.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 10-28-2012, 10:18 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
This almost wasn't worth responding to, but I will. Because I don't think an off-hand comment about not aborting children conceived through rape is at the same level as "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' I suddenly think that that all comments on rape are totally acceptable? That's ridiculous logic.
I don't think what I said is ridiculous at all. Because you are calling what Mourdock said an "off-hand comment", says to me that you don't understand the severity of what he said. To say "off-hand" means that Mourdock didn't think before speaking, which is highly doubtful. To say "comment" is not true because Mourdock was in the position of making a statement.

I hope you realize that many women in this country are worried and even fearful of what will happen if Romney wins and/or the GOP takes over Congress. We are nervous over what will happen to our reproductive rights, which is in the hands of many politicians who clearly are ignorant not only of our bodies, but what we go through each and every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Is he, unlike Mourdock, running for an office right now?
Exactly. Mourdock is campaigning for office and has many supporters - which is disturbing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
It's not terrorism, no, but it's still pretty frightening for a woman.
And it should be frightening to a man, too. Would you want your mother, sister, wife, girlfriend, daughter to be forced to carry a baby to term despite being raped or having her health on the line?
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 10:22 AM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
There's a very real chance that Mitt Romney will be elected President on November 6th. Further, a Romney victory will be thanks to a huge support gap among male voters who clearly haven't thought this shit through. Call abortion, contraception, and other lady-related issues "distractions" all you like; Romney's suggestion that we regress on these will have real financial, physical, and emotional implications for men, women, and society as a whole. And here are 5 cold, hard truths that men will have to face if Mitt Romney is elected.
Listen Up, Men: Here's How Romney's Views on Women Will Make Your Life More Difficult
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 01:02 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/op...me&ref=general
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 03:43 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,387
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
how is something like that much better than what we have now

I would go with a popular vote, perhaps weighted, so the winner would have to go over 50%, in 2000 if Gore/ Bush did not get 50% the 3 rd party candidates voters 2nd choice would be counted

also, every vote cast should require a thumbprint, this is required to get a drivers license or state i ds here in CA, we don't have dead people getting licenses, or dogs, or illegals, or people getting multiples

the thumb print portion of the ballot could be detached before the vote is tabulated to protect the 'secret' ballot,
It's better than what we have now because more votes would 'count', and you'd be refining your values. It's much like (if you're familiar with calculus) the difference between an integral and a series. Or perhaps with statistics, it's much like adding more data and decreasing your standard deviation.

Take Florida, for example. Population: 20 million. A case like 2000. Call the voting population 10 million. If 4,999,900 people vote Democrat and 5,000,100 people vote Democrat, why on Earth should Florida be obliged to give every last delegate as Republican? Don't be mistaken, we select senators for state representation. We don't need a full state valued system, because much like in 2000 if it does get too close to call, chances are there's a significant error that makes the state either red or blue and we will never know the real value. Simply assigning it a color is foolish. Instead, they should just split it. It's too close to call. Why should one candidate get all 27 delegates in favor when it could've gone either way and we don't even know the true value?

The winner having to get over 50% is stupid, too. Why on Earth would they do that? It should be the candidate with the highest percentage. No '2nd vote' crap. Why would they do that? To destroy third party candidates? We should be promoting third parties, not trying to get rid of them. I'm voting Gary Johnson this year. I don't want to vote for either Obama or Romney. I dislike them both. Why should I have to settle? 2nd choice votes basically paint third party votes as red or blue. "here's who you really voted for..." is the only message that sends.

Thumbprints... okay done.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 04:30 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,966
Local Time: 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
It's much like (if you're familiar with calculus) the difference between an integral and a series.


One serious question: why do you favor your proportionality system over a straight electoral vote? Are they not the same thing practically, with just some statistical discrepancy room thrown in that could (though this would be incredibly unlikely) still cause a popular vote winner to lose the EC?
__________________
digitize is online now  
Old 10-28-2012, 04:50 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,387
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post


One serious question: why do you favor your proportionality system over a straight electoral vote? Are they not the same thing practically, with just some statistical discrepancy room thrown in that could (though this would be incredibly unlikely) still cause a popular vote winner to lose the EC?
A few reasons.

Mainly because you would never here the end of it from states' rights proponents. How states are losing their rights and blah blah blah.

Often times people forget that this nation is ever evolving, and the kind of states rights that we need are not in terms of voting and electors and all of that. To me, the point of state rights is to put the power back into the hands of the people (locally). If you ask me, the electoral college ruins that when situations like Florida occur. The concept that 'swing states' exist is utterly moronic.

Another reason I think it'd be better than just an all out total population is because it would be refining the current system as opposed to creating a whole new one. Once again, less room for critics, more practical to go through with, and most importantly it'd probably cost a whole lot less to do than to completely re-invent the system.

I think if you do distribution of delegates properly, it will also hold that 'historic' sense so people will shut up about that, too. It'll preserve a tradition but it will fix the bullshit.

I imagine if it's done correctly, such a system would be equivalent to popular vote anyways. There would be a tiny, tiny margin of error. In order for such a system to fail, the voting would need to be incredibly close in popular vote anyways. If that were the case, I have just as much confidence that the popular vote is inaccurate on the micro scale as this system would be. That meaning... it'd be a crapshoot if it ever got that close.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 04:53 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:35 PM
Romney has to line up a few dominos in a straight line, one out of place should be enough

oddly enough they see to be moving into allignment

Ohio Newspaper Organization poll shows Obama Romney tied in Buckeye State

Quote:
At first glance their numbers are pathetic. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein registers 3 percent of the vote nationally. Peace and Freedom Party candidate Roseanne Barr registers about the same. Justice Party presidential candidate, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is seemingly too insignificant to even rate any numbers count. But the numbers don't tell the potential danger they pose to President Obama. Stein is on the ballot in a fair number of states, and Barr is on the ballot in five states. But the alarm bells rang over their candidacies in Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Florida. These are the states that will decide the election. In a CNN/ ORC International poll, Stein is projected to get about 1 percent of the vote in Ohio. Almost certainly she and Barr will get a handful of votes in Florida as well.

One need look no further than the 1992 and 2000 presidential elections to see that that handful of votes could be huge. The conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton would have routed GOP President George Bush Sr. in 1992 whether maverick candidate Ross Perot was in the race or not. The rotten economy would have done Bush in. There's some truth to that. But Perot did have an impact
OpEdNews - Article: Could a Third Party Candidate Naderize President Obama?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 05:23 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
''I don't regret setting bombs. . . I feel we didn't do enough. . I don't want to discount the possibility[of doing it again].'' ---Bill Ayers, 2001.
Between this post and the hurricane, I think I'm just gonna pack it in for a few days and stay away from everything.

I mean, Bill Ayers is a defense for Mourdock and Akin? What the hell are we even talking about anymore?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 10-28-2012, 06:21 PM   #75
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan
Between this post and the hurricane, I think I'm just gonna pack it in for a few days and stay away from everything.

I mean, Bill Ayers is a defense for Mourdock and Akin? What the hell are we even talking about anymore?
I didn't bring up the Ayers-Mourdock comparison
__________________

__________________
Caleb8844 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com