2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[hym 358]

He didnt do anything? What? He pulled you guys out of that other quagmire the previous president got you guys into. You know, Iraq. With also several thousand American casualties? Oh, and you blame Obama for Afghanistan while it was Bush that dropped the ball there. In the first few years he had all the goodwill of the Afghans, and he squandered it by focusing on Iraq, leaving the job in Afghanistan half finished. You know, he gave the Taliban all the time they needed to regroup, trained a bunch of police people but never did anything about the rampant corruption, let Bin Laden get away, and generally did nothing to improve the life of the average Afghan squandering all the goodwill there was. But yeah, its all Obama's fault, that bastard! He has been in Washington, dealing with a hyper polarized Congress while he should have been in Afghanistan, leading the troops at the front line!

And wow, the military thinks that the war in Afghanistan is idiotic? Why? Because soldiers got killed? Because America isnt winning? Thats an.... interesting take on warfare coming from the military.

I would take the details of that email with quite a bit of salt, as emails like those are usually fishing for fools. While the military is overwhelmingly Republican, the email is talking like there will be some massive uprising in the armed services community to overthrow Obama. That isn't going to happen.

[Duke87 1,070]

Isn't the election technically between Democrats and Republicans (let's forget third options for a minute)?

Actually, no. The way American government was set up originally, there were no parties. George Washington despised them and never belonged to one. Americans do, in fact, vote for people, not parties. Parties only exist because here people have chosen to form them - they are not codified and the person takes precedence. It is not unheard of for someone in a political office to change their party affiliation mid term, and they keep the office when they do because the seat belongs to them, not the party they were elected with. It is also possible and fairly common for someone to run with no party affiliation at all (as an "independent"), though such people rarely get elected on the federal level.

  Edited September 14, 2012 by Duke87  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

^ One must remember that the military is not allowed to set policy. Policy is too important for generals. I refer you to the contretemps between President Truman and that egomaniac who was in charge of the American effort in Korea.

[Easy Bakes 253]

^ One must remember that the military is not allowed to set policy. Policy is too important for generals. I refer you to the contretemps between President Truman and that egomaniac who was in charge of the American effort in Korea.

who became president after Truman.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I believe it was Eisenhower. What has that to do with the "Hero of the Philippines"? I believe Dr. Eisenhower was a private citizen at the time.

  Edited September 15, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Easy Bakes 253]

I believe it was Eisenhower. What has that to do with the "Hero of the Philippines"? I believe Dr. Eisenhower was a private citizen at the time.

yes the aforementioned egomaniac in charge of Korea

[Larks2242 251]

Eisenhower AKA the grandfather of the highway.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, if you don't remember, it was MacArthur who was fired by Truman. He was the C. in C. in the Korean Conflict but wanted to invade China, and said so publicly. Your history seems a little skewed.

[Meg 368]

We at least the conversation is about Presidents now. I guess that is closer to be on-topic.

[JayStimson 212]

The issue of China manipulating its currency to unfair advance has come up several times during this election cycle.

Its importance as an issue being determined by the priority of the economy in the issues list.

It drove me crazy for the longest time to hear politicians make this claim without ever explaining how China does this.

So I did some research. It was easy to find in various financial articles that China buys huge amounts of US dollars to

keep the demand and value of the US dollar high which in turn keeps the value of their currency lower which in turn

makes goods produced in China cheaper. But the next logical question was not so easy to answer. How does China "buy"

US dollars. Maybe this is common knowledge for some people but it wasn't for me. I wondered (tongue in cheek) if maybe

China sends some of its citizens to flea markets in the US to buy old crinkled dollar bills which they then take back to China

to wash and dry and iron. After quite a bit of searching I finally found the "obvious" answer. They buy US Treasury Bonds.

So in effect, they lend the US money. To claim China is cheating in the world market by lending us money seems rather absurd

to me in that whole thing is actually our own fault.

So next time someone claims "China is cheating", just say, "Then shame on us".

  Edited September 15, 2012 by JayStimson  

[Meg 368]

Any of us can also buy different currencies directly. It is called FOREX trading.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Actually, an international payment, which China would have to make to the U.S. would eventually be a transfer of specie. I have had the privilege of seeing this happen when I was working for a big Canadian bank. A front-end loader picked up a skip of gold bars from one vault and moved it to another. That's the physical part of the payment. Not all that different from the House of Rothschild in the Renaissance shipping gold from Paris to Florence. The world still turns on precious metals.

As for the election, here is iGoogle's latest take on it: http://www.slate.com...s_cbs_poll.html

Of course there is only one poll that counts and it doesn't happen until November.

