2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Thats all im trying to do. And i dont think firstdown or anyone here is routing for a continuation of bad numbers.

I dont think there has ever been this type of disparity before. Its not just a big difference, its a huge difference. Looking at it objectively is trying to figure out why.

Let me help you then, lower unemployment numbers are good. Its always a positive, never a negative.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?

Funny now the left wants to look at things objectively. When Bush was in office when someone lost their job it made national news and the country was going to hell. Any positive news about the economy was then followed by 4 or 5 negative things about the economy. I just point out that alot of the jobs were part time jobs (which is true) and the left gets all up set.

[NC_Skins]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/op...WT.mc_ev=click


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/op...WT.mc_ev=click


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.

Electric shock collars around the candidates necks, jolts administered to be decided by CBO, factcheck.org, whatever organizations can be determined to be fair if any.

And have a 2 minute "shot clock" visible in front of them (so the debaters can see it, and and behind them so all the observers can see it.) When time's up, the debater's mike is cut off and camera cut away, so the moderator can tell the other debater his time is about to start. No exceptions. If the debater tries to continue talking, he gets shocked.

And have more than the Big Two party candidates in these debates. Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitution, any other decent size parties, at least pick a couple to make it at least a four way debate. It might make things more honest.

I know this is all fanciful, but can we at least have the electric shock collars?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/op...WT.mc_ev=click


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.

Every debate would sound like it's attended by a swam of large bees.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Every debate would sound like it's attended by a swam of large bees.

...and on that note.



Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff : Shots - Health Blog : NPR



It's really bad when your own campaign has to correct your mistakes in the debate and even sadder that some of the American people buy the bullshit that Romney is saying. Not sure what Obama was thinking or doing in this debate allowing him to get away with it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?

What side is having the melt down?

EPIC MELTDOWN: Chris Matthews UNLOADS On Obama...

and this one never gets old

You Tube

this is what happens to liberals

You Tube

[los panda]

let's just vote on every issue instead of voting for candidates, every 2 years should do it.

[RedskinRat]

This morning, the non-partisan group, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released its 109 page report, the first ever analysis of election campaign donations issues called, “America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?” raises indications the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage. The use of the CVV number for donation transactions is non-existent by the Obama campaign among other suspicious activity.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

This morning, the non-partisan group, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released its 109 page report, the first ever analysis of election campaign donations issues called, “America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?” raises indications the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage. The use of the CVV number for donation transactions is non-existent by the Obama campaign among other suspicious activity.

That's old news.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

This morning, the non-partisan group, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released its 109 page report, the first ever analysis of election campaign donations issues called, “America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?” raises indications the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage. The use of the CVV number for donation transactions is non-existent by the Obama campaign among other suspicious activity.

I never heard of Government Accountability Institute but a simple search for the group yields the fact that they are NOT a non-partisan group.

If there is in fact a problem with team Obama not collecting CVV then the question is it illegal and whether this practice is prevalent in our political system.

[Chico23231]

thinking about putting up a canidate sign in my yard that says: "MITT is da SHITT"

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

thinking about putting up a canidate sign in my yard that says: "MITT is da SHITT"

I say you put up "I'm sMITTen with MITTen!"
*dated reference but at one point ~half of the population thought Mitt was short for Mitten.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I say you put up "I'm sMITTen with MITTen!"
*dated reference but at one point ~half of the population thought Mitt was short for Mitten.

What about "I'm SHITTen for MITTen!"

[Daseal]

One question for everyone -- is there any use for the electoral college anymore? Is there any reason we don't just do the popular vote? I understand the electoral college when we were unable to quickly and efficiently count votes and report the numbers up so getting a majority and giving electoral votes made sense. Now we have the technology and ability to let every vote count evenly. Let a vote for Obama count in Texas, and a vote for Mitt count in New Hampshire. Am I missing why the electoral college is important?