2012 Election Thread

[theseoafs]

Obama will win, as shown in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mTf6OXlVbi4

"Precincts reporting 99%"

[lordxizor]

My prediction is still that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins based on the electoral college.

[Scheavo]

So what's worse for team Romney regarding his Jeep claims: that the Chrysler report was correctly understood, but they decided to lie about it anyways; or potentially lacking the reading comprehension necessary to understand the report? You know you messed up as Republican when a big corporation comes out and says you're wrong.

Whoa, what's this? I haven't heard about this yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-expands-false-jeep-to-china-ad-campaign/2012/10/30/89e8a986-229d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-mo-autos-marchionne-romney-jeep-20121030,0,2649025.story

[Scheavo]

Obama will win, as shown in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mTf6OXlVbi4

Because you just know you can trust a random you tube video, and that it would be impossible to fake something like this.

[Rathma]

I don't think it's fake, if that's what you're suggesting. Oh here's another example of Obama winning.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/breaking-cincinnati-ohio-tv-station-wcpo-shows-election-night-results-with-obama-win-on-its-website/

So yes, I'm predicting that Obama will win.

[Implode]

It could just be testing. Those numbers don't even match.

[Rathma]

It could be testing, but if Obama's winning in the tests then what does that tell you? It tells you he's going to win.

[Implode]

Good point.

The people who think it's some huge conspiracy theory need to remember that the same thing happened last election. And probably the one before it.

[Super Dude]

The fact that Obama could still win without Florida makes me pretty confident he'll win this.

[Scheavo]

It could be testing, but if Obama's winning in the tests then what does that tell you? It tells you he's going to win.

I hardly see how people working at the local affiliate making up numbers to test their graphics has anything to do with the election. I think I have about as much chance of shitting a golden egg as there is that there's some massive conspiracy afoot here. All it would take is one single local affiliate showing different numbers or speaking out for it to be blown, and in such a huge country, that would almost be assured.

[Rathma]

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. It's more like throwing out little curses.

[Scheavo]

So, they're foretelling the future, or something?

[rumborak]

My prediction is still that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins based on the electoral college.

That would be poetic justice for sure, given how Gore had that happen to him. And maybe, just maybe, it would get a discussion going on a popular vote. You could bet that a popular vote would significantly increase voter turnout, because finally not 80% of the nation cast meaningless votes.

[Scheavo]

My prediction is still that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins based on the electoral college.

That would be poetic justice for sure, given how Gore had that happen to him. And maybe, just maybe, it would get a discussion going on a popular vote. You could bet that a popular vote would significantly increase voter turnout, because finally not 80% of the nation cast meaningless votes.

I'd be curious to see if it would expand third party opportunities as well.

[TL]

So this happened;
http://current.com/community/93945453_romney-rented-mormon-church-s-exemption-to-defer-taxes-for-15-years.htm

The short of it is that Romney basically avoided paying taxes for 15 years, and in a sense, did so by abusing a charitable trust. Seriously.

[eric42434224]

So this happened;
http://current.com/community/93945453_romney-rented-mormon-church-s-exemption-to-defer-taxes-for-15-years.htm

The short of it is that Romney basically avoided paying taxes for 15 years, and in a sense, did so by abusing a charitable trust. Seriously.

No, he didnt abuse the trust....he used it in exactly the manner it was designed, and ultimately shut down.  It is used to remove assets from an estate, and to avoid paying taxes.  It is perfectly legal....but I am not all that keen on someone looking to be the POTUS doing things to avoid paying his share to help the country.

[TL]

So this happened;
http://current.com/community/93945453_romney-rented-mormon-church-s-exemption-to-defer-taxes-for-15-years.htm

The short of it is that Romney basically avoided paying taxes for 15 years, and in a sense, did so by abusing a charitable trust. Seriously.

No, he didnt abuse the trust....he used it in exactly the manner it was designed, and ultimately shut down.  It is used to remove assets from an estate, and to avoid paying taxes.  It is perfectly legal....but I am not all that keen on someone looking to be the POTUS doing things to avoid paying his share to help the country.

Abused doesn't mean 'did something illegal'. The intention of this sort of trust was to avoid taxation on assets being donated to a charity. The sort of thing he did is exactly why this sort of loophole doesn't exist anymore.

[eric42434224]

So this happened;
http://current.com/community/93945453_romney-rented-mormon-church-s-exemption-to-defer-taxes-for-15-years.htm

The short of it is that Romney basically avoided paying taxes for 15 years, and in a sense, did so by abusing a charitable trust. Seriously.

No, he didnt abuse the trust....he used it in exactly the manner it was designed, and ultimately shut down.  It is used to remove assets from an estate, and to avoid paying taxes.  It is perfectly legal....but I am not all that keen on someone looking to be the POTUS doing things to avoid paying his share to help the country.

Abused doesn't mean 'did something illegal'. The intention of this sort of trust was to avoid taxation on assets being donated to a charity. The sort of thing he did is exactly why this sort of loophole doesn't exist anymore.

I agree.

[kirksnosehair]

So, this is really some good stuff here!      The latest Romney line of attack (which, hilariously cites "fact checkers" - you know those people that Romney has said "won't dictate his campaign") has been summarily dismissed as "false" by both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com, which rated it "Pants on Fire" level bullshit.


My response.


 

[Chino]

I know I agree with most of the stuff Bill Maher says... but I agree to an extreme about this bit from last week's show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju8QiPGsJpY

Mainly 2:00+

[Scheavo]

So, this is really some good stuff here!      The latest Romney line of attack (which, hilariously cites "fact checkers" - you know those people that Romney has said "won't dictate his campaign") has been summarily dismissed as "false" by both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com, which rated it "Pants on Fire" level bullshit.


