Great Society

Children of the Sun => Newsday => Political Junkies => Topic started by: nacho on November 08, 2010, 04:26:57 PM

Title: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 08, 2010, 04:26:57 PM
Because the next two years are going to be about Sara Palin, so let's get it over with now...


The crazies have already come out:

Quote
The following are individuals who have either formally announced that they are running for president in 2012 and have filed as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or have formed an exploratory committee for a possible presidential run in 2012.
[edit] Republican Party

    * Jon Greenspon, businessman of Montana, has filed as a Republican presidential candidate with the FEC.[11][12][13]

    * Fred Karger, political consultant and gay activist of California, has formed an exploratory committee for a 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination.[12][14][15][16]

[edit] Libertarian Party

    * Former Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair and the editor and co-founder of Liberty for All online magazine R. Lee Wrights of Texas formed an exploratory committee on July 4, 2010.[17][18][19]

[edit] Independents
Main article: United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#Independent_candidates
See also: Independent (politician)

    * Street performer Robert Burck of New York[20][21][22][23]

    * Former journalist, author, and perennial independent candidate Joe Schriner of Ohio


Here are all the maybes -- a long list of straw men and comedy candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2012#Prospective_candidates

The big question on the table -- will 2012 be a make or break year for the Republicans?



Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 08, 2010, 04:28:59 PM
Just so you know, I initially read Fred Karger as Fred Krueger.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 08, 2010, 04:40:33 PM
As far as being a real candidate, there's no difference. Freddy might have a better chance, actually.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 08, 2010, 09:01:16 PM
I will give my vote to Freddy Krueger if Sarah Palin is the Rep nominee.  Otherwise the Libs get it.

My word is my bond!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 09, 2010, 12:05:01 AM
My voice is my password!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 09, 2010, 01:34:35 AM
My name is Werner Brandes!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Nubbins on November 09, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Voting for myself!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 09, 2010, 11:14:08 AM
Yeah... You know, I've never recovered from the Obama Saturation.  I'm still pretty much completely unplugged from the news. Two years and counting where I have no idea what the fuck is going on until someone posts it in the Newsday forum.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 09, 2010, 03:30:23 PM
It's the same with me.  I just don't have the energy for all the meaningless wrangling.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Nubbins on November 09, 2010, 03:57:27 PM
It's the same with me.  I just don't have the energy for all the meaningless wrangling.

Amen.  The American public is being held hostage by 24-7 news outlets.  I am so fucking sick of the eternal campaign process... they refuse to shut up about 2012 elections on the one hand and then on the other they sit and wonder why politicians get nothing accomplished in D.C.  Perhaps if they weren't constantly primping for the next election cycle, we'd actually see some progress.

Fuck them.  Fuck them all.  I'm going to liquidate everything I own and distill my worldly possessions down to my dog, my phone, a computer and a passport.  That way I can ditch this country at the drop of a hat and move to Iceland or wherever... I don't give a fuck.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 09, 2010, 04:32:14 PM
I think I'm certainly in the long range camp where I'll carry through on "love it or leave it."  We've lost, as far as I'm concerned. 

Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Nubbins on November 09, 2010, 06:42:04 PM
Hey, I love America.  I'm Southern, so my love for America is hard wired into my nutsack, but goddamn... I'm not blind... and I'm not stupid.  This place could burst into flames at any given moment and collapse all around us like a nightclub at a Whitesnake concert.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 23, 2011, 01:07:19 PM
Okay... Nobody cares, but some Republicans are emerging. The Sick Man of America continues to struggle. Early birds are Trump, of course, and Romney, and Pawlenty.

All fucking doomed. I don't know of any Republicans who can effectively run a campaign... What do you all think? We'll get Obama back just be default at this rate.

Here are the "prospective candidates":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#Prospective_candidates

 

Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 23, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
Ugh...I'm not ready.

Honestly, I may just have a broken spirit with respect to politics.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 23, 2011, 06:09:59 PM
Yeah, I'm at that point as well.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Cassander on March 23, 2011, 09:06:34 PM
I refuse to read any more of this thread until 2012.  Probably in July.  Anyone who gets mentioned now is a freaking joke. 
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 13, 2011, 12:05:19 PM
Ugh...


Quote
CONWAY, N.H. — His moment is here again, in the state where last time the dream unraveled. Monday night, on a stage in Manchester, Mitt Romney will compete in New Hampshire’s opening debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, his first major test since he lost the 2008 Republican nomination to John McCain.

Now, as at various points four years ago, Romney leads big against GOP rivals in the New Hampshire polls. Now, as then, he is better financed than any foe. Some things don’t change: His black hair and preternaturally youthful appearance, even at 64. His ability to put together a phone bank and raise $10 million in a single day. His emphasis on his venture capital background and how he can conceptualize job creation in the way mere politicians can’t.

Continues at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-makes-2012-pitch-to-new-hampshire-republicans-after-2008-primary-loss/2011/06/09/AGHdG8RH_story.html?hpid=z1
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 14, 2011, 01:40:33 AM
Hmmm...nope...still don't care.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 14, 2011, 11:05:39 AM
The day after, Bachmann is the toast of the town.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 14, 2011, 11:11:55 AM
Now she kind of scares me.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 14, 2011, 05:50:37 PM
You know, if the GOP wins 2012, it really is time to start saying that the American experiment has failed. Not because they're scary, or because Obama did anything wrong... Just that they really shouldn't win. They have no serious candidate to field. There's no realistic way they can win except by coup.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 14, 2011, 10:09:39 PM
I can't forsee anyone derailing Obama.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 14, 2011, 11:34:32 PM
So I have to sit through another Victory Party?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 15, 2011, 09:55:12 PM
Yes. And I'm dragging you to the inauguration this year no matter who wins.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on June 16, 2011, 08:17:24 AM
They really need to move the inauguration up to May. I'll go, but I'll be huffy and grumpy like a seven year old girl.

And then we can go to Hotel Washington and I'll drink like an eight year old girl!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Cassander on August 12, 2011, 01:31:56 AM
Okay, so I've been inundated over the last few weeks against my will with the opinions of others who, like me, have never heard the term "debt ceiling" before this year, who have never once considered the idea that the world economy affects our own markets, and that really, for god's sake, how much you are taxed is not the fundamental problem with our country's stagnation.

Over and over I've had debates in my head with the idiots who surround me (I work in retail in the type of store where you're welcome to come by and chat about anything, but more often than not the "anything" reflects the talking points of the most mainstream media.  Also in this job we are, of course, discouraged from berating the customer for having political Downs Syndrome).  Yet there is no safety valve, and no release for me, the person smart enough to know that I have a basic understanding of the facts and no real pivotal ideas and arguments of my own to offer the world at large.  What I do, however, realize, is the complete insanity of the republican party at this juncture of our country's lifespan. 

At this point, I don't consider myself a Democrat, and I'm not sure 95% of people in Congress do either.  A Democrat in office, right now, is a person who opposes Republican ideas, but isn't completely sure why because so many Americans seem to be for them.  He can't understand why his old chestnuts about hating Dubya just aren't quite getting the same applause as they used to.  And he definitely doesn't worry about coming up with solutions.  That's the White House's job, not his.  Right now is hunker down and party with the donors time.  right now is pray to God that Michelle Bachman doesn't mention me by name time.  Right now is the long midnight.

