Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

Well duh, I don't think anybody means it literally.

Actually, I guess some people actually do.

Why would you do that? Last time I went there a whole weekend disappeared!

[Chaoswizkid]

So, anyone talking about the UN monitoring US voting? According to this super liberal website (just to give people fair warning I understand that it's a biased source), conservatives have their feathers all rustled up about it. Here's the other side of the coin.

[SalmonGod]

romneymakes.com

Perspective is always useful, if depressing at times. 

"In the time it takes me to drive to work, Mitt Romney makes $2,601.74"

[RedKing]

So, anyone talking about the UN monitoring US voting? According to this super liberal website (just to give people fair warning I understand that it's a biased source), conservatives have their feathers all rustled up about it. Here's the other side of the coin.

Well, just on the quality of writing I'd have to give it to the conservatives. Seriously....liberals like that are what give liberals a bad name.

I can see the issue from both sides. Conservatives feel that badgering someone to provide ID (if that's the law their state/locality passed) is aggressively defending the integrity of the process. Others might feel that it's just plain aggressive and intended to deter voters. Frankly, if I'm accosted for an ID by anyone other than an official poll worker, I'll pull out my DoJ badge...right before I punch the fucker in the eye with it.


Been reading Nate Silver's writeups....still looking like 2-in-3 odds for Obama, 1-in-3 for Romney. Entire thing might boil down to Ohio yet again. Colorado and Virginia are looking to be extremely tight, Florida and NC looking like increasingly safe bets for Team Romney. If Obama wins Ohio and Wisconsin, he can pretty much lose all the other battleground states left and still pull it out.

Nate's currently projecting about a 10% chance for a recount in a deciding state (hello, hanging chads!), and a 5% chance that we get a reverse of 2000: Romney wins popular vote but loses the Electoral College. That would be some thick, juicy schadenfreude right there.

[FearfulJesuit]

What would happen if we killed the Electoral college and made it work by popular vote? It wouldn't just be a matter of the very rare 2000-style election being switched...campaigning tactics would change entirely. But how?

[kaijyuu]

Well for one I'd actually be voting democrat rather than green.

And campaigns wouldn't be limited to pretty much just swing states anymore.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Under the electoral college a candidate has to focus upon getting over half the votes in a state and none more. This means that, for example, Obama is free to completely ignore states like California because he's getting 100% of their electoral votes no matter what happens.

Without the electoral college, candidates are free to forget the states because they have to focus on getting people's votes, not state's votes. Obama might campaign heavily in California because it has a massive population that, while liberal dominant, has plenty of people who could still be swayed to his side or just plain convinced to vote in the first place.

Indeed, you'd probably see an increase in voter turnout because everyone's votes really do count towards winning or losing, which means that you can't sit back and relax no matter where in the nation you are.

[Lord Shonus]

... black.

Anyyeee way....

I wanted to ask a quick question on behalf of Romeny here for a minute...

Let me preface this by saying that I hope Romney is eaten by sharks, and secondly that I think public broadcasting is essential. However, given that Romney has stated he will cut funding for NPR and PBS, can NPR be neutral in its broadcasting? And _is_ it being neutral?

Just this morning, there was a segment on the death of George McGovern, focusing on the tragedy of his loss to Nixon, and how he inspired a generation of liberal activists. Last week there was a retrospective on the death of Bin Laden. I'm not saying NPR would be in the wrong for broadcasting entirely factual things that happen to benefit the president... which is certainly better than total fabrication for groups like Fox. Still, I don't like the idea of a publicly-funded organization intentionally (or even subconsciously) influencing politics.

Unless there's something fundamentally wrong about a candidate, I don't think NPR should mention it. I want to hear about a Psychopath running (red or blue), but if he feeds orphaned baby seals in his spare time, that's his campaign's responsibility to discuss.

NPR can afford to be balanced. The pittance that public broadcasting gets from the government isn't a major part of their funding the way it is in Europe. The vast majority of the cash comes from not-for-profit corporations, begathons, and the occasional corporate sponsorship for programs that sponsorships are appropriate for (for example, Ebay sponsors Antiques Roadshow, while GMC sponsors This Old House). Not certain on the details of the radio form, but it's been estimated that each US citizen pays $5 in taxes for public broadcasting.

Public broadcasting doesn't sound like a real phrase anymore.

[nenjin]

Just think how much shit Republicans want that the $5/annum could go toward! School vouchers, 10 Commandment monuments, or a whole $5 back in American's pockets!

/obligatory sarcasm tags

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Think, America. 5$ of your money being used to socialistize your children with Communist Eco-Street programming. Romney 2012.

[GlyphGryph]

Remember, that's an average of $5 back to each American, NOT the average American getting $5 back.

Big, big difference.

[scriver]

So, anyone talking about the UN monitoring US voting? According to this super liberal website (just to give people fair warning I understand that it's a biased source), conservatives have their feathers all rustled up about it. Here's the other side of the coin.

Well, just on the quality of writing I'd have to give it to the conservatives. Seriously....liberals like that are what give liberals a bad name.

I can see the issue from both sides. Conservatives feel that badgering someone to provide ID (if that's the law their state/locality passed) is aggressively defending the integrity of the process. Others might feel that it's just plain aggressive and intended to deter voters. Frankly, if I'm accosted for an ID by anyone other than an official poll worker, I'll pull out my DoJ badge...right before I punch the fucker in the eye with it.

Only if you do it while shouting "I AM THE LAW!".

[Zrk2]

You can't handle the truth!

And please tell me we aren't seeing a Romney surge based on pure, unadulterated, bullshit?

[GlyphGryph]

No worries there, my lips are sealed.

[Karnewarrior]

I keep seeing ads on youtube asking "Florida citizens, look back and ask, 'has my life gotten better in the last four years?'"

I can honestly answer yes. Thank you, republican party, I will be voting democrat this year because of your nonsense ploy to nogstalgia. Which I am not victim to, like 47% of people.