2012 Elections

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:48 pm

And then they would have been pilloried for failing to respond or inform the public in a timely manner. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:44 pm

Obviously the people on this forum are a whole lot more concerned about what happened in Benghazi than Romney because he had a opportunity to hammer Obama with that with the first question in the debate tonight and chose to give a long rambling answer about the Middle East instead.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:49 pm

There was a poll I saw while fact checking some of the debate, which had ~50% disapprove of the administrations response, and ~30% approving.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:53 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:And then they would have been pilloried for failing to respond or inform the public in a timely manner. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yup. They handled it as best they could. Unfortunately that wasn't very good. With hindsight, it's easy to see that they should've equivocated until the conflicting versions were resolved. But as Canuck observed, I think that ship has sailed now that Romney has dropped the subject.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:15 am

Exodor wrote:Romney's plans for defense spending

Holy shit, gonna take a LOT of loopholes to pay for that.

Another way to look at those numbers:

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:21 am

I are trying hardly to understand mathematicals.

Does Romney's spending presume a massive, sharp rise in the GDP during 2013?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:28 am

Holman wrote:I are trying hardly to understand mathematicals.

Does Romney's spending presume a massive, sharp rise in the GDP during 2013?

I'm assuming Travis Sharp does.

Edit: no, thats through 2022, not 2013

Edit: looks like it doesn't seem unreasonable if you look at the gdp growth between, say, 85 and 05.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:08 am

Somethings strange there. He first graph suggests that the spending will almost double in ten years. That means in the second graph where it stays at 4% then wouldn't the GDP also have to double? I did terribly in highschool math so I'm probably wrong. I'm sure that would require at least a huge increase in GDP at any rate.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:41 am

Canuck wrote:Somethings strange there. He first graph suggests that the spending will almost double in ten years. That means in the second graph where it stays at 4% then wouldn't the GDP also have to double? I did terribly in highschool math so I'm probably wrong. I'm sure that would require at least a huge increase in GDP at any rate.

It goes from a little under 600 to a little under 900, not double, closer to 50%

Taking the average growth in GDP per year (3.28%) and increasing it each year, we would expect ~40% increase in GDP in 10 years. However, we might have some strong years following the recent weak years - A quick look shows that some of the strongest years were soon after some of the weakest years.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:52 pm

My Facebook became a political battle ground again last night. People de-friending each other, etc. I stayed completely out of the fray and only offered this one observation:

"Obama should have worn one of the TWO Alabama jerseys he now owns"

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:04 pm

As is the case seemingly every four years, the teeth gnashing about voting machines has begun (note: it's an op-ed piece but it seems to have citations for its claims):

The network political departments get busy and, in short order, discover that the machines used in Hamilton County, Ohio—the county home of Cincinnati— are supplied by Hart Intercivic, a national provider of voting systems in use in a wide variety of counties scattered throughout the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Colorado and Ohio.

As reported in the New York Times, “At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.”

We learn that one of the companies whose machines had failed was none other than Hart Intercivic....

It turns out that Hart Intercivic is owned, in large part, by H.I.G. Capital...

Tony Tamer, H.I.G.’s founder, turns out to be a major bundler for the Mitt Romney campaign, along with three other directors of H.I.G. who are also big-time money raisers for Romney.

Indeed, as fate would have it, two of those directors—Douglas Berman and Brian Schwartz— were actually in attendance at the now infamous “47 percent” fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida.

To everyone’s amazement, we learn that two members of the Hart Intercivic board of directors, Neil Tuch and Jeff Bohl, have made direct contributions to the Romney campaign. This, despite the fact that they represent 40 percent of the full board of directors of a company whose independent, disinterested and studiously non-partisan status in any election taking place on their voting machines would seemingly be a ‘no brainer’.

And finally, we learn that H.I.G. is the 11th largest of all the contributors to the Romney effort.

There's more, but didn't want to quote too much of the article.

The tl;dr version: one of the companies that makes voting machines (and whose voting machines will be in Cinci) have various connections to Romney, either through fundraising or family ties.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:22 pm

Man, I so wish I could see the reaction of you guys if you got hit by this but with it defaulting to Romney.

On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote. All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.
One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama.
“I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.
Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers.
“It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said.

http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-c ... candidate/

I can just imagine a few of you hitting that thing over and over trying to not vote for him. I would bet Fireball might actually turn into a fireball.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:38 pm

I'm not worried so much worried about conspiracy when it comes to electronic voter machines, but failures like the above. Especially with the lack of a paper trail and transparency that seems to be the case with these types of machines.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:41 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ" target="_blank

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:51 pm

Rip wrote:Man, I so wish I could see the reaction of you guys if you got hit by this but with it defaulting to Romney.

http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-c ... candidate/

I can just imagine a few of you hitting that thing over and over trying to not vote for him. I would bet Fireball might actually turn into a fireball.

I like the comments bitching about how it's an obvious bias in favour of D vs. R.