However, a realistic Democratic voter, right now, is probably a passive-aggressive mess who wants to push people down five flights of stairs but at the same time recognizes that that is an unethical thing to do.  He wants to urge on the social reforms that have taken baby steps since Obama's inauguration, but at the same time can't bring himself to offer any vocal support of a president who seems so hell bent on compromise.  I truly believe that if someone came to Obama with the blueprints for a car with two steering wheels, he would say, "Do it.  Whatever it costs, do it."  If a democratic voter is lucky enough to be in a state where both parties are on semi-equal footing, I hope he's overcompensating for the vast majority of us poor bastards who are stuck in red states who can't even start a conversation without first overcoming "Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla in a dress" talking points.  Granted, not everyone in a red state is racist.  There are still the "How dare Obama use tax dollars to take a vacation" type of arguments.  and the stirring "Did you know that whenever Obama is on television, the stock market goes down" bullet point.  And the "Obama is spending all of my social security money, somehow, on his own, without Congress' help, even though the president has no power to directly spend money except in extreme cases like a war"  tirade that always has me conjuring up images of Obama diving, Scrooge McDuck style, into a bin full of freshly minted pennies....because that's how he rolls.  The average democratic voter has gone from the extreme highs and jubilation of Grant Park in 2008 to the rocky Healthcare Reform debate where they were called upon to somehow defend the alterations to a vastly complex system or suffer quick jeers to the most recently horrifying stalemate where their homeboy offered up $4 trillion in cuts in exchange for $1 trillion in raised revenues and was rebuked because he was the president and had the audacity to bring up a proposal based on his own party's core beliefs.  Who then swallowed that rebuke.  Then asked all of us to agree to disagree and kick the can down the road.  BLEAH.

I say all that to say this: my current hatred of the present state of affairs in the Republican sect has nothing to do with hating "the other" for its own sake, or out of jealousy of a party that seems to be humming with its own "we're ready to rock and roll" vibes, or even just out of sour grapes.  My current hatred of the GOP stems from the fact that somehow, beyond all reasoning, despite the fact that they have offered zilch in the way of applicable ideas to current crises, despite the fact that all 8 of their candidates range from successful by way of exclusion (Rick Perry) to successful by way of Attraction to the Crazy Broad (Bachmann) to successful by the way of we've never done this before, so let's give crushing, legalistic faux libertarianism a whirl (Ron Paul), these people still hold the upper hand when it comes to the national consensus.  When they were the party in power, they were a foothold against insanity.  Now that they are on the outside, they are somehow the disregarded Brand X that we have somehow ignored. 

I don't know who is pulling the levers here, but to watch Brian Williams and his peers swallow bitter pill after bitter pill as they report GOP talking points or to read hundreds of milquetoast qualifying paragraphs appended onto the end of AP articles that shouldn't have been written in the first place is worse than sickening, it is mind numbing.  To think that the United States, of its own volition, is growing stupider and stupider by the day is not so wild a thought.  To think that this is accelerating due to a, bascially, stoned out of their gourds media and at the encouragement of Congress itself is horrendous.  My only solace is that the republicans are so disorganized and frenetically anti-everything that they are attractive to only the basest individuals, and tonight's primary debate apparently underscored this fact.  There are only two people who could really give Obama a run for his money, and then only if they play their cards perfectly.  But what won't occur, sadly, is the nomination of one of the true lunatic goons so that Obama, for once, could unload his full fury against a worldview without fear of reciprocity and show our nation how violent Moderation can be. 

Until then, I have to keep praying Jenny's prayer from Forrest Gump: dear god, make me a bird so I can fly far.  far, far away. 

(whew...I needed that.  back to real life now!)
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 12, 2011, 08:26:04 AM
Wow! The political forum gets a little life while I slept...

Since I've lived my entire life, except four years at college, inside the Beltway, I'm always bewildered by our neighbors in the United States of America. I see that you all somehow influence us, and that translates into either saddling our fair city and it's ring of soulless defensive burbs with a guy who either hates us and hides in the White House or loves us and eats at Ben's Chili Bowl.

Which is really the limit of all political reasoning in DC. Will the Most Powerful Transplant in the World eat at Ben's? Does he like crabs? Good! No? Well, he'll be gone in a few years anyway.

Unemployment? Bad economy? Malaise and horror? Eh...I guess.

There are certainly people seething and steaming, but it's almost universally the armchair liberals who hate Fox. Conservatives, in this city, even when in power, know to keep quiet.

So, I have to say, there are things I love about living in the DC area. A dreamy sort of one-sided nothingness. A crowd of people who all feel, generally, the same and have, generally, the same political beliefs. A feeling that we're some sort of independent city-state surrounded on all sides by wilderness. The last stand. The nucleus of a Great Experiment. If everything outside the Beltway falls, we'll still be shuffling to work every day, we'll still be the center of power.

It's all delusional, yes. But, still. I'm astounded whenever I get a customer on the phone who starts doing the insane right-wing thing. I sometimes think, well, sir, maybe you're missing the point. Whoever's in that big house up on that hill doesn't count for anything. They're just some transient garbage that's washed up off the tracks and they'll be gone in the blink of an eye.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 13, 2011, 01:40:13 AM
I don't see much difference between people who are liberal enough to hate "republicans" and people who are conservative enough to hate "democrats". Both are pretty useless to the political process and directly cancel each other out. Both probably feel that they are vastly superior with their brilliant "different" ideas, and can't understand why someone would want to think the other way. All of this is exacerbated by our political polarization problem where each and every tiny issue has a conservative and liberal view that good party members will tow. And the worst of it is the politicians who perhaps realize that once they get to DC (or the statehouse, or the county council chamber) they have to somewhat work together with the "other side" but somehow stay "in tune" with the crackpot constituency back home.

I hate it all. We need to lose labels and make some centrist decisions about the future of our country.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 13, 2011, 08:10:34 AM
Oh...I would think that we've been nothing but centrist, really. Under all the talk and hullabaloo. The actual actions taken are so centrist that, in the end, that's the problem with our national decisions. We need some radicalism. I don't care if it's death squads or unlimited universal healthcare, I just want something to relieve the crushing, mind-numbing boredom.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 13, 2011, 12:10:57 PM
Well yes, radicalism from both ends of the political spectrum that involves sacrificing some sacred cows.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 02, 2011, 04:15:33 PM
I have not being paying attention to the GOP... whatever is going on. However, Jon Stewart sums it up nicely.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/295469/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ruh-roh-edition (http://www.hulu.com/watch/295469/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ruh-roh-edition)
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 03, 2011, 08:17:57 AM
Okay... My half hour of looking into the 2012 campaign this morning is the most active I've been since 2008!

Do we have a GOP frontrunner? This is just embarrassing. I'm also alarmed by the response. This should be like 88, where everyone knew it was a joke without the aid of being told as much by The Daily Show. There was just no question.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 03, 2011, 08:56:31 AM
Here's the summary with a bit of my analysis thrown in.  

The short and skinny of it is that the GOP is still praying some Ronald Reagan-esque candidate pops of the woodwork between now and the New Year. I'll remind you that Bill Clinton entered the game late in '92. (Though I think he was already in the race at this point. Need to check on that.)

Mitt Romney should be the frontrunner though the GOP base seems to have major issues with the fact that he's a Mormon. I don't know if he's their best choice or not, but compared to the others he certainly seems the sanest.

Rick Perry is the frontrunner based on numbers and the fact that he has the fullest coffers of any of the candidates running. The problem is that his "Live free or Die" moment is not the first lapse of sanity he's had though it's by far the worst.. His debate performances also had hints of insanity. He doesn't seem to know the issues and also sometimes literally has trouble stringing two coherent sentences together. I seriously wonder if he might have a brain tumor or something. Some of his gaffes are that bad.

Michelle Bachmann seemed like the rational, electable real deal for about five seconds before she let it slip that she was BATSHIT CRAZY. She supports and funds "pray the gay away" camps and invokes God in a way that's become really creepy. Any momentum she had seems to be gone.

Herman Cain seemed to be picking up a good head of steam until the Clarence Thomas type shit popped up. And I still think that it's early enough in the campaign (and the GOP menu so thin) that it'll be Jennifer Flowers gone after a while. That and the sexual harassment evidence seems pretty hearsay and circumstantial. His 999 flat tax idea is radical, but not insane. And other than losing the vote of crazy white racists, the race issue becomes negated running against Obama.

Ron Paul has a small, but loud group of supporters, but is likely too radical to get get the nod. Plus, liberals kind of like him. The GOP didn't even want to invite him to the debates.