My response.


 

What really blows my mind (Mitt lying about jobs being sent to China doesn't blow my mind anymore, sadly, cause it's just another lie by Romney), is when he attacks for the President for taking the companies through bankruptcy... THE GUY WHO WROTE AN EDITORIAL TITLED, "LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT"!

 

It just disturbs me that this man is taken seriously or somehow as a chance at the office.

[lordxizor]

My prediction is still that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins based on the electoral college.

That would be poetic justice for sure, given how Gore had that happen to him. And maybe, just maybe, it would get a discussion going on a popular vote. You could bet that a popular vote would significantly increase voter turnout, because finally not 80% of the nation cast meaningless votes.

I can totally see the Republicans flipping out if this happened too, while all the Dems sit there going... "Ahem... 2000?" it would be good to see some serious discussion toward moving to a popular vote.

[rumborak]

All it would mean of course is that it would give them just another justification to block anything coming their way.

[Orthogonal]

You're probably right, If Mitt wins the popular vote but Obama still wins, my guess is a 4 year filibuster from the House is on its way.

[Super Dude]

Although as the record shows, it doesn't mean he won't get anything done. Which, by the way, I think people really underplay just how much Obama has managed to get done with what is arguably the most gridlocked legislature in American history.

[Perpetual Change]

My Uncle keeps updating his facebook with statuses like "the landslide begins in 6 days". Does he live in an echo-dome or something? Every poll I've seen has Obama leading by a narrow to fairly wide margin. Are their wacky, wishful thinking electoral maps out there which show Obama loosing the entire electoral map?

[Super Dude]

I really wonder how this place will be when Romney is elected and the country starts getting on track.

[Orthogonal]

Although as the record shows, it doesn't mean he won't get anything done. Which, by the way, I think people really underplay just how much Obama has managed to get done with what is arguably the most gridlocked legislature in American history.

Only so much can be done through executive orders and use of department oversight. This just highlights the lunacy of politics in general. I'm amazed more people haven't given up on it yet.

[Dark Castle]

My Uncle keeps updating his facebook with statuses like "the landslide begins in 6 days". Does he live in an echo-dome or something? Every poll I've seen has Obama leading by a narrow to fairly wide margin. Are their wacky, wishful thinking electoral maps out there which show Obama loosing the entire electoral map?

Fox News shows Romney ahead Obama in every single key state, I don't buy it though. Doesn't matc any other polls I've seen

[Implode]

My Uncle keeps updating his facebook with statuses like "the landslide begins in 6 days". Does he live in an echo-dome or something?

Honestly? Probably. Most people surround themselves with people that agree with them.

[Scheavo]

You're probably right, If Mitt wins the popular vote but Obama still wins, my guess is a 4 year filibuster from the House is on its way.

There isn't any such a thing as the filibuster in the House; the Senate, however, will certainly be no better now than it has been. Republicans have been trying for the last 4 years to prevent an Obama re-election (Mitch McConnell number one stated priority), and if he wins re-election, than it'll be about trying to prevent Democrats from winning in 2016.

Though, if Obama doesn't win the Popular vote now, there'll be a valid question of how much that is due to Sandy. Obama will still win the blue northeast, but voter turnout could easily be lower, meaning he won't get as many votes.

Although as the record shows, it doesn't mean he won't get anything done. Which, by the way, I think people really underplay just how much Obama has managed to get done with what is arguably the most gridlocked legislature in American history.

Only so much can be done through executive orders and use of department oversight. This just highlights the lunacy of politics in general. I'm amazed more people haven't given up on it yet.

Maybe that's because, at the end of the day, most people realize that government is necessary and for the better good.

[kirksnosehair]

You're probably right, If Mitt wins the popular vote but Obama still wins, my guess is a 4 year filibuster from the House is on its way.

The vote won't matter.  If Obama wins the Republicans have absolutely nothing to gain by working with him.  They'll continue to obstruct.  The only way Obama and the Democrats can get around this is 1.) take back the house (very unlikely) or 2.) frame all legislation as budget related and use reconciliation rules to bypass the filibuster.

[Super Dude]

Although as the record shows, it doesn't mean he won't get anything done. Which, by the way, I think people really underplay just how much Obama has managed to get done with what is arguably the most gridlocked legislature in American history.

Only so much can be done through executive orders and use of department oversight. This just highlights the lunacy of politics in general. I'm amazed more people haven't given up on it yet.

But that's just the thing; so much actually has been done, which is downplayed by the media. I guess you weren't here for the thread that listed the tons of things that actually have been accomplished by the Obama administration. And the article I posted that in pure legislative tonnage, Obama has actually passed more bills than any president since LBJ.

[rumborak]

FOX actually acknowledges Obama's current lead, but it heavily emphasizes on the toss-up nature of many states, making it look as if the result was completely up in the air.

[kirksnosehair]

Although as the record shows, it doesn't mean he won't get anything done. Which, by the way, I think people really underplay just how much Obama has managed to get done with what is arguably the most gridlocked legislature in American history.

Only so much can be done through executive orders and use of department oversight. This just highlights the lunacy of politics in general. I'm amazed more people haven't given up on it yet.

But that's just the thing; so much actually has been done, which is downplayed by the media. I guess you weren't here for the thread that listed the tons of things that actually have been accomplished by the Obama administration. And the article I posted that in pure legislative tonnage, Obama has actually passed more bills than any president since LBJ.

I was just reading about that yesterday and my reaction was


I mean, the man has faced unprecedented obstructionism from the Republicans and has somehow still managed to get a lot of stuff accomplished.  It definitely flies directly in the face of the "not enough experience" narrative that the McCain campaign was using against him in the 2008 election.