2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Duke87 1,070]

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?

I think the point is that a computer, unlike a person, cannot tamper with the vote. Handle ballots by hand and people can slip things in or out as they desire. Handle ballots by computer and it's much less prone to fraud.

A legitimate concern - election fraud is not uncommon in the US. And it takes more forms than just cooking ballots. I know someone who registered as a Republican in a predominantly blue area and was prevented from voting in the 2004 election because his name, for some unidentified reason, was not on the list - and when he asked for a provisional ballot, which it is required by federal law that they provide in such a case, he was told they didn't do that.

This sort of monkey business is near impossible to prove that anyone was doing and it's usually small scale enough to fall under the radar. As such, it is too easy to get away with for it not to happen.

And then you have stories such as this.

  Edited October 29, 2012 by Duke87  

[Larks2242 251]

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).

Alot of the people that voted for him that time are feeling the pain, What Romney said is indeed true the fact that the media is trying to attack him for it is crazy, there is little mention when a democrat misspeaks, but get all over Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock when they say something the media does not agree with, shows how "unbiased" they are, they might as well just run Obama for america ads instead of airing the news.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I keep looking back on the Obama election as a con game. He came out with a bunch of catch phrases and no content. No one ever asked him how he planned on accomplishing his goals or if they did his reply was that he'd reveal all after he was elected. Hope & change = pipe dreams and smoke & mirrors as far as I can tell. He's still doing the same thing four years later. The young are always/usually idealistic and he preyed on that last time. I really hope they don't fall for it again.

[Duke87 1,070]

Obama is not the only one guilty of that. It's every politician. You don't win votes by actually answering questions, you could alienate someone that way!

Reminds me of this:

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, the chips are down now at last. You get to vote for Mr. Sweetness and Light or Mr. Light and Sweetness. Politicians are very slippery, even more so than diplomats. Did it ever occur to anyone why superannuated politicians wind up at high levels in the diplomatic corps? They are all very good at two-speak.

[Barbarossa 51]

Haven't been around a while and not into catching-up. I am hoping for an Obama victory. No one in their right mind should vote for Romney - the man does not care about you or your problems. He doesn't even know what it is to live in poverty and if you struggle to get by, he cannot comprehend it. He has no idea what it is to make ends meet and he has no idea how hard it is to pay that $120 electric bill. Do not vote against your own interest.

Barbarossa

[Duke87 1,070]

I have a problem with statements such as "no one in their right mind should vote for ____". You are basically saying that half of America is not in their right mind. Surely that is not plausible. And what you are doing besides that is dismissing an opposing viewpoint as absurd without first exploring the arguments in favor of it. This sort of attitude is what divides this country so much. I will not be voting for Obama or Romney (Johnson/Gray 2012!), but I do not think anyone who does is exercising poor judgment nor do I see a lack of legitimate reasons why someone would vote for either. It depends on what your point of view is and what you want.

Don't be so closed minded. The best conclusion will only be arrived at if all options are considered. And you can disagree with people without belittling them.

  Edited October 30, 2012 by Duke87  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, isn't that nice. You have an alternative set of candidates. How come this is the first I've heard of them? A week before the 'election' and there is someone else who would be king?

[AcmeSigns 97]

Duke87's 'alternative set of candidates' is the same as mine. They are the Libertarian Party's candidates and they've been around for a while now. It probably helps to have heard of them if you live here and care about the country. The 'mainstream' media can't/doesn't/won't acknowledge them.

And Barbarossa...the same 'no one in their right mind' mentality could just as easily be applied to those that are casting their ballots for Obama. Duke87 has it correct...you are being very dismissive of opposing views.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

So it is interesting that there are at least some other parties in the US. The overwhelming presence of the two animals makes if hard to see them, especially with the tame media. Good luck next week, folks. We'll be very interested up here in the frozen north.

[Barbarossa 51]

I have a problem with statements such as "no one in their right mind should vote for ____". You are basically saying that half of America is not in their right mind. Surely that is not plausible. And what you are doing besides that is dismissing an opposing viewpoint as absurd without first exploring the arguments in favor of it. This sort of attitude is what divides this country so much. I will not be voting for Obama or Romney (Johnson/Gray 2012!), but I do not think anyone who does is exercising poor judgment nor do I see a lack of legitimate reasons why someone would vote for either. It depends on what your point of view is and what you want.

Don't be so closed minded. The best conclusion will only be arrived at if all options are considered. And you can disagree with people without belittling them.