I won't say 2012 looks like an Obama slam dunk quite yet. However I will say that the GOP desperately needs a reformation of sorts. They've spent too many years aligning themselves with elements that are becoming more and more fringe.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 03, 2011, 09:06:01 AM
Clinton was there early on, put on the map by Gennifer Flowers, and then skyrocketed. Remember "The Comeback Kid" and all of that?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 03, 2011, 09:14:29 AM
I'll have to go back and look. I thought Clinton declared his run after everybody else.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 03, 2011, 10:47:00 AM
Nope. He was there from the beginning. Hell, he talked about running in 88! He was very Obama...everyone wanted him to step up after Hart flamed out, but he declined. Then he spent four years playing the shadow presidency game and came out hard for 92. It wasn't till Flowers before the Clinton Image Machine started up, though.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 03, 2011, 11:23:43 AM
Shows how much you should pay attention to me when it comes to politics.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Cassander on November 04, 2011, 12:32:18 AM
Yeah.  As much as I've tried to avoid it, this stuff is coming across the AP wire quite often (therefore, into my local lunch paper) and the Economist is taking every easy "in depth analysis of bullshit" chance that comes across their desk.  It doesn't help that there have been about 500 republican debates since august. 

So, Nacho, you' shouldn't be paying any attention right now.  It's either Romney or Jeb Bush reveals that he's been whipping up the most secretly assembled presidential campaign ever.  So you don't need to pay any attention at all right now, but if you must, here's my 2 cents on everyone:

First off....RC, Bachmann has been Batshit for her entire life, and on the public's batshit radar for at leats four years.  We all know nothing will come of her campaign, but the media is, for whatever reason, forced to treat her and Ron Paul like actual candidates.  My fiance has nightmares about a Bachman presidency because she's basically Palin with resolve, but it's just not going to happen.  She'll never get any big business backing and everyone who has ever known a gay person knows that her husband is gay.  It's just not going to work.

I also refuse to draw parallels in this campaign.  Everyone wants to draw parallels.  The reality is we've never had a situation like this before.  Nevermind the republican brand vs. the democratic brand.  Party politics is dogfood.  So people like Cain get hyped.  But he's basically seen the light and is trying to go after a different career route.  Become a darling of the fringe, then make them pay to hear the message they already know you'll yell at them.  Worked for Palin on accident....he's trying to set it up at the onset. 

Huntsman is smart, but just isn't catching on with anyone, probably because he's sane.  He might get picked up as a VP. 

Perry just can't win.  I can't believe he entered the race at all, myself.  Just shows how desperate the republican climate is.  "Let's build a new Republican party....with a Texas governor....who can't claim any real accomplishments...who hates Social Security...and is basically available to the highest bidder..."  Perry won't flip any Hispanics, already seems to obnoxious to court "on the fence" voters, and offers zero political capital.  There's basically no upside to him even for republican voters aside from "He's a big enough name and isn't Mormon." 

It's going to be Romney unless something ridiculous happens. 

Looks like the plan of "Let's just set fire to all of our momentum by refusing to offer any of our own ideas and just blockade the President at every turn and hope one of our Governors doesn't run their state into the ground and/or realize they would have a better chance in 2016" didn't work out so well.  When your front five are a second term (female....don't hate me for pointing it out!) House rep, a black millionaire, two ex-Governors and the current Governor of the least popular state in America, well...you've got problems.  Especially when all Obama has to do for a year is not provoke the center enough so that they feel like voting against him. 

So, onward we march towards a Dem president with the Zombie Congress 2.0
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 04, 2011, 08:47:41 AM
Good, thanks. I'll tune out again! Do my 1930's-style party line voting next year.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 17, 2011, 08:18:40 AM
The Perry gaffe was awful... But, holy shit:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jon-stewart-after-herman-cains-libya-gaffe

Cain's Libya gaffe.

Why's the GOP even bothering to run a candidate? ,
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 17, 2011, 12:42:51 PM
Holy fucking GAWD!

Well, Exeunt Cain right?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 17, 2011, 05:03:33 PM
Yeah... No kidding.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Cassander on November 18, 2011, 04:20:30 AM
Cain was never a serious candidate!  The only way to give the fucking chafed-dick news networks more power is to listen to them when they treat these people seriously!  I'm sick of this shit, acting like Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Perry, etc. would even have a chance and that we need to chart their progress.  This is like interviewing the jockey on the 100-1 horse in the Kentucky Derby 8 months before the bugle.  Jesus I hate election coverage in this country now.  It's not just that we're turning campaigns into pseudo-reality shows with unwitting participants and reveling in their failures and odd photo ops, it's that we're setting ourselves up for the future where a candidate never goes anywhere, never has public appearances, and relies solely on nailing just one or two debates and having the most adaptable twitter feed.  The day is coming when we will know nothing about the candidates because even one gaffe will make or break a multi-billion dollar effort.  Fuck.  

Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 18, 2011, 08:58:08 AM
Jesus I hate election coverage in this country now.  It's not just that we're turning campaigns into pseudo-reality shows with unwitting participants and reveling in their failures and odd photo ops,

It is a disturbing trend. Substance is secondary. It doesn't bode well for the future candidates who are growing up in this environment. It'll be interesting to see what we evolve into, eh?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 18, 2011, 01:09:35 PM
Here it is uninterrupted:

Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Sirharles on December 19, 2011, 02:14:35 PM
It's the Candidate Game!  Now you play at home!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fullpage?id=15177995
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 19, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
I got Obama. Shocker.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 19, 2011, 08:10:17 PM
Your top candidate match is Rick Perry!
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were runner-ups.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Sirharles on December 20, 2011, 09:46:06 AM
I got Obama too...which tells you how far off the reservation the Republicans have gone.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on December 20, 2011, 07:58:58 PM
I took the test for a laugh:

Your top candidate match is Barack Obama!
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney were runner-ups.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 21, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
Shit, the way our election system works your vote will probably be counted.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on December 23, 2011, 01:34:10 PM
My vote will mean no more than that of anybody else.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 24, 2011, 10:23:06 PM
I'm voting for Putin. Along with 100% of the rest of my precinct!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 25, 2011, 12:19:42 PM
But are you flashing your tits for him?

I think Romney gives the GOP the best shot to win. It's still no shot (or at least a very long shot), but you want to stay competitive in these things.

I'm actually wondering (concerned/) that this dismal 2012 GOP class is something that will be an issue for the Democrats in 2016. Cass has mentioned before about how presidential politics has become this weird and not very good reality TV show. We laugh at the candidates the GOP are putting out there, but once Obama is gone, do the Dems have anyone better?

\Much of our political problem is cultural, and I'm not sure it's going to get better anytime soon.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on December 25, 2011, 04:17:55 PM
Whatever happened to that supposed tit-flashing?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on January 03, 2012, 06:39:01 PM
I got Obama, with Ron Paul a close second. Hmmm...

But, yes, I agree with:

I got Obama too...which tells you how far off the reservation the Republicans have gone.

And for this:

Whatever happened to that supposed tit-flashing?

He busied himself forming the Putin Youth. Tits girl is probably in a death camp by now.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on January 04, 2012, 03:13:40 PM
And so ends Bachmann.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 08, 2012, 06:51:17 PM
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Cassander on February 01, 2012, 12:44:57 AM
So true.  Can't believe I didn't realize it earlier.

Quote
Mitt Romney is the storybook presidential candidate. He's successful, good-looking and a family man, to boot. Yet one of this political season's enduring puzzles has been the former governor's consistent inability to bond with voters. It's been suggested that Romney's robotic persona may be to blame -- and perhaps the analogy isn't far off. Much as people are repulsed and disturbed by automatons that mimic humans closely but imperfectly, Romney inexplicably turns voters off despite looking like the textbook image of an American president. Roboticists call this unsettling effect "the uncanny valley" -- and Romney is stuck deep at the bottom of it.