If these guys would stop slanging each other, they could maybe say what their agenda for the next four years really is, if they have one. I think the White House is often flying by the seat of the President's pants. This is often called management by crisis.

  Edited September 15, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[LexusInfernus 908]

The issue of China manipulating its currency to unfair advance has come up several times during this election cycle.

Its importance as an issue being determined by the priority of the economy in the issues list.

It drove me crazy for the longest time to hear politicians make this claim without ever explaining how China does this.

So I did some research. It was easy to find in various financial articles that China buys huge amounts of US dollars to

keep the demand and value of the US dollar high which in turn keeps the value of their currency lower which in turn

makes goods produced in China cheaper. But the next logical question was not so easy to answer. How does China "buy"

US dollars. Maybe this is common knowledge for some people but it wasn't for me. I wondered (tongue in cheek) if maybe

China sends some of its citizens to flea markets in the US to buy old crinkled dollar bills which they then take back to China

to wash and dry and iron. After quite a bit of searching I finally found the "obvious" answer. They buy US Treasury Bonds.

So in effect, they lend the US money. To claim China is cheating in the world market by lending us money seems rather absurd

to me in that whole thing is actually our own fault.

So next time someone claims "China is cheating", just say, "Then shame on us".

Thats actually not how they cheat. They cheat by artificially messing with the exchange rate of their own currency, by constantly devaluating the value of their own currency. That in turn makes it very cheap for everyone to buy their stuff in China.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

According to the U.S. treasury, China holds an large balance in U.S. Bonds. I believe they hold more than any other foreign government.

[astronelson 339]

There's a good explanation of how the whole thing works here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Rather a lot of stuff to watch. Enjoy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Debate part 1. Romney vs. Obama.

No clear winner IMHO. I watched the whole thing, and all that can be said is that is that the brushes were very broad.

A lot of time was spent on something Canadians consider cut and dried: government mandated health care. What they are doing in the United States becomes more clear now. I seriously believe that Mr. Romney probably scored some points here. A monolithic federal system is as repugnant to me as it is to Mr. Romney. I earnestly believe that this service belongs to the states (10th Amendment??). I seriously doubt that if it is a duty/perquisite of the states that the Feds can sweep away such powers. Also, since each state is more sensitive to the needs of its particular people this will work better. It sure does in Canada. The Provinces run the show, overseen by the Feds. Private insurers can provide only supplementary care plans such as private room in hospital, some other services not covered, etc. In no case are the private insurers arbitrators of the basic service. You don't have to have any supplemental service, but if you are under 65, a drug plan would be smart.

I was horrified by the idea and the clear subsequent costs of some faceless, unelected board of health professionals making country wide decrees for the health care to be provided, even if it only consists of squeezing suppliers and providers. This is a state responsibility. What a mess. An unvetted supreme court of health??? I think if I was a U.S. citizen I would be furious.

Obama had more confidence in his facts than Mr. Romney had, but it is not surprising since he has official access to things that would not normally be available to someone outside the government. Mr. Romney seemed to be a little short on details, perhaps deliberately. He cut a very good figure, and we might get used to seeing him as President, but I don't think he can catch up.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I don't like Mitt Romney and his views differ greatly from mine but I believe that he won the debate. Obama has the advantage of being an incumbent but took 4 minutes more than Romney. That is a big no no. People are more likely to remember those that take less time.

--Ocram

  Edited October 4, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[Duke87 1,070]

The debates at this point are just hot air, anyways. Not too many people are going to change their minds in the next month short of something drastic happening and Obama is solidly ahead. He's getting reelected. End of story, like it or not.

[Wiecher 192]

The debates at this point are just hot air, anyways. Not too many people are going to change their minds in the next month short of something drastic happening and Obama is solidly ahead. He's getting reelected. End of story, like it or not.

You'd be surprised how many people actually decide on election day itself when they are in the booth, or how a little 'game changer' during a debate can make many swing voters change sides.

It's what happened during the Dutch election this year. The Socialist Party was way ahead of the Labour party, they had more than 35 seats in the polls (and only 15 in the chamber). But then, only 3 weeks before election day, there was a major TV-debate and the Labour leader talked a bit better and got a millimeter more hair so he wasn't completely bald anymore, while the Socialist was a bit boring where he was funny and to the point before. After that debate the Socialists lost all their virtual poll seats to labour and they ended up with their original 15. But this is not in a 2 party system like the US has, and the Liberals (right wing) have 42 seats, and labour 39, so labour did not really win.

[timmie 988]

The debates at this point are just hot air, anyways. Not too many people are going to change their minds in the next month short of something drastic happening and Obama is solidly ahead. He's getting reelected. End of story, like it or not.

