I dont have access to one right now. No need to be a dick because you dont like my political affiliations. I think ive been very honest and respectful.
-
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.
United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
I dont have access to one right now. No need to be a dick because you dont like my political affiliations. I think ive been very honest and respectful.
If this means you've changed your complaint to "welfare abuse exists" then I don't think anyone will argue.
No it's not, some research says one candidate one would win if the recount parameters were set one way or another, but you can't say it's a fact that an unknown future would have played out in any certain way.
heliosRAzi
Banned
I think you should read that article. Yes, abuse exists and it is wrong and it should not, will not, and is not tolerated, but it is not prevalent
SteveWinwood
Member
Did they just forget to resize that image or something? There wasting like 3/4ths of that real estate there.
Youre doing it wrong. All I ever said is that these programs are sometimes abused. This proves that assertion. I never said they were always abused by everyone.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If your argument isn't that they're significantly abused, but only sometimes abused then...I don't know what to say. That's going to be true any time you trust anyone.
Necromanti
Member
You made it sound like the amount of abuse in the system is so extensive that it's not feasible. I'm not sure what your argument is anymore, then.
You said:
which implies a great deal of abuse. This is why people challenged your claim.
I don't think anyone will dispute the existence of welfare abuse.
I posted a fair and unbiased article for a reason.
I was only backing up my point that abuse exists.
heliosRAzi
Banned
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
$200,000 wrongfully used out of a total of $46.4 million.
That's not even 1%.
"Widespread" is not how I'd describe it.
Swing State Roundup
Virginia
Ohio
North Carolina
Florida
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Colorado
Iowa
Nevada
I'm going to go back and edit some of these a tiny bit with the new 538 projections. The main thing I learned during this process is that there are a lot of states with incredibly silly flags. We were actually pretty lucky here in California with the bear that was supposed to be a pear.
Virginia
Ohio
North Carolina
Florida
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Colorado
Iowa
Nevada
I'm going to go back and edit some of these a tiny bit with the new 538 projections. The main thing I learned during this process is that there are a lot of states with incredibly silly flags. We were actually pretty lucky here in California with the bear that was supposed to be a pear.
Necromanti
Member
At least we can now all agree that the system works!
Dreams-Visions
Member
SWAG.
You're posting an article that says there's $200,000 worth of abuse out of $46 million?
Also your article shows the program itself is making strides to make sure there is less and less abuse. They even recovered $4 million in abuse the previous year.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Of course abuse exists. It's very much the minority, though. I will ask again--do you think it's worth screwing the majority of people who are legitimately helped by such programs just to punish abusers?
Also, do you think that corruption somehow doesn't exist at all in private charities?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
To be fair, I don't think his argument is this at all. His argument is that he's free not to participate in private charities.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
They are more efficient at fraud yo.
DR2K
Banned
Nah it's ok for job creators to abuse welfare because they create jobs. Unlike poor people that just drain resources just to see the next day through.
The only abuse here is your tortured logic trying to imply that welfare services should be cut as a result of their minimal abuse.
You sound like you're in the practice of throwing babies out with bathwater.
ThatCrazyGuy
Member
What's he arguing? That theres abuse? Of course there is.
That we should cut social programs because of a small percentage?
Not logical at all.
That we should cut social programs because of a small percentage?
Not logical at all.
Gary Whitta
Member
I am way too amped up and not in a good way. Can't remember if I was like this in 2008. I think I was. Seems worse now though.
Did you want to give at least a glazing response to the 1% abuse from the last article, or just power on ahead without pretending to care about analyzing your own sourced information?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Did you want to give at least a glazing response to the 1% abuse from the last article, or just power on ahead without pretending to care about analyzing your own sourced information?
He's on his phone, I think he's just trying to post sources now.
Wow, I can't even imagine how depressing it was for the Democratic party and Gore ticket that night. I remember reading in Sarah Vowell's books that it was extremely devastating but Gore took it like a champ. I wonder how different things would've gone the last 10 years had Gore won. Hm.
Same here. Nervous.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Yeah, give him some time. Even with these articles it shows that the fraud is being caught and dealt with.
You're probably just concerned about your kid inheriting a less free America than you had!
I'm more nervous, but thats mostly because I don't trust Husted in Ohio at all. It's comforting to know Obama can win without Ohio and Florida.
Got a question that has been bugging me for a while (and even poligaf hopefully helps out)
So is it true that there is talk about Obama going around the 22nd amendment and allowing 3 presidential terms as the new limit? There was something out about it a few days ago apparently. I like the guy but thats insane if its true
So is it true that there is talk about Obama going around the 22nd amendment and allowing 3 presidential terms as the new limit? There was something out about it a few days ago apparently. I like the guy but thats insane if its true
Gary Whitta
Member
Husted is definitely primed to be the new Katherine Harris. And I don't find it amusing that my iPad just tried to autocorrect Husted to hustled.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What? No. What? Are they saying that? What? Where the fuck does that even come from?
eBay Huckster
Member
god damn it i KNEW aaron strife shouldn't have leaked his plans in #poligaf
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I just noticed that in Nate Silver's updated blog, the chances of Obama winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote has dropped all the way to .6% while Romney's chance of doing the same was up to 4.7%. So all those people hoping that Obama could win without the popular vote and shaking up republicans into getting rid of the electoral college are going to have to move on now.
And it does make sense that the electoral college will always favor the less populated states. The 2 extra votes regardless of population that every state gets just benefits them too much to really have it offset by the population being overwhelmingly for a candidate that the rest of the country isn't into.
In fact I can't help but wonder if the national polls were being a little cheeky by giving romney an edge compared to the state polls to keep things interesting, only moving back on the final poll of the season as that's the only one they'll ever be judged upon. It'd certainly explain why all of a sudden the national polls decided move inline with the state polls.
And it does make sense that the electoral college will always favor the less populated states. The 2 extra votes regardless of population that every state gets just benefits them too much to really have it offset by the population being overwhelmingly for a candidate that the rest of the country isn't into.
In fact I can't help but wonder if the national polls were being a little cheeky by giving romney an edge compared to the state polls to keep things interesting, only moving back on the final poll of the season as that's the only one they'll ever be judged upon. It'd certainly explain why all of a sudden the national polls decided move inline with the state polls.
Throw a lot of money at charities? Sounds perfectly efficient and not vulnerable to abuse at all!
Gary Whitta
Member
There is talk. Among right-wing conspiracy loons.
I have seen so many charity/non profit that the owner/founder simply have a side business that profit from it.
First thought: That sounds like random conspiracy theory bullshit from the same camp that brought the "obama is a terrorist plant," theory, or the "obama will take your guns" theory, or the "Obama is the Antichrist" theory.
Looking into it on the net, it looks like the whole thing comes from an email on a Newt Gengrich mailing list.
Really... Really... C'mon son.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Stop being so lewd.
I remember hearing this when bush was about to get out of office. I also think I heard that when bill was leaving too. It would not matter anyway because it would most likely only effect the next president.
- Status