Even though he's not evil, he is The Smiler....
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 01, 2012, 07:56:34 AM
He outright scares me.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 01, 2012, 10:38:54 AM
Time to rewatch They Live and The Dead Zone... neither of which have robot presidents.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 28, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Right. I'm going to do a monthly status report sort of thing and rely entirely on you guys.

So, the end of the second month of 2012. Where does the campaign stand?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 28, 2012, 05:19:51 PM
I've seen professional wrestling with more gravitas and rational thought.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 28, 2012, 09:39:45 PM
Someone will win! Unless there is a tie!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on February 29, 2012, 07:40:54 AM
Someone will win! Unless there is a tie!

If there's a tie, do they both get the idol?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Cassander on March 01, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
Right. I'm going to do a monthly status report sort of thing and rely entirely on you guys.

So, the end of the second month of 2012. Where does the campaign stand?

There is no campaign.  there is a reality show going on where you have to leave your house to vote instead of calling in on your iPhone.  The fact that the Republican race is still up in the air between a full Mormon and a full Catholic--and that the economy isn't really in the toilet and that the vast majority of people aren't buying into Abortion Fever 2012-- all lead me to believe that we will have a two term president.  

Which, also BTW means you will have your first fully elected, non-impeachment facing, non-southern two-term Democrat since FDR.  It's called progress.  Get on the train, motherfucker.  Or writhe in the furious hellfire gaze of the SuperPACs.  Your choice.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 01, 2012, 08:34:37 AM
This is why I tune out! God...

I feel so...free. A co-worker yesterday was going on about some school shooting in Ohio and I was like, nope, haven't heard a thing. If you're done talking about this horrible shit involving murdering madmen, then I have to get back to my Veronica Mars marathon and mimosas.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 23, 2012, 12:56:28 PM
Tee-Hee...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/rick-perrys-facebook-gets-bombarded-by-menstruati
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 23, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
That's awesome.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 27, 2012, 01:04:03 PM
Time for the March status report! Is there still an election going on?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 27, 2012, 01:10:36 PM
Nobody cares except the big news networks.

Actually, the big debate going on now is how insane it would be if the GOP reaches the convention and there's still no clear cut nominee. The networks seem to think it would be a debacle of epic proportions with all sorts of back room deals for delegates and/or every fringe candidate (Palin, Trump, etc.) popping out of the wood work to try and capitalize.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on March 27, 2012, 01:35:18 PM
You know, in the real world, this would be like the 36 FDR campaign. Obama should charge back in with near dictator numbers.

But that won't happen...and that disturbs me.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on March 28, 2012, 12:33:00 AM
I still...don't care.  Hmm...I'm not sure if I'm going to.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Mitt Romney is your GOP candidate.

Quote
Rick Santorum ends presidential campaign after conceding to Mitt Romney in phone call

After calling Mitt Romney to say he is ending his presidential campaign, Rick Santorum announced the end of his presidential campaign Tuesday during a press conference in Pennsylvania, his home state.

"We will suspend our campaign effective today," Santorum said in Gettysburg, Pa.

Few thought Santorum would make it this far.

The former Pennsylvania senator spent most of 2011 on a grueling and often lonely campaign tour through Iowa. His strenuous underdog campaign was organized by a skeleton staff and run the old fashioned way: By methodically speaking with voters face-to-face, town by town. Candidates like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain rose and fell throughout 2011, while Santorum spent the year mostly relegated to the far end of the debate stage. He was a long-dormant volcano due for a surprise eruption.

In the final days before the first Republican caucuses in Iowa--a contest on which Santorum rested his entire strategy--it appeared that his campaign would be laid to rest in the state where it was born. Iowa Republicans did not turn their eyes to the man who had spent more time in their state than any other candidate until the very end, but they ultimately awarded him with a surprise, hair's-breadth victory--not formally confirmed until weeks after the vote--that helped keep his fledgling campaign afloat into the spring.

The first public whispers of his impending rise came with a CNN poll released three days after Christmas that showed Santorum in third place among likely Iowa caucus-goers, higher than he had ever been before in a public opinion survey. When CNN first announced the poll, Santorum was greeting a small group of supporters at a furniture store in Dubuque. As he weaved between La-Z-Boy recliners and leather couches, a reporter showed Santorum the poll results on her Blackberry. Santorum paused and read the results. While composed, his face revealed an expression of shock mixed with relief.

"I feel very, very good about how things are going and it's nice to see that reflected in some of the polls," Santorum said after surveying the good news on the reporter's phone. "But we have a lot of work to do. A lot of work."

Before the good polls began to pour in, it was not entirely uncommon for Santorum to hold town halls in which only a handful of supporters bothered to show up. The heart of Santorum's Iowa support rested in the deep red northwest corner of the state, a solid four-hour drive from Des Moines, where many reporters made their home base. At the time, driving all the way to the South Dakota border to see the candidate, even when no other candidates were in the state, didn't seem worth the effort."I'd usually make the drive to see a candidate," one reporter, comfortably nursing a beer at a Des Moines hotel bar, said in early December. "But it'sSantorum."

By New Year's Eve, when a Des Moines Register poll showed Santorum gaining swift momentum, the grim outlook among reporters covering his campaign would change. In the final days before the caucuses, if you arrived on time for an event, you'd be stuck outside in the cold. Every pizza place, coffee shop and diner Santorum visited was jam packed with supporters, media and curiosity seekers, sometimes hours before his arrival.

For the first time in the entire cycle, Romney turned his gaze to Santorum, about whom the Romney campaign didn't even bother to collect early opposition research, according to a report published much later by Politico. Romney criticized Santorum on the stump during a New Year's Day rally for spending 16 years in Washington in the House and Senate, one of the first times Romney took time out of his stump speech to discuss Santorum.

"I think it shows that we're on the move," Santorum said in response. "And we're resonating with the people of this state."

He was right. While an initial count of Iowa votes showed Romney winning by a mere eight votes, the final results--released several weeks later during the South Carolina primaries, a scenario that robbed Santorum of the boost in news coverage that traditionally comes from winning the Iowa caucuses--put Santorum over the top by 34 votes.

"This is a solid win," Santorum said during a stop in South Carolina two weeks after the Iowa caucuses. "It's a much stronger win than the win Governor Romney claimed to have."

Over the next few contests, Santorum took a backseat role to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who defeated Romney in South Carolina before Romney scored a win in Florida. Dogged by an aggressive series of attack ads run by the Romney campaign in Florida, Gingrich's momentum slowed after South Carolina, leaving the door open for Santorum to take his position as the alternative candidate to the former Massachusetts governor. Against most predictions, Santorum swept a three-state contest on Feb. 7, winning caucuses in Colorado, Minnesota and a non-binding primary in Missouri.

Santorum was back on the map, and would remain Romney's greatest challenger for the remainder of the race.

Over the next two months, Santorum would go on to win only a handful of states, as Romney increased his delegate lead. By the time Romney won a majority of votes in the Wisconsin primary on April 3rd, most observers within the party and in the media declared an end to the Republican primary cycle. Romney would take it, they predicted. But with his home state looming just three weeks away, Santorum vowed to press on.

"If this thing was all about D.C. pressure for us to get out, we'd have never even set foot in Iowa," Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley told reporters the night Romney swept contests in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia. "This thing's been going on for a long time. We're not worried at all about the pressure we're going to get from the outside D.C. world, we've had it from the get-go."

While Santorum voiced confidence that he would win Pennsylvania, where he lost his Senate seat in 2006 to Bob Casey by the record margin of 18 percentage points, state polls leading up to the primary date showed momentum to be on Romney's side.

