Romney v Obama
#81
Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:58 AM
#82
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:25 AM
What I'd like to know is where do Mitt's Magic Underpants come in all this?
It'll all come out in the wash.
#83
Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:35 AM
I think it's more difficult for presidents or parties in the States to hold to their promises because the chances of those promises being fulfilled depends heavily on their ability to win over the opposition. At the outset of a presidency the president's party can be the majority party in congress but then during their premiership one or both houses could fall to the opposition, so putting paid to the pre-election intentions of the president. Obama lost the house to the republicans a year into his term of office and that no doubt has had a negative effect upon his plans although such as his universal healthcare idea was not popular with all members of his own party never mind the republicans.Its all odd to me. However, there is a distinct possibility that whoever is elected will not hold to all their pre-election promises.
#84
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:08 PM
Edited by gingerjon, 06 November 2012 - 01:10 PM.
- Severus, July 2012
#85
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:24 PM
- Severus, July 2012
#86
Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:37 PM
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.
JAMIE PEACOCK
#87
Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:58 PM
Meanwhile, this is happening ... and this is how the race will be decided.
Thank God, the democrats are above such petty cheating.
http://www.cbsnews.c...er-fraud-video/
#88
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:00 PM
Thank God, the democrats are above such petty cheating.
http://www.cbsnews.c...er-fraud-video/
Yes. That is clearly the same and in no way an example of false equivalance.
It shows a Project Veritas "investigator" telling Patrick Moran that he has a friend who is seeking to "get in a van" and vote on behalf of about 100 people. Patrick Moran responds with skepticism, but is later shown saying the person voting on behalf of others could potentially use "utility bills or something like that."
- Severus, July 2012
#89
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:04 PM
Yes. That is clearly the same and in no way an example of false equivalance.
It shows a Project Veritas "investigator" telling Patrick Moran that he has a friend who is seeking to "get in a van" and vote on behalf of about 100 people. Patrick Moran responds with skepticism, but is later shown saying the person voting on behalf of others could potentially use "utility bills or something like that."
Moran later says the person would be better off participating in traditional get-out-the-vote efforts, but he goes on to have a conversation about how to forge documents.
Unwise to say the least.
But if you investigate more throughly you'll find that both parties indulge in gerrymandery of voting districts. You seemed to suggest that only the Republicans would be so devious.
On the subject of black voters, ironically, the Republicans have a better record on not screwing over blacks in the American south than the democrats.
Edited by Northern Sol, 06 November 2012 - 03:07 PM.
#90
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:10 PM
You seemed to suggest that only the Republicans would be so devious.
Right now, I'd suggest that only the Republicans are using legislation to exclude legitimate votes.
Gerrymandering, which as far as I'm aware doesn't impact this election as you can't change the shape of Wyoming, is something both parties are guilty of, I agree.
And, yes, it is quite eye-watering the Democrat position on segregation (for example) historically.
- Severus, July 2012
#92
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:22 PM
- Severus, July 2012
#93
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:27 PM
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.
JAMIE PEACOCK
#94
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:35 PM
Gerrymandering, which as far as I'm aware doesn't impact this election as you can't change the shape of Wyoming, is something both parties are guilty of, I agree.
No, but the electoral college weighting is somewhat subjective as it isn't directly proportional to the population of the state.
#95
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:36 PM
Romney's faith. It's all about Missouri for a Millennium.
Is it a good thing that someone that believes in the second coming of Christ and that, being one of the righteous, they will live in paradise could potentially have his finger on the big red button? (Assuming it is a big red button, I would be disappointed if it wasn't big and red).
#96
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:41 PM
No, but the electoral college weighting is somewhat subjective as it isn't directly proportional to the population of the state.
That's interesting. I didn't know the EC votes had been amended but now thanks to the power of Wiki I see that Florida is going to get even more important.
- Severus, July 2012
#97
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:03 PM
If it was split into two states (as some think it should) then the combined EC votes would be higher or possibly the Republicans might win Northern California.
#98
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:32 PM
California is the tricky one. It has (relative to the others) a huge population and thus loads of EC votes, votes consistantly democrat.
If it was split into two states (as some think it should) then the combined EC votes would be higher or possibly the Republicans might win Northern California.
According to a piece I've just read of California has a whole some 30% of the population is registered Republican and yet they stand not a chance of getting a say in the election of the President.
It was apparently 13 counties in the south of the state - all Republican leaning - who last put up the idea of splitting. That was last year and they plan to rally again for it next year.
It seems that there are a couple of states that divide their EC votes according to proportion rather than "all or nothing". Is that right?
- Severus, July 2012
#99
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:28 PM
Strictly speaking the electoral college is simply how many voters each state will have in the election of a president. Who those voters are is a matter for the state and its electoral system, the federal government merely sets the number. The voters could theoretically vote for anyone, they aren't bound to vote the way that the electorate said they should.
#100
Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:20 AM
EDIT:
So far. I imagine not even they are claiming to know the vote in polls which haven't actually closed yet.
Edited by gingerjon, 07 November 2012 - 06:20 AM.
- Severus, July 2012
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