Because my first guess to troubleshoot the problem would be that it's a selection based on alphabetical order.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:26 pm

Defiant wrote:I'm not worried so much worried about conspiracy when it comes to electronic voter machines, but failures like the above. Especially with the lack of a paper trail and transparency that seems to be the case with these types of machines.

This is my main issue with all these voting machines. There is no reason not to have a paper trail that can be referred to if issues arise.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:28 pm

I seem to remember issues with that in 2000 though... But generally, yes, paper trail should absolutely exist.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:30 pm

silverjon wrote:I like the comments bitching about how it's an obvious bias in favour of D vs. R.

Because my first guess to troubleshoot the problem would be that it's a selection based on alphabetical order.

If it weren't common knowledge that computers are lousy with "liberal bias", that might be a good theory.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:17 pm

How does my crappy little town have electronic machines with a paper trail, and no one else seems to have them?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:28 pm

Oops wrong thread.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:37 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:How does my crappy little town have electronic machines with a paper trail, and no one else seems to have them?

We darken ovals on a paper ballot and then hand it to a jackbooted thug who feeds it into a machine that I suspect might be a shredder.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:38 pm

Ditto in Dallas.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:58 pm

Likewise, except our jackbooted thugs are smiling senior citizens. And sometimes the "machine" is a cardboard box.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:32 am

We have the smiling (and chatty) senior citizens in the gym of a local park, but our booths have had electronic ballots for as long as I can remember.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:19 am

We went electronic last year. Before that it was the ovals/#2 pencils, but we got to feed our own ballots into the shredder.

I miss the old lever and switch ones behind the mysterious blue curtain. I remember going to vote with my granddad as a kid and being fascinated by the process.

My favorite part is the old ladies scowling when they see I'm a registered Republican. Guess they think I'm there to steal their Medicare.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:15 am

Heh that reminds me, my mom came over the other day and started talking politics. She said there's no way she can vote for this one congressman because he's going to take away medicare! His opponent has an ad on TV that quotes him saying something like, "medicare can't survive like this." Inevitably, every congressional election devolves into some form of fight about taking away medicare. I think I've seen just about every democrat running for congress use that card.

This would be a better nation if old people were not allowed to vote.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:37 am

Powell endorses Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 11162.html" target="_blank

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:30 am

The Medicare/Social Security debate is very frustrating. I think younger people realize that both need to be reformed if we expect them to be there when we retire. Problem is no one can talk about them without a major freak out, so neither party is able to address it.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:48 am

Looks like you might be right, YK (at least, according to CNN at the moment):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2" target="_blank

I think this is the right thread...and it WAS YK that said that NC would definitely not be for Obama this time?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:51 am

NC's been mostly out of reach since the first debate.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:55 am

I think this is the right thread...and it WAS YK that said that NC would definitely not be for Obama this time?

Yeah, I called that even before the first debate.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:05 pm

Defiant wrote:Powell endorses Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 11162.html" target="_blank

Ouch! Mitt no happy.

McCain wastes no time blasting Colin Powell.

With his quick rollover on Mourdock, is McCain becoming Romney's chief surrogate in these final days?

It is not enough. GIVE US SARAH PALIN!

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:39 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... in-debate/" target="_blank

I'm sorry I missed this.

http://freeandequal.org/updates/did-you ... h-it-here/" target="_blank

I need to watch when I get home and see if it's worth sitting through.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:00 pm

Powell wrote:and did not get us into any new wars

*cough* *cough*

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:23 pm

YellowKing wrote: My favorite part is the old ladies scowling when they see I'm a registered Republican. Guess they think I'm there to steal their Medicare.

I can feel their alarm when I request a Green ballot. I live in one of the most conservative districts in MA. Nice people just don't do that sort of thing here.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:03 pm

YellowKing wrote:
My favorite part is the old ladies scowling when they see I'm a registered Republican. Guess they think I'm there to steal their Medicare.

In North Carolina? They must do a lot of scowling then.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:07 pm

Like me, I am guessing YK lives in a blue county of a typically very red state.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:16 pm

Like me, I am guessing YK lives in a blue county of a typically very red state.

NC is only red when it comes to federal government. Our state government and governorships tend to lean Democratic. If those old ladies are anything like my grandparents, they're card-carrying Democrats who voted for Reagan, both Bushes, and Dole.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:48 pm

YellowKing wrote:
Like me, I am guessing YK lives in a blue county of a typically very red state.
NC is only red when it comes to federal government. Our state government and governorships tend to lean Democratic. If those old ladies are anything like my grandparents, they're card-carrying Democrats who voted for Reagan, both Bushes, and Dole.

... and Helms.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:32 pm

Wow, Romney sucks for gay rights more than I would have figured, turns out he is somewhat obsessed on the issue:

It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.

But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

Divisions between the governor’s office and state bureaucrats over the language on the forms and details about the extraordinary effort by the Republican governor to prevent routine recording of births to gay parents are contained in state records obtained by the Globe this month.

His top legal staff were spending their time on this?