-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
RustyNails
Member
Kosmo, it's time to re-evaluate your life and the meaning of life.64% Jimmy McMillan
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I still hold that giving the power to the hands of a democratically elected government has "the people's" best interests more in mind then any real alternative. We can argue back and forth about exactly how much interest that is all day.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Are we sure Kent Mesplay isn't Jimmy Fallon?
I agree with him on facial hair and wearing leather gloves indoors.
Nobody thinks very much about it, but not all speech in the U.S. is free.
The part we always remember is that the Bill of Rights gives us the power of free speech, but over the course of American history, Supreme Court rulings have refined the definition of free speech and thus placed limitations on it based off some common sense, logical reasoning that you would probably agree with.
One case in point is "shouting fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire". Unless you for some bizarre reason believe this is the right of the individual to say this kind of thing under these circumstances, that is not the kind of speech that is allowed, because it can and will cause harm to people for no good reason.
My opposition to Citizens United isn't concerned with denying the rights of 'certain people' to speak. Rather, I think their 'speech' is harmful by infringing on the speech of other individuals (by drowning them out due to the sheer difference in money as speech) and that this 'speech' has a very real danger of corrupting public offices. If this speech is harmful to other people and to the functions of the government (and by extension society, which is undoubtedly influenced by both people and government), then it is impermissible. It has nothing to do with whether or not people are allowed to speak (they are), but with the content and volume of what they say.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Obama has stated that the Romney care mandate and the Obamacare mandate are different? News to me!!
Fuck those quizzes, seriously.
If I wanted to know someone's political alignment (and I usually don't) I could read their posts.
Do we really need to have 2 pages of people posting political compass screencap every 10 pages?
Like, do people go around saying "man, I'm really curious to see if Chichikov align more with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul"?
Is that interesting to anyone but the person filling the quiz?
/ yeah, I'm really hung over from the 4th, and yeah, that's makes me irritable.
If I wanted to know someone's political alignment (and I usually don't) I could read their posts.
Do we really need to have 2 pages of people posting political compass screencap every 10 pages?
Like, do people go around saying "man, I'm really curious to see if Chichikov align more with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul"?
Is that interesting to anyone but the person filling the quiz?
/ yeah, I'm really hung over from the 4th, and yeah, that's makes me irritable.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But just imagine how many hundreds of thousands of millions of fraudulent votes they're preventing from skewing the election!
PhoenixDark
Banned
That's more than enough disenfranchised voters to throw a close race to Romney.
Wow that's a lot..... I wonder how much of a difference it will make in the election
Byakuya769
Member
If it wasn't, you probably wouldn't see so many people doing it in response.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And as long as the state launches a massive and pervasive campaign to make sure that people are aware of what they have to do I'd probably be alright with this.
What's the betting that they actually do that?
Blergmeister
Member
That is a lot of work to do somthing that is my given right as an American citizen.
I think people do it because they like to talk about themselves and their opinions.
There's nothing wrong with stating ones opinions, I just think that there is no more boring of doing it than posting a political quiz results.
Which is why those posts rarely spur interesting discussion, or discussion at all.
Right..... Even the PA GOP knows this is going to prevent people from voting (democrats) and they are counting on it to help Romney win the state!
empty vessel
Member
This is inarguable. It is the very intended purpose of democratic government. When democratic government strays from the people's interests, it is called corruption. And that usually only means it has strayed from democratic processes. Currently, the US government is not very democratic, because it is mostly influenced and controlled by entities other than its citizens. The solution to this is not to throw away, limit, or reduce the size of government. It is to reclaim--and thereafter vigorously protect--democracy.
electricpirate
Member
I think most of the studies on ID check voting have shown that it doesn't end up negatively affecting turnout TOO much, since of those registered voters, only like something along the lines of 5% of the would actually vote any way, and those are the ones motivated enough to file a provisional ballot, or take the necessary steps.
Doesn't mean that's it's still not a stupid thing to do that makes people less interested in voting in order to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Doesn't mean that's it's still not a stupid thing to do that makes people less interested in voting in order to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Fully agree, and that's very well articulated. The thing is, I see where the people who want to shrink the government and its powers are coming from (or at least I think I do, anyone who does should feel free to correct me): the idea is that shrinking the government and limiting it will increase personal liberties and freedom. And I just don't think that the second part will necessarily follow from the first: shrinking government scope creates a power vacuum, and I don't think that vacuum will remain unfilled. It will just give power to a group of entities that are even less accountable and have absolutely no drive, or even pretense of a drive, to work for the public good.
empty vessel
Member
Agreed.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Cool. So there is a plan to make sure every single person that does not have the right ID know about the rule change, and rides will be provided to those that cannot make it themselves?