You'd be surprised how many people actually decide on election day itself when they are in the booth, or how a little 'game changer' during a debate can make many swing voters change sides.

It's what happened during the Dutch election this year. The Socialist Party was way ahead of the Labour party, they had more than 35 seats in the polls (and only 15 in the chamber). But then, only 3 weeks before election day, there was a major TV-debate and the Labour leader talked a bit better and got a millimeter more hair so he wasn't completely bald anymore, while the Socialist was a bit boring where he was funny and to the point before. After that debate the Socialists lost all their virtual poll seats to labour and they ended up with their original 15. But this is not in a 2 party system like the US has, and the Liberals (right wing) have 42 seats, and labour 39, so labour did not really win.

But if I'm not mistaken, there are very few undecided voters in this presidential election (I can't find the number at the moment, but it is around 5 percent, I think). In the Dutch elections of september this was much more (6 days before the elections, 40 percent didn't know what party to vote!). The comparison isn't completely correct of course, as the elections in the Netherlands were parliamentary elections, in a multi-party system, and the elections in the USA are centered around the question who will be president, in a two-party system.

  Edited October 4, 2012 by timmie  

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah, Romney was quite close to the truth when he said 47% of the people already made up their mind to vote on Obama, though probably not for the reasons he mentioned. Same goes for Romney though, he has about an equal number of people voting for him from the start. Its about the 6% that decides the end result, and a candidate's capacity to bring in new voters in support (Obama got a lot of young people to vote for him last time).

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Obama is a shoe-in unless he seriously blots his copy book before the election. These TV debates are just part of the gladiatorial contests that go with the bread and circuses that keep the pee-pul happy. Nothing but a bunch of vacant "promises" and "policies" being trotted out in new clothes. Waste of the media's prime time.

The great burden of the GOP is that there is too much internal strife out on public view. America needs a legitimate, well-funded third party (or even more), to get the ball rolling towards the necessary minority government situation. The President should be the selected leader of his party, not just some candidate they coughed up at an convention, and he should be the President because his party has more seats in the House than any of the other parties, not because he was made king, separately.

Parliamentary systems with multiple parties have proven to work fine, thank you, for the last thousand years or so. The time for the American experiment is over, and some serious electoral reform is needed. Someone asked WSC what he thought of Parliamentary Government and he said "It's the best we've tried, so far."

[Duke87 1,070]

You'd be surprised how many people actually decide on election day itself when they are in the booth

Now that is quite fickle, don't you think? I have never made a decision about who to vote for "in the booth" on anything except trivial offices (town clerk, constable...). I research this stuff ahead of time!

Okay, so the level of effort I put into voting is abnormally high. Even still, I doubt too many people have not yet made up their mind until election day about the office of president.

Bear in mind that unlike in parliamentary systems where an election is called and you have only a few weeks of campaigning, here in the US we've been hearing about this presidential election for well over a year. People have had plenty of time to get their minds made up.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The great problem with the U.S. electoral system is that it votes for people who should be either hired or appointed. Why should you have to vote for the District Attorney? The Attorney General of the U.S. is appointed by the President. You get too many glory hounds running for offices like DA. It becomes a popularity contest when you need the best man for the job. Laymen are not a good set of selectors for offices involving the high professions in the Law.

Americans also vote for the dog catcher. It is ridiculous. It makes a mockery of the election process.

[dazza262 133]

A British view on the American voter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20067565

[Meg 368]

Early voting in Maryland starts today. I'm one of the little old ladies who look you up in the poll books to see if you are registered.

We are supposed to be open Saturday - Thursday. Hurricane Sandy appears likely to get in the way. The machines have batteries and we have a "power supply" backup but it is smaller than my printer so I doubt it will last very long. They are telling us to expect power outages for a week or more.

If the east coast is without power on election day, I suspect that this will turn into a court battle about delaying the election until power is returned.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

We still use paper and a pencil to make an X. May not be very modern, but power fails don't affect it, and there are always candles if the batteries are dead and the lantern is out of oil.

Man proposes, God disposes.

[Duke87 1,070]

Connecticut still uses paper ballots but they're scanned by a machine. You could, I suppose, stack them up to be scanned later/elsewhere, but that isn't normally done because it opens the door to tampering with the voting. You finish your ballot, you yourself feed it into the Scantron machine before you leave.

But there are other concerns. Any polling place which is on a well will also be without running water if it is without power. And as floods inevitably wash roads out, some people may physically be unable to get to the polls.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Frankly, whatever electronic method may be used, I'd find it hard to trust any such system even if Dr. von Neumann rose from the grave to certify it. How is a program better than scrutineers?