"I walked out after the Iowa caucus victory and said 'game on,'" Santorum said in Gettysburg. "I know a lot of folks are going to write--maybe even those at the White House --'game over.' But this game is a long, long, long way from over. We are going to continue to go out there and fight to make sure that we defeat President Barack Obama."
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 10, 2012, 04:59:04 PM
Well, good. Now we can sit back and watch Obama eviscerate him.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2012, 05:00:55 PM
One assumes that'll be the case, right? Romney is so old school rich white guy it's laughable.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 10, 2012, 05:29:19 PM
If it's not the case, I'm going to go to France and work for Monkey.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2012, 05:57:23 PM
I fear racist America.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 10, 2012, 11:53:33 PM
I'm mildly interested to see if Romney can mount anything at all.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 11, 2012, 10:22:01 AM
I'm mildly interested to see if Romney can mount anything at all.

Besides multiple teenage wives at his heavily armed Mexican compound full of child rapists?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2012, 12:11:12 PM
One has to worry about the future of the GOP. The field of candidates was so sub-par. I can only assume that any one with any sense is simply holding out for 2016. God help us if this is truly the best they have.

I think I've mentioned this before, but I know a lot of young republicans straight out of college and they don't seem nearly as crazy. Pretty moderate really, and even liberal on social issues. Hopefully, someone can come along and infuse the party.

While I abhor the two-party system, I fear a system in which one party dominates... though maybe that's just a further sign of the dying republic/empire.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 11, 2012, 12:51:25 PM
Well, back to Rome. The even split between two parties is what crippled the Republic. There never was a one-party takeover like a modern dictatorship. The empire was founded as a cult of personality by individuals who, usually, stood outside of political parties...and even politics in general.

One party dominating isn't so unheard of, and has happened a few times in our own past. What we're seeing here is the classic death of a party. Usually, another will rise up to take its place... Or it'll be reformed. There are four instances in the 19th century where we pretty much see a single-party system for an election or two while one party implodes. The implosion is often because of extreme radicalization over whatever the issue is.

So what's happening now is as American as apple pie. The Republicans themselves are an upstart moderate party that was born out of the radicalization of the Whigs. The Democrats are an offshoot party that polarized around Jeffersonian politics.

The GOP and the Democrats are our longest lasting parties, but that's because they both cut their teeth on the slavery and Civil War issues. Something that we're still sort of recovering from, politically and geographically speaking. It's long overdue for one of the parties to collapse. This is why, for the large part, the Democrats have chosen such a bland centrist path. It's a survival strategy to prolong their existence.

What actually happens to political parties is what we're witnessing in the GOP now -- fragmentation, polarization, and a general loss of any sense of center. Normally, the party then fades away and is replaced.

Political types have been predicting the fall of the GOP since the 30's... And, if you weigh their candidates, you sort of see the shift in focus post-1936. The Republicans who have made the grade post-FDR era are all "raised on a shield," to keep the Roman parlance. Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II (with Ford and Bush I riding coattails). Electing personalities and not fixers/doers (like LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama) is another classic sign of a crippled party.

Now, the lines do blur. Nixon and Reagan billed themselves as fixers, and Clinton and Obama are certainly personalities. But, once in office, the differences were clear.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 11, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
Also, can you imagine a multi-party system in the US? It would probably be the end of the US as we know it. We'd be a new CSA within a decade.

So if you abhor the two-party system, and fear a one party system, what's the viable alternative?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2012, 02:06:05 PM
I tolerate the two-party system, but I don't like it. I'm not sure what the viable alternative is. You can see the struggle of parliaments with  a system of four or five parties. (The "redistricting" of power in Iraq after the fall of Saddam comes to mind.) Any kind of consolidation attempt on an issue is a debacle filled with chaos and corruption.

Yet as you say, the GOP has become taken over by "radical" interests. And by radical, I mean interests that don't seem to be in line with the mainstream. The irony of course, is that the GOP screams at anyone who will listen about Obama's "radical' plan for the U.S.  However, Obama (if you'll pardon the pun) is as vanilla as they come, mostly because of the shit situation he inherited but also because he's an idealist.

One wonders about the population and culture we live in though. If Obama loses, it'll be an ominous sign of course, but even more disturbing is the possibility of Obama barely squeaking out a victory over a candidate as bland and out of touch as Romney. That somehow is more frightening in it's implication.

My ultimate point is that the current political situation in America doesn't actually give one any reassurance that the republic is healthy.

I've mentioned the lack of a 21st century common culture in regards to art and literature, but I think it's also seeped into our politics. I read a columnist recently who said that WWII (or World War Eleven, if you prefer) was the unifying experience for politicians for the better part of a quarter century. No matter the political differences, there was a willingness to come together for the good of the republic because of the shared experience of WWII. Everything is fractured now. Everybody has niche special interests they stand for rather than the good of the republic/empire.

So, is Obama Julius Caesar? Does that make Sarah Palin/Romney/Whatever GOPer the conservatives rally around Octavian/Augustus? The metaphor doesn't quite work, eh?

I think we've just now entered the full on "imperial" plateau of America's history. Everything happens at light speed these days, so I doubt the empire will last a hundred years. It started with Reagan, began it's true ascent with Clinton, and is topping out as we speak. What's weird is that I can't even begin to predict what follows. China can't sustain itself at it's current rate, so it's unlikely that some great Chinese empire rises. It's also doubtful that with our military strength, we get relegated to the status Russia is now, all bravado with only history and thirty year old technology to back it up.

America has always had an extremist bent, so the great fear is that as we loose influence and fracture domestically we coalesce around some radical idea of power. To me, that's the what the tea party represents; an isolationist, racist backwards view of what "American Power" is.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how 2012 plays out.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 11, 2012, 02:25:38 PM
Yeah, certainly the Caesar/Augustus metaphor does not work. I still think we're a far cry from that.

Also on the military -- we're not 30 years out of date. We are in tactics, maybe, but we're cranking out new equipment and technology (at our personal expense, and for no clear reason) like maniacs. The plans for the new aircraft carriers are ridiculous (considering that the whole concept of aircraft carriers is pretty much 50 years outdated and we only really need two or three to get the point across).

So our technology is fine. But, then again, that's because we sacrifice all social reforms.

My prediction is that we easily have another generation of blandness and pointlessness ahead of us. Come the middle of the century, the fault lines will show... But we'll be old and in the way at that point.

The rot will come from inside -- a lack of social consciousnesses (part of that being your culture problem) and education will produce a broken generation, which will in turn produce another broken generation.

To once again draw Roman parallels, we've almost skipped the imperial phase and gone right for the barbarian hegemony phase. Where they dealt with the need to absorb mass migrations that watered down the values and cohesiveness of the nation, we've simply embraced our inherent hillbillyness and given up trying to care. We've been taught to enjoy apathy. Part of it is the government fearing us post 60's "revolution" and inspiring the apathy, part of it is uber-capitalism stealing our social support structure, part of it is the continued promise of a car in every garage, part of it is the insanely out of control corporatism allowed to run roughshod over our morals, and part of it is total media saturation.

Which is the real problem. There's no single place to lay the blame. Nor is there a clear path to revolt against all that.   
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2012, 02:28:58 PM

Also on the military -- we're not 30 years out of date. We are in tactics, maybe, but we're cranking out new equipment and technology (at our personal expense, and for no clear reason) like maniacs. The plans for the new aircraft carriers are ridiculous (considering that the whole concept of aircraft carriers is pretty much 50 years outdated and we only really need two or three to get the point across).


I was saying Russia is all bravado with history and old tech, not the U.S.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on April 11, 2012, 02:35:17 PM
The problem with two party systems is that eventually both sides will begin to gravitate towards extremes in bids to out-do the other.

Even with multi-party systems, fear-driven political opportunism will gravitate votes towards the extremes. The politicians are a smoke screen, man.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on April 11, 2012, 02:41:53 PM

Also on the military -- we're not 30 years out of date. We are in tactics, maybe, but we're cranking out new equipment and technology (at our personal expense, and for no clear reason) like maniacs. The plans for the new aircraft carriers are ridiculous (considering that the whole concept of aircraft carriers is pretty much 50 years outdated and we only really need two or three to get the point across).


I was saying Russia is all bravado with history and old tech, not the U.S.

I'm the Skim Master!