Pretty much.... I just don't get how people actually believe less government is a solution. It has never worked in the past. If you want to deal with corruption you fix the government who in turn keeps the private sector in check. If you have corrupt private sector reducing the power of government is not going to make it less corrupt. In fact it's going to magnify the problem
PhoenixDark
Banned
Obama's campaign is no doubt on the ball with respect to voter ID changes and possible disenfranchisement; likewise they'll certainly have many lawyers on hand at polling stations. Still, this is the type of thing that could completely alter the election. Same thing in Wisconsin.
makingmusic476
Member
This line of discussion has been spot on.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I do believe on such a large scale it won't make as big of a difference being outspent although it doesn't help. Smaller races can be signicantly affected though
Byakuya769
Member
I think it's the Wall Street exodus more than anything else. Guess he should have stroked their egos more.
el retorno
Member
NYT had a piece on the Dems trying to compete. This quote scared me though
Seriously?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/m...ch-up-in-the-super-pac-game.html?pagewanted=1
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
No amount of money in the world can compensate for three things:
1)Romney is Kerry 2.0: stiff, unpopular, flip-flopping (on every issue, not like Kerry with like 2 things)
and
2) Conservatives are clearly not behind Romney. Sure, they are anti-Obama, but there is only so much an anti-opponent sentiment can get you. To anyone paying attention to talk radio, Fox News, CNN, and so on, conservatives, especially those in the right-wing media, will not shill for the guy. They bag every decision he does and destroys him on so many positions. I thought they would get in line, lock step with Romney after the primaries, but they really don't seem to care if he wins or loses. My own private conspiracy theory is that they don't actually want to a republican to win the white house, since they are more comfortable tearing those in leadership down, not defending their own team. I wonder if there is any correlation between which party is in office and what their ratings are like.
3) Obama is really popular, despite the economy, unemployment, and so on.
It's not about ego, it's about money.
It may be unclear if Obama is going to continue to let them run wild, but it's fairly certain Romney will.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I want to see where the donors are coming from. I doubt much comes from small donors, and perhaps I'm naive but it seems impossible for Wall Street and a handful of businessman alone to raise $100m in a month given the maximum of funds allowed
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Really. If it is 100m to just Romney's campaign, it has to be a lot of donors. Isn't the max 2500 to a personal campaign?
If they are counting PACs and all that, then it is probably a lot of Adelson scenarios.
PhoenixDark
Banned
If it includes PACs I wouldn't be concerned/so curious. But if not I'm seriously baffled at what's going on.
Plus I want to see Obama's numbers for June. The immigration news plus continued response to the gay marriage announcement should provide solid numbers.
It's amazing just how much various industries hate Obama for only giving them 70% of what they want.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Given the amount of money being poured into this election the result is either going to make me incredibly cynical or incredibly hopeful about human nature.
I was listening to right-wing radio this morning, and some guy hosting the Glenn Beck program was just trashing Romney for being a flip-flopper and receiving soft interviews. He even went so far as to replay old Romney quotes where he supported TARP, abortion, amnesty, and the stimulus. I was pretty surprised. I guess Romney is even refusing to do right wing talk shows, and its pissing some of them off.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I've always believed that it's not about more or less government, it's about better and more effective government and the way to that path is to elect smart, principled, pragmatic people.
Well, Obama carried Philly by 460k+ votes in 2008:
So it shouldn't be a problem in Philly, but my county might be at risk:
Pittsburgh is in Allegheny County. Lots of schools/students here who might get confused.
What a stupid law. Fuck Corbett.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/pa.htm
worldrunover
Member
If not more!
empty vessel
Member
They don't call it warfare for nothing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Well, Obama carried Philly by 460k+ votes in 2008:
So it shouldn't be a problem in Philly, but my county might be:
Pittsburgh is in Allegheny County. Lots of schools/students here who might get confused.
Fuck Corbett.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/pa.htm
The story also mentions 750k potentially disenfranchised voters, and you can bet your ass most are black or young voters. If PA is a blowout, it won't matter. But if this is close...
Byakuya769
Member
Very true.
I would tend to agree with this but then We come around full circle to what we were originally arguing. Your not going to get smart, principled, pragmatic people when you have corporations and large donors muddying up the waters with 10-15 million dollar donations. Which is why they needs to be regulations in place to prevent corruption due to this.
the $100 million is divided between three entities: romney campaign, RNC, and victory fund.
anyway, check out this quote from a NYTimes article that explores the Romney-Murdoch deep-thaw:
this guy can't help himself!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/u...mney-shows-murdoch-doubt-on-candidacy.html?hp
anyway, check out this quote from a NYTimes article that explores the Romney-Murdoch deep-thaw:
this guy can't help himself!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/u...mney-shows-murdoch-doubt-on-candidacy.html?hp
Byakuya769
Member
McKinsey probably could do a better job than the typical "well this guy knows this gal and would get you this person's fealty forever" process that typically goes on.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Ah so Romney, RNC, PAC. Makes sense now
It's starting to seem like Romney is falling behind like McCain did. Obviously tomorrow's bad jobs report will revive him, but for how long? Obama can infinitely change the subject, and the Bain attacks are clearly harming him. Now this offshore account shit is going to do damage as well. The ads write themselves: he basically has spent his professional life betting against America.
I'm sure he'll reshuffle his camp soon, as McCain did. There's still plenty of time obviously, but I think many Americans will go into August/September already knowing about Romney's vulture capitalism and being concerned about it, even if they don't trust Obama anymore.
It's starting to seem like Romney is falling behind like McCain did. Obviously tomorrow's bad jobs report will revive him, but for how long? Obama can infinitely change the subject, and the Bain attacks are clearly harming him. Now this offshore account shit is going to do damage as well. The ads write themselves: he basically has spent his professional life betting against America.
I'm sure he'll reshuffle his camp soon, as McCain did. There's still plenty of time obviously, but I think many Americans will go into August/September already knowing about Romney's vulture capitalism and being concerned about it, even if they don't trust Obama anymore.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Yea, but that is how Obama raises his money too.
- Status