I stand by my comments. Take it or leave it; everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Romney lies, changes his stance when it suits him, has never known struggle, is dismissive of 47% of the population, and is, overall, the most untrustworthy presidential candidate in my lifetime.

As for Libertarians - socially, I am quite in agreement with the more sane of the group. Economically, I can't stand them because economical anarchism is part of what got our country in this mess.

It has nothing to do with close-mindedness. It has to do with knowing what you believe and opposing those who wish to force their social beliefs on everyone else.

Barbarossa

[Duke87 1,070]

It has nothing to do with close-mindedness. It has to do with knowing what you believe and opposing those who wish to force their social beliefs on everyone else.

You can spin that both ways, though.

If you are pro-life, you force your beliefs on people who are pro-choice by denying them access to abortions. If you are pro-choice, you force your beliefs on people who are pro-life by making them live in a society that tolerates what they see as murder.

If you are anti-gay marriage, you force your beliefs on gays by refusing to let them get married and perhaps also refusing to accept them as decent people. If you are pro-gay marriage, you force your beliefs on people who see it as sinful and think it an insult to their heterosexual marriages.

Whenever you have controversy, a large number of people are going to be unhappy with the decision made, and there is no way around that. And which group is really more guilty of forcing their beliefs on others? I would argue that tolerance is superior to intolerance in all controversies, but philosophically there isn't one "right" answer to that question.

And all of this dances around my original point: you are free to stand by your beliefs, and say "I disagree with you" and even to say "I find what you believe to be offensive and revolting", but you step over the line from civil to uncivil when you start calling a very large group of people insane. You start to make it sound like you believe you are more entitled to your opinion than they are to theirs. It's the exact same attitude as the "holier than thou" crowd, just in a different form..

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

"Animal farm, animal farm

"Never through me will you come to harm".\

George Orwell

What is freedom? Is it is model of the U.S.A. where people can say anything or write it, without liability? Is it the two-party system that deadlocks to try and score silly little points off each other? Is it good?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I voted yesterday. My ballot was turned in today.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Ocram: If you voted yesterday, how is your ballot turned in a day later? What happened to it in the unaccounted time span?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Absentee ballot. All ballots in Washington are absentee ballots unless you need special accommodations.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Bloomberg endorses Obama.

CBC

New York Times

Members may be interested in comparing the two articles.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Also absentee ballot (my only choice as I have no polling place) so I voted two weeks ago.

There is absolutely no reason to resort to name calling.--hym

And Nonny...if Bloomberg didn't endorse Obama I would have been immensely surprised. Their ideology runs too parallel.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, it is getting down to the short strokes now. One wonders what may occur in the last weekend before the poll. I was watching an American channel last night and got treated to one of Obama's negative ads. These guys really don't pull any punches.

[Duke87 1,070]

Redistributing the wealth with kids' Halloween candy.

Okay, now that is a horribly perverse way to make a point. I really hope this was staged.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Candy is not money, but it does make a point. The point, of course, is that taxes are the price of government. If the government took its operating costs and spread it evenly over all taxpayers in a single tax (no levels, no excuses), how many would have their assets seized by the IRS?

Oh, and what ever happened to 'No taxation without representation'? If you pay more tax than your neighbour, should your vote count more? How about one vote for every dollar you paid in taxes? Maybe one man one vote isn't the way to go when there is this lack of equality before the tax man.

[GreekMan 246]

im voting for romney for a few reasons

1) if you do not do a good job at your job you get fired. obama hasnt done anything that special in terms of the economy

2) half the country wants him out, romney is anywhere between 45%-52% in polls. if obama was soooooo good more than half the country would want him reelected like in the 60s or 70s % wise

3) obama has no record and it has shown. thats like having someone inexperienced being the CEO of Apple or something. Obama is that 20 year old who has no idea what hes doing whereas romney has tons of experience in this field

4) romney is not perfect but regardless he is much better qualified

5) in my opinion you have to run this country like its a company. USA takes in money, gives money to other companies (countries) and pays its workers. romney has done this time and time again in the world of business

6) obama keeps blaming bush which means he is desperate to get votes. on obamas watch the deficit has gone to 16 trillion (obama has contributed 6 T)romney and bush are in no way the same

7) obama promised hope and change and that has not happened. the jobs report is 7.8 which is not great

8 ) lastly you have to bring up the race card. personally i am not a racist by any means but 90% of black ppl are voting for obama based on the fact that he is black. that makes no political sense whatsoever. im glad that we have gotten a black president but he has failed. racism against blacks hasnt gotten better since obama has been in office. i really wanted obama to suceed but in the end of the day true experience is what really matters.

9) ROMNEY!