I mean, look, I'm real busy watching Netflix and spiking my coffee and reading stolen ebooks on screen two.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 15, 2012, 10:59:54 AM
Wow, lots going on here these past few days!

I agree with a lot of what you guys have said. I will say this though, I don't see our 2-party system as leading to extremism. Maybe that's the rhetoric during an election cycle, but once folks get elected and head off to DC it's all lobbyists and bribes and everyone comes back to the center.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 11, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
I think it's awesome that in an election year, this thread hasn't been updated in four months. Kind of speaks volumes, eh?

Anyway, Romney makes his veep pick. Paul Ryan of Wisconson. Right as rain, one might say.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 12, 2012, 09:03:34 AM
I think it's awesome that in an election year, this thread hasn't been updated in four months. Kind of speaks volumes, eh?


I jokingly asked someone yesterday if Romney was still running.

And then I realized that I wasn't joking.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 12, 2012, 09:12:23 AM
Wait...have I just not had my coffee yet or is this wrong?

Quote from: wiki
On August 10, 2012, it was announced that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney

Presumptive? He is the Republican nominee, right? Or did something happen at the convention?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 12, 2012, 11:18:35 AM
The convention starts August 27th.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on August 13, 2012, 09:41:34 AM
What happened to Ron Paul?

I want him to dress up in a gnome outfit.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on August 13, 2012, 09:56:34 AM
The convention starts August 27th.

Oh my god! It's never going to end!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2012, 05:30:14 PM
Talk about just not fucking getting it. At all.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23oXpFTYc (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23oXpFTYc)

Quote
Tom Morello: 'Paul Ryan Is the Embodiment of the Machine Our Music Rages Against'
Rage Against the Machine's guitarist blasts Romney's VP pick and unlikely Rage fan

By Tom Morello
August 16, 2012 6:44 PM ET

Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.

Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.

Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.

I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!

Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.

You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that "Those people are undeserving. They're . . . lesser." Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.

But Rage's music affects people in different ways. Some tune out what the band stands for and concentrate on the moshing and throwing elbows in the pit. For others, Rage has changed their minds and their lives. Many activists around the world, including organizers of the global occupy movement, were radicalized by Rage Against the Machine and work tirelessly for a more humane and just planet. Perhaps Paul Ryan was moshing when he should have been listening.

My hope is that maybe Paul Ryan is a mole. Maybe Rage did plant some sensible ideas in this extreme fringe right wing nut job. Maybe if elected, he'll pardon Leonard Peltier.  Maybe he'll throw U.S. military support behind the Zapatistas. Maybe he'll fill Guantanamo Bay with the corporate criminals that are funding his campaign – and then torture them with Rage music 24/7. That's one possibility. But I'm not betting on it.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 10, 2012, 12:40:14 PM
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on September 10, 2012, 01:36:25 PM
The radio host is good, although I think Romney holds his own well enough, although it's funny when he gets angry.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 10, 2012, 02:59:06 PM
So catching up on the conventions...and amazed. The Republican convention was just a little maze of outrage. Some old, insane sideshow America.

The DNC is bright, cheerful, and desperately extending olive branches.

The difference is so glaringly obvious...why aren't people seeing it? Not intending that to be a partisan statement, it's just that the Republican Convention felt like a news broadcast in the Hunger Games world...
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on September 11, 2012, 12:47:08 AM
As I've been saying, I don't see any way Obama loses this.

Now the Senate...I think there's a good chance that swings back to the Republicans.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 22, 2012, 12:50:28 PM
tee-hee...

Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on September 25, 2012, 12:48:12 PM
I'm deep in the BAd Lip Reading Youtube hole:




Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 03, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Ugh. Debate night. I'm going to go home and watch Stargate instead.

Though the Post has this up today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/02/the-10-most-memorable-moments-in-presidential-debates/?tid=ts_carousel

With amusing videos!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 03, 2012, 11:48:51 AM
Ugh. Debate night. I'm going to go home and watch Stargate instead.

Though the Post has this up today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/02/the-10-most-memorable-moments-in-presidential-debates/?tid=ts_carousel

With amusing videos!


Haha...Jesus. This is amazing. Clinton was great.



This is all about the moderator's response:


Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 03, 2012, 06:16:36 PM
Bill Clinton was a great speaker: Tony Blair tried to imitate him quite a lot, and to much success.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 04, 2012, 10:20:34 AM
What. The. Fuck.

What the fuck was wrong with Obama? Was he on ludes? He spent that whole debate shifty, defensive, and in total cowardly lion mode. What -- he can't make eye contact with Romney? He stood there looking like a guilty eight year old being chastised by his dad.

And fucking Jim Lehrer is either in the midst of a major stroke or a Romney supporter. There was basically no moderation at all. When Jim did wake up, it was to admonish Obama after letting Romney ramble on for 80% of the time.

Obama's attitude almost swung me over to Romney's camp. Everything Romney said was fucking evil and crazy, and yet he came off as rational and adult next to the shrinking Obama violet.

Sadly, it's the impressions -- not the words -- that'll fuel the campaign and, if last night is anything to go on, then this is now Romney's game.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 04, 2012, 11:08:10 AM
I watched Singin' in the Rain instead.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 04, 2012, 11:18:52 AM
I watched Singin' in the Rain instead.

Your last act before President Romney's troopers surround your house.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 04, 2012, 11:29:05 AM
As long as they wearjackboots it's okay, right?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 04, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
What disturbed me was that even Rachel Maddow had a hard time spinning Obama. I have never seen such a clear defeat in a debate. The Post said that "Obama made Jimmy Carter look awesome." And he did.

Ouch.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 04, 2012, 11:48:21 AM
I haven't watched any of it. Now I'm glad I missed it.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 04, 2012, 10:10:33 PM
I still don't think Romney has a chance. But there has been a bit of a buzz today...
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 04, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
Isn't Romney an Alien or a lizard, or something? I'd say the same about Obama except it may be construed as 'racist' by the black lizard community.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 04, 2012, 10:40:15 PM
Speaking of which, maybe Obama had a spell cast upon him by Witch Queen Palin. Or the lizards.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 12, 2012, 01:34:16 PM
Well...at least Biden had a bit more fire. Though Ryan did well, in my opinion. Biden did the debate with the same sort of bemused outrage that Jon Stewart would have done...which didn't look all that good. Though I liked Biden's finale.

I guess a draw on this one. One more debate and then we go into the horror show!

 
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 12, 2012, 09:38:00 PM
Don't forget our inauguration day trip to the Mall...no matter who wins!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 13, 2012, 10:53:51 AM
What really upsets me about these Presidential run-ins is that we're really living in an age when "truth" is more about what we can make people believe, regardless of the actual situation or even, 'facts' - something anathema to the GOP and their candidates apparently.

Therein this system of manufactured belief/consent - a la Noam Chomsky - these cunts, *ahem*, politicians, blatantly lie to a camera broadcasting their lies to millions of people who will, unfortunately, believe what they say because of a lifetime of poor education and reduction of cognitive capacities by eating unhealthy foods and a wearing-down of resistance by flashing lights and bullshit on television training people to believe that what they see/hear on television - the truth box - is correct and accurate.

Depressing really.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 13, 2012, 09:23:59 PM
something anathema to all political candidates apparently.

...

Depressing really.

Fixed That For You.

Yes it is depressing. That is why most of us have turned away from paying attention to politics or world events...too much spin not enough fact.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 14, 2012, 10:35:56 PM
Which may also be another tactic of the corporate/governmental machine: alienate people so much so that they pay no heed whatsoever to politics until it's too late and all civil rights/liberties have been removed in the name of profit.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 15, 2012, 08:45:37 AM
Which may also be another tactic of the corporate/governmental machine: alienate people so much so that they pay no heed whatsoever to politics until it's too late and all civil rights/liberties have been removed in the name of profit.

Which most people won't complain about because, hand in hand with this, they're also alienating us from education through various subtle ways. We're the new peasants, ready to accept our lot in life and serve absolute rulers.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 17, 2012, 10:16:04 AM
Watching the debate last night reminded me why I've done my best to ignore this election.

