2012 US Presidential Election Superthread

[Pearl]

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.

 

[deep]

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,

 

[Steved1998]

 

[Caleb8844]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

''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?

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.

 

[Pearl]

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.

Is he, unlike Mourdock, running for an office right now?

Exactly. Mourdock is campaigning for office and has many supporters - which is disturbing.

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]

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]

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/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html?src=me&ref=general

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[digitize]

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?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[deep]

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

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?

 

[PhilsFan]

''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?

 

[Caleb8844]

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

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Since this storm is happening and I'm a nervous wreck, I'm just going to say it. I think Romney 's going to win. I'm just glad I won't have to rely on him for any help.

I intend to vote no matter what. Unless we get a freaking blizzard next and I can't walk the few miles to my polling place. I really wish I had done an absentee ballot.

 

[Pearl]

If Romney wins, the best case scenario would be if the Democrats get Congress.

Any chance of that happening?

Stay safe, MrsS I think I have more of a right to be nervous because I'm not too far from an evacuation zone and if the reports are to be believed, we're in for a lot of shit.

 

[deep]

No.

 

[mikal]

Since this storm is happening and I'm a nervous wreck, I'm just going to say it. I think Romney 's going to win. I'm just glad I won't have to rely on him for any help.

I intend to vote no matter what. Unless we get a freaking blizzard next and I can't walk the few miles to my polling place. I really wish I had done an absentee ballot.

So I've been out of the loop this weekend, but why would the hurricane result in a Romney win?

 

[digitize]

Very good article from Nate Silver:

Oct. 27: Minnesota Moonlights as Swing State, but Ohio and Virginia Are More Crucial - NYTimes.com

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

So I've been out of the loop this weekend, but why would the hurricane result in a Romney win?

Nothing to do with the storm, just a feeling I have that I'm expressing due to impending doom.

 

[dazzledbylight]

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.

rape IS one (or group)-to-one terrorism. period. It is about control, domination, violence etc.

The comment was totally disgusting and abhorent.

 

[dazzledbylight]

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.

Exactly. Mourdock is campaigning for office and has many supporters - which is disturbing.

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?

Very well said, Pearl.

 

[cobl04]

This is floating 'round the internetz today

Whedon On Romney - YouTube

 

[dazzledbylight]

Listen Up, Men: Here's How Romney's Views on Women Will Make Your Life More Difficult

great link, pearl!

my only suggestion would have been on her aerticle

women are people, too.

(And NOT as they are still perceived to be by too many men as their own personal brood mare as well as dumb, home and kitchen bound)

 

[dazzledbylight]

storm to Pearl

storm & election terror s to Mrs S

 

[Axver]

Very good article from Nate Silver:

Oct. 27: Minnesota Moonlights as Swing State, but Ohio and Virginia Are More Crucial - NYTimes.com

Writing "Mr Obama" and "Mr Romney" rather than "Obama" and "Romney" seems so quaint.

(I've always liked his work though.)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I really, REALLY hope that storm doesn't mess with the election much, if at all *Rubs temples, sighs*.

Hope everyone in its path stays safe.

I didn't bring up the Ayers-Mourdock comparison

No, but I think what he's getting at is that instead of actually addressing how horrible what Mourdock said was, we had to get into a discussion over whether or not they're on the same level of offensiveness. Which, again, wasn't the main point I was trying to make-no doubt they're on different levels, but the fact remains that they are both pretty horrific things to think/say/do. No politician who wants to run any part of the population should be stating such ignorant views aloud.

rape IS one (or group)-to-one terrorism. period. It is about control, domination, violence etc.

The comment was totally disgusting and abhorent.

Fully agreed. I was referring more to politicians' lawmaking policy there, but even then...yeah. It's pretty disturbing.

But heck, if we are going to go with actions of equal measure, okay, fine, then why aren't the GOP and its supporters out publicly condeming the people who bomb abortion clinics and harass women who go there? Where was the GOP when Dr. Tiller was murdered a few years ago? Why aren't they actively working to pass laws to do more to stop those people? I would definitely consider THOSE things acts of domestic terrorism, after all.

I would also add that if I were a conservative, I would urge the Mourdocks and Akins and whatnot of the world to shut up about these issues because they have nothing to do with rebuilding our economy. You know, the thing the Republicans keep saying they'll fix because Obama's supposedly done such a horrible job of it? If someone can explain to me how their constant obsessive comments on and attempts to change the laws in regards to whether or not women should be allowed to have an abortion in cases of rape tie into actually fixing the economy, I'd really love to hear it!

Pearl, well said on your posts, too.

 

[Pearl]

But heck, if we are going to go with actions of equal measure, okay, fine, then why aren't the GOP and its supporters out publicly condeming the people who bomb abortion clinics and harass women who go there? Where was the GOP when Dr. Tiller was murdered a few years ago? Why aren't they actively working to pass laws to do more to stop those people? I would definitely consider THOSE things acts of domestic terrorism, after all.

Because for those people, killing abortion doctors and harassing women who go to the clinics is a form of justice to them. They got even with those they consider to be murderers. Eye for an eye, so to speak.

Thanks, Moonlit and dazzling for your kind words

 

[PhilsFan]

Writing "Mr Obama" and "Mr Romney" rather than "Obama" and "Romney" seems so quaint.

(I've always liked his work though.)

That's a New York Times thing, not a Nate Silver thing. They title everyone. A story about fucking Snooki would refer to her as Ms. Polizzi.