10) ROMNEY!!!

prediction: a close election with romney winning by a close margin. romney will deff get the popular vote but the electoral colege is what scares me....

nov 6 is almost here...please god let romney win!

  Edited November 3, 2012 by GreekMan  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Vote as you like, but vote!

If you think anyone could have turned around that mess in the US with only four years (three actually) to do it, you are out of your mind. I doubt that anyone could do much with a deadlocked congress and a budget shortfall in less than 10 years. Whoever gets in will still have a monstrous job ahead.

Mr. Romney will have only three years then must spend a year campaigning for re-election. Mr. Obama, not re-electable for a third term, will have four. You have the choice between the unknown of sweetness and light and the known of light and sweetness. None of the candidates have ever told the truth, which is they have nothing to offer the American people but "more of the same".

Whoever gets in, I wish them an opposing congress.

[Easy Bakes 253]

[Duke87 1,070]

half the country wants him out, romney is anywhere between 45%-52% in polls. if obama was soooooo good more than half the country would want him reelected like in the 60s or 70s % wise

The last time a presidential candidate won more than 60% of the popular vote was in 1972 (Nixon, with 60.7%). It is not reasonable to expect a candidate these days to be ahead by that kind of margin. The country is divided down the middle and every election is relatively close.

So yeah, half the country wants Obama out. The same was true of Bush in '04. And Clinton in '96. And Daddy Bush in '92. No matter who is in office, half the country will want him out.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

It is easy to go after the head of the flower that is above the rest of the garden. Naturally an incumbent president is a clear target.

Here is a piece of CBC Op. Ed. disguised as a news article. If you read between the lines, you'll see a lot of worry.

[GreekMan 246]

i still dont know why you guys want obama... if obama is reelected its going to be the same as the past four years....wasteful spending and many appearences with jay leno and jay z. that guy is so full of himself and he has constatly lied about what he promises. im deff going to vote for romney. im just sick of seeing obama do all this talking and talking and talkng and has hardly done anything

[AcmeSigns 97]

I doubt that anyone could do much with a deadlocked congress and a budget shortfall in less than 10 years.

Ahhh, but the 1st two years of the Obama administration both houses of Congress were Democratically controlled (hence the onerous 'Affordable Care Act' which, as it turns out, may not be all that 'affordable') so it wasn't really 'deadlocked'. They could have rammed just about anything they wanted through, but they were too caught up in the Affordable Care Act to attend to any of the other (and more pressing in my opinion) woes that beset this country.

  Edited November 3, 2012 by AcmeSigns  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

^ My friend, you don't live in a society where health-care is not an issue. Each province has a single-payer system (the provincial government's health department) overseen and partly funded by the feds under the Canada Health Act.

All this fuss about health care in the US is because getting states to do anything is like herding cats. Your federation is too loose, large and cumbersome for much to happen in any kind of short time. After trying to ride herd on the states, you then have to get another set of unfriendly cats to pass the necessary legislation through Congress. The only cat that might win in this situation is Schrodinger’s, and this poor pussy has a poison timer in the box with her.

In spite of all the griping about how it isn't any good by a lot of people, ours works just fine thank you. The general case is OK, but the bureaucrabs running it get caught up in some private agendas occasionally with the result that the lawyers get richer.

All that really had to happen to fix your medical care system was to disenfranchise the insurance companies on the main line of hospital and doctor care, leaving them the pickings from the related services like prescription drugs, physiotherapy, etc. And you need price controls or it won't work. Congress and the Executive would have been smart to simply refit our Act to suit your case, and get off the dime. Ours has been working since the end of WW II. You need to get with it. It is not smart to reinvent the wheel because of some NIH attitude.

One of the big problems for your folks is that they are scared to death of anything that looks socialistic. Well, any program of entitlement run by the government is socialistic. So you want to chuck your Social Security System? It is a social(istic) program. Watch out for the corporate guys. They don't like it.

If Romney gets in, don't expect much to happen. The whole shebang is captive to the military/industrial complex, and they are the most conservative people on earth. They hate change of any kind.

[Haljackey 17,441]

Which politician is better geared toward the space program?

Right now under Obama NASA is getting less than half a penny of every dollar in the federal budget, and only a portion of that goes to their space division. It should be 1-2%, and 3-4% if you want to go beyond Earth orbit.

As a Canadian I find it hard to believe that we are funding NASA's space division more than the US as a percentage.

You want kids to get a good job? NASA will inspire them to think big and create the economy of tomorrow. That's what Apollo did... look at all the space-age stuff from that era we take for granted today!