How ever, Mitt's "binder full of women" comment has gone viral:

http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 17, 2012, 10:27:30 AM
Ugh.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 18, 2012, 09:01:52 AM
The binder shit is fucking funny.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 18, 2012, 10:33:33 AM
I found his claim that the US is "on the road to Greece" the funniest comment of the evening. And the fact that Obama nodded happily to that and had no rebuttal.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 19, 2012, 10:31:58 AM
I think the states has been on the road to Greece since they began naming so many towns after Greek places, and deriving many sodality structures from the Greek alphabet.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 19, 2012, 11:04:32 AM
Must be cocktail time in Paris!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 22, 2012, 10:40:46 AM
It's always cocktail time in Paris.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 30, 2012, 04:36:41 PM
http://rsnorg.org/news-section2/318-66/14223-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections-part-i (http://rsnorg.org/news-section2/318-66/14223-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections-part-i)

Quote
Retired NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections Part I

By Denis Campbell, LA Progressive

28 October 12

Why is Mitt Romney so confident? In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It's a math problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.

This goes well beyond Romney's investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold's close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate's son Tagg Romney) there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

"Easy to Cheat"

Retired NSA analyst Michael Duniho has worked for nearly seven years trying to understand voting anomalies in his home state of Arizona and Pima County. This publication has written extensively about apparent vote machine manipulation in a 2006 RTA Bond issue election that is still being fought in the courts. Said Duniho, "It is really easy to cheat using computers to count votes, because you can't see what is going on in the machine."

When Duniho applied a mathematical model to actual voting results in the largest voting precincts, he saw that only the large precincts suddenly trended towards Mitt Romney in the Arizona primary – and indeed all Republicans in every election since 2008 – by a factor of 8%-10%. The Republican candidate in every race saw an 8-10%. gain in his totals whilst the Democrat lost 8-10%. This is a swing of up to  20 point, enough to win an election unless a candidate was losing very badly.

Since sifting through and decoding massive amounts of data was his work for decades on behalf of the National Security Agency, he wanted to understand why this was ONLY happening in large precincts.

Nose Counting

The idea of examining large precinct results came via a link to a report written by Francois Choquette and James Johnson. Choquette became curious about South Carolina primary results in the February Republican contest. There a poll observer noted an unusually big gain of votes for Mitt Romney in larger precincts than in smaller ones. Choquette wanted to know why?

He examined and applied all of the normal statistical markers to see where a variance might occur: income level, population density, race, urban vs. rural, even party registration numbers. He found no correlation to explain why Romney votes trended upward while Paul and Santorum votes trended downward -yet only in large precincts.

Choquette then looked at all 50 states and found roughly a 10% switch in votes from GOP to Democrat everywhere except Utah, where the presumption was, as it was Mitt's religious home state and very conservative, there was no chance of Romney losing.

Choquette even saw in Maricopa County, which is Phoenix and its suburbs, that in 2008 Romney used this technique against John McCain. But McCain beat him by too much for a 10% fraud gain to matter. McCain tried to do the same thing in the general election to President Obama but 9 million votes nationally were too many to make up.

Examining every county across America was too massive an undertaking for any one person so he included a simple set of instructions and encouraged others to do the same with raw vote totals in their county/state.

        Download the text files of all raw actual vote results by precinct from the Secretary of State's Office.

        Arrange them in precinct order.

        Put in all of the candidate totals for each precinct.

        Sort the data by total vote smallest on the top.

Now here it gets a bit dense: He needed to add columns that show cumulative totals by candidate then compare them by candidate to establish trend lines.

That reveals trends should remain statistically constant throughout an election.

Stealing Votes

But as the spreadsheet shows, the larger the precinct, the numbers start to change dramatically.

"If percentages did not change from one precinct to the next, we would see a flat line, but what we are seeing is sloped lines downward for Democrats and upward for Republicans (or, in the case of the Presidential primary, upward for Romney and downward for his opponents), said Duniho."

In every election contest, the trend lines dramatically crossed for no apparent reason. It was revealed that votes were being systemically bled off for Rick Santorum and Ron Paul and then being credited to Mitt Romney.

Once Duniho completed the spreadsheet, he pumped in actual vote totals from other Arizona election contests.

He looked at every 2010 race in Arizona from Governor Brewer to Senator McCain and Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The trends lines all did the exact same thing. Someone had manipulated the election outcome, most likely one person inserting a programme inside the system's central computer… that flipped votes.

The results were astounding.

They showed that Governor Brewer actually lost her election and Gabby Gifford's razor thin less than 1% point re-election victory over Tea Party Conservative Jesse Kelly was closer to a 20 point victory for her.

Duniho added, "We need to have strong hand count audits to confirm the integrity of these elections. This means comparing hand counts with official reports of the election."

Ohio Precedent

This isn't the first time Republicans have been charged with vote theft. It happened in the 2004 presidential election, in Ohio and Florida. In Ohio, GOP consultant Michael Connell claimed that the vote count computer program he had created for the state had a trap door that shifted Democratic votes to the GOP.

He was subpoenaed as a witness in a lawsuit against then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and lawyers for the plaintiff asked the Dept. of Justice to provide him with security because there were two threats made against Connell's life by people associated with Karl Rove. But in Dec. 2008, before the trial began, Connell was killed in a plane crash outside Akron Ohio.

There were problems in Florida, as well.

A study by the Quantitative Methods Research Team at the University of California at Berkeley found that anomalies between Florida counties using touch-screen voting and those using other methods could not be explained statistically. Noting the higher-than-expected votes for Bush in three large Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, Michael Hout, a Berkeley professor who did the study said there were strong suspicions of vote-rigging.

"No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," Hout said. "The study shows that a county's use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero - less than once in a thousand chances."

Don't Trust, Verify

Indeed the only way to 100% verify this election fraud would be through handcounts of ballots by precinct, matching those results to the reported totals. But as was mentioned earlier, a group in Pima County has been trying unsuccessfully to get access to ballots to conduct such a count for almost five years since anomalies first surfaced in voting machines in 2006.

Is there a judge in Arizona likely to suddenly reverse past trends and allow access to conduct such a handcount of ballots 12 days before a national election? And if not, why not? Maybe someone needs to commission the Anonymous hacker group to re-level the playing field because the courts are not going to do it.

The results of Duniho's analysis can only happen if votes are being stolen, and the only way that's possible is if the computerised machines are programmed to steal them. Welcome to Zimbabwe.

More than 100 million Americans will cast their ballots thinking their vote will be fairly counted. It should be. Yet the crooks know they can safely flip up to 10% of votes without consequence. Anything more than that is statistically suspect.

President Obama won by such a huge margin in 2008 that even with this anomaly built into the system, he cruised to victory. This year the election is much closer. Can American democracy afford yet another election crisis placing three of the four last national Presidential election results in question or worse: The outcome was stolen, the outcome a victim of election theft?

Don't Take Our Word

Use the spreadsheet above to do the maths in your own state, county or precinct. The results are compelling. Then demand that the Justice Department stop this insane view that results need to be reported by 11 pm for the television networks. Demand hand ballot counts!

We use paper ballots in the UK and results do not even begin to trickle in until 3 am. The final outcome can take up to three days to finalise. But voters in Britain know the count is accurate because every ballot is transparently hand-counted. When I read this article that Serbia, Belarus and Kazakhstan were sending election monitors to watch the US Election?, I knew we'd jumped the shark.

We are already being victimized by vote fraud on a scale that, in another country, would lead to calls for international election monitors. It is time for Americans to stop being victims of ghosts in the machine.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 30, 2012, 05:21:03 PM
So if Romney doesn't win it's because this article was published, and if he does it's because not enough people saw it, right?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on October 30, 2012, 07:22:05 PM
But what's in Al Capone's vault?
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 30, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
I posted this less because of my liberal leanings than that I do believe the election should be a fair fight from a vote counting perspective.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on October 30, 2012, 11:18:37 PM
Democracy, yeah!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 30, 2012, 11:21:14 PM
I posted this less because of my liberal leanings than that I do believe the election should be a fair fight from a vote counting perspective.

I think we all believe that, but this article seems very sketchy on details...and heavy on the conspiracy.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 01, 2012, 10:59:40 AM
We've all lamented about how polarized the U.S. has become and how destructive it is in the long run. This election shouldn't be nearly as close as it is because let's be honest, Mitt Romney is about as good a candidate as John Kerry was.

This article give me hope though.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/people-who-cant-do-math-are-so-mad-nate-silver/58460/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/people-who-cant-do-math-are-so-mad-nate-silver/58460/)

Quote
People Who Can't Do Math Are So Mad At Nate Silver

 The New York Times' Nate Silver has created a model to predict the outcome of the presidential election that's watched by just about every pundit, and yet Silver's model refuses to perfectly reflect the conventional wisdom spouted by just about every pundit. The pundits do not like this! Silver's FiveThirtyEight model uses math to show that President Obama has a 74.6 percent chance of beating Mitt Romney, even though Romney has unmeasurable things like "momentum" as well as newspaper endorsements, plus a lead in several national polls. Obama's chances remain high, Silver explains, because he has a significant lead in enough swing states to win the needed 270 electoral college votes. The latest pundit outraged that Silver's model doesn't feel right is MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, who ranted Monday morning:

    "Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president's going to win. Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73.6 percent -- they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning.

    .... Anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue [that] they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops, and microphones for the next ten days, because they're jokes."

Scarborough is very committed to defending what feels true to him, even when it's not true. In June, he railed that The New York Times kept writing stories making fun of Romney for being rich, but it never made fun of John Kerry and his ice chalet in 2004. When confronted with the fact that he was completely wrong -- The Times covered that ice chalet plenty, it turns out -- Scarborough stuck with his analysis, saying "the general impressions of people like myself … does count in the perspective that active news consumers have."

Now Scarborough wants his general impression of the polls to count, too. He isn't the only Silver-basher who is unable to use numbers to explain why the forecaster is so wrong. The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis wrote a couple weeks ago that despite Silver's model showing a likely Obama victory, "my guess is that, right now, it’s probably a 50-50 proposition." The National Review's Josh Jordan's critique is more related to numbers than feelings, saying Silver's polling average is different than the Real Clear Politics average, because Silver weighs polls, while RCP averages them equally. But Silver does this because some pollsters have a better track record than others, and some have a clear partisan tilt, left or right. If his weighting is wrong, we'll know next week. Update: Politico contributes its own math-free critique: "For all the confidence Silver puts in his predictions, he often gives the impression of hedging."

Perhaps the most telling critique of Silver's model comes from the people most deeply invested in it being wrong. Romney aides "laugh and roll their eyes when reporters tease them with mentions of the model," BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins reports. One adviser, though, offers an analysis more closely tied to real data, saying, in Coppins' paraphrase, "FiveThirtyEight could well give them a better chance of victory as the swing state polls tighten in the final days of the race." In other words, if the state polls change, so will Silver's model. Which is pretty much what Silver himself would say.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 01, 2012, 12:50:44 PM
I agree with the stat guy. I don't see any way Romney can win.

Could he be close in the popular vote? Yes. Could he win the electoral vote? It's not even really close. If Romney wins Florida (he may) and Ohio (he won't), big electoral hauls, he will still likely lose the election.

I like to go here:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator?hpt=po_c1#?battleground

You can play with different scenarios and predict a winner.

So it looks like Obama's ahead, but it's still undecided, right?

Now I add in this different CNN page:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/poll.of.polls/index.html?hpt=po_r1

So yeah, not sure how accurate these polls are, but they update them and give you a little picture of how things are going in all those yellow undecided states from the first page.

You can see that Obama has a lead, sometimes sizable in every single one except Florida.

Why aren't they showing that on their big electoral map? Because they'd have to predict that Obama will win...almost a week before the election!! Can't lose all those page views between now and then!

So yeah, Obama wins.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on November 01, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Then again, Romney does own those electoral machines.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 05, 2012, 12:05:36 PM
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: Reginald McGraw on November 05, 2012, 10:33:52 PM
Nice!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 06, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
I posted this less because of my liberal leanings than that I do believe the election should be a fair fight from a vote counting perspective.

I think we all believe that, but this article seems very sketchy on details...and heavy on the conspiracy.

It's MSNBC, but....

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/06/machine-turns-vote-for-obama-into-one-for-romney/ (http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/06/machine-turns-vote-for-obama-into-one-for-romney/)

Quote
Machine turns vote for Obama into one for Romney

A Pennsylvania electronic voting machine has been taken out of service after being captured on video changing a vote for President Obama into one for Mitt Romney, NBC News has confirmed. Republicans have also said machines have turned Romney votes into Obama ones.

The video was first posted on Youtube by user “centralpavoter.” It shows a voter’s finger repeatedly pressing the button for Obama, but a check mark coming up next to Romney’s name:


NBC News confirmed that the machine has been taken off line.

Underneath the video, the user gave an account of what happened:

    My wife and I went to the voting booths this morning before work. There were 4 older ladies running the show and 3 voting booths that are similar to a science fair project in how they fold up. They had an oval VOTE logo on top center and a cartridge slot on the left that the volunteers used to start your ballot.

    I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney’s name and started tapping very closely together to find the ‘active areas’. From the top of Romney’s button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama’s name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein’s button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.

    I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said “It’s nothing to worry about, everything will be OK.” and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.

    There is a lot of speculation that the footage is edited. I’m not a video guy, but if it’s possible to prove whether a video has been altered or not, I will GLADLY provide the raw footage to anyone who is willing to do so. The jumping frames are a result of the shitty camera app on my Android phone, nothing more.

Separately, the RNC last week sent a letter (pdf) to elections officials in six other states, including Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado, raising concerns that machines had wrongly counted votes for Romney as ones for Obama, and asking them to address the problem.

Late Update,2:35pm: A spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of State told Mother Jones a machine that showed that problem, likely the same one, is back online after being “recalibrated.”
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 06, 2012, 04:13:00 PM
What I find weird is that it's not made public knowledge that, when you have this problem, you should (1) call someone over and (2) if they're dismissive, like this guy claims, demand another machine and for them to take the problem one out of service.

I'm amazed at all the voter rights that we have along those lines, yet no one pipes up. It's basically the one day every two years where we each have more power than the authorities. For example -- you can verbally challenge someone and block them from voting. So, in a non-ID state, you can say, "That person is not who he says he is!" and that person has to fill out a provisional ballot and, if they want it to count, prove their identity in court at a later date. The judges cannot accept any forms of ID.

Endless shenanigans can go on.

Anyway...that's a tangent. My point is -- things like this are blown out of proportion. A miscalibrated voting machine is not a surprising thing, or the start of a conspiracy, and is easily fixed. And if anyone is stupid enough to not notice/let it slide/be bullied by the judges, they deserve what they get.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 06, 2012, 04:28:55 PM
No, no. The Bolsheviks are controlling everything.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 06, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
No, no. The Bolsheviks are controlling everything.

That, at least, would be entertaining. And, therefore, welcome.

I've been reduced to quoting PotA to your AD on Facebook.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 06, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
AD? I don't understand the lingo you kids use these days.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 06, 2012, 05:01:35 PM
Whatever the fuck you call that guy who does that shit when you make a fucking movie.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 06, 2012, 05:14:35 PM
He's the DP, no the AD.

GAWD!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 06, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
I couldn't bring myself to type "DP" without super-imposing his face on Asa Akira's body.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: monkey! on November 06, 2012, 07:56:06 PM
Corporate taxes will rule the day.
Title: Re: 2012 Roundup
Post by: nacho on November 06, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Corporate taxes will rule the day.

You mean, like, more corporate taxes? Or...?