Election 2012

[Adak]

This may be a very close election - some pollsters are saying there's a 66% chance of that - but who knows.

We could easily wind up (from looking at the polls), with a popular vote favoring Romney, but an electoral college count that favors Obama - like what we had with Gore vs. Bush, but with the parties reversed.

In the event of a tie electoral vote, The House will appoint the President, (which would be Romney since it's Republican), and the Senate will appoint the V.P., (which would be Biden, since it's majority is from the Democratic party). That would REALLY be weird! (and quite unlikely to happen).

BIG influence from these "battleground" states in a national election!

[Adak]

If Obama wins, it will be historic, because no President has ever won reelection for a second term, with such a high level of disapproval in the polls, since polling records were kept.

Why I don't like Obama:

I'm tired of:

*high gas and diesel prices - but Obama's restricted oil projects, and oil drilling on Federal lands. Even cut down on oil production in the oil preserve in Alaska - chosen because it has no impact on the animals (there are VERY few).

*his abandoning Ambassador Stevens and others, when they came under attack in Benghazi - despite having real time video from a recon drone, and military assets, nearby.

And having his Administration spokesmen talk about it, like it was a demonstration against a video - when he was told by the Consulate, that it was a militia attacking them, with military weapons (mortars, explosives, etc.), and had real time video of the attack, as well.

*crony gifts to his supporters: A123, Solyndra, etc., and his pursuit of his "enemies" (whistleblowers, Conservatives, etc.)

*lack of recovery from the recession. By his own account, he is a failure.

*lies and etc. He didn't close Gitmo, he didn't secure our borders, he didn't improve immigration, he has the justice department file suit against every single state that has passed Voter ID laws.

*failure to pass even ONE budget, in either part of Congress.

*and of course, the huge run up in the national debt.

*Obamacare should have been a crowing achievement, but it's a complete disaster, since all the largest employers have filed for an exemption from it. What kind of a messed up national health care system is that? Small businesses are exempt, and big businesses just need to file for an exemption! What a load of crap!

*inciting hate between classes, and racism. I thought surely THIS President would be color blind - instead, he's anything BUT color blind.
Meanwhile, he had coddled Wall St. (Especially Goldman Sachs), like nobody else.

The only two good things he's done is allow Gays to serve openly in the military, and say Yes to getting Bin Laden.

That's not much for nearly 4 years worth. I'd give him a grade of D, so far.

[DanaC]

Obama has incited class hatred? I'd have put that one squarely at the feet of the conservatives. All that anti-poor, anti working-class, and anti-welfare rhetoric. Republican governors engaging in anti-union and anti-workers' rights activity. That is class war. That is class hatred.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Why I don't like Obama:

I'm tired of:

*high gas and diesel prices - but Obama's restricted oil projects, and oil drilling on Federal lands. Even cut down on oil production in the oil preserve in Alaska - chosen because it has no impact on the animals (there are VERY few).

Obama has no effect on gas and diesel prices. Increasing production does not necessarily lead to lower prices. Too many other factors involved.

*his abandoning Ambassador Stevens and others, when they came under attack in Benghazi - despite having real time video from a recon drone, and military assets, nearby.

And having his Administration spokesmen talk about it, like it was a demonstration against a video - when he was told by the Consulate, that it was a militia attacking them, with military weapons (mortars, explosives, etc.), and had real time video of the attack, as well.

There are too many unknowns to make a definite conclusions. Almost every allegation I've seen has be denied plus there are many other factors that are not being taken into account (Monday quarterbacking).

Benghazi might turn out to be one of those events that only scholars will fully understand years down the road due to how complicated it probably was.

*crony gifts to his supporters: A123, Solyndra, etc., and his pursuit of his "enemies" (whistleblowers, Conservatives, etc.)

I'm assuming you have no proof of this because this is not true.

[quote]*lack of recovery from the recession. By his own account, he is a failure.[quote]
No, it is only a "failure" because of how conservative frame it. I can say the Packer's last year's regular season was a failure if the bar was set at 16-0 (which was widely claimed).

The current recovery is not much different than past recoveries besides the fact that this one is MUCH deeper. Plus, there are many other factors that Obama has no control over.

*lies and etc. He didn't close Gitmo, he didn't secure our borders, he didn't improve immigration, he has the justice department file suit against every single state that has passed Voter ID laws.

A lie implies that he knew he wasn't going to do those things when Obama said that. Those are just issues that didn't turn out for whatever reason, not him knowingly deceiving people (like *cough* Romney's tax plan)

*failure to pass even ONE budget, in either part of Congress.

Ok.

*and of course, the huge run up in the national debt.

Only an idiot would try to solve the debt problem during a recession...

*Obamacare should have been a crowing achievement, but it's a complete disaster, since all the largest employers have filed for an exemption from it. What kind of a messed up national health care system is that? Small businesses are exempt, and big businesses just need to file for an exemption! What a load of crap!

My analysis of Obamacare is that it addressed some issues extremely well, some alright, and some just missed the mark all together. History will tell.

*inciting hate between classes, and racism. I thought surely THIS President would be color blind - instead, he's anything BUT color blind.
Meanwhile, he had coddled Wall St. (Especially Goldman Sachs), like nobody else.

This doesn't make any sense. Most "class warfare" has been instigated by conservatives. Asking the upper class to pay a bit more is not class warfare. Inciting people to attack rich people's homes, loot them, and burning them to fucking ground is class warfare. Gain some perspective.

That's not much for nearly 4 years worth. I'd give him a grade of D, so far.

Now that isn't biased....

[Cyber Wolf]

Y'know, there's a lot of complaint from the red side about how Obama has 'failed America'. But that was their goal to start with, according to some Republican big names (big mouths?).

Republican leaders said they wanted Obama to fail:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Because if he gets re-elected it'll be hard to push through stuff you wanna push through, granted. But how about moving things through that you potentially CAN agree on, assuming no obstructionism? "Single most important thing"? Really?

Rush Limbaugh: "I hope he fails."

We all know he's a nutter but he still has a flock.

Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann:"We’re, we’re, we’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed"

So, so, so glad she never made it out of the primaries.
(Link disclaimer: Link sources do skew blue, but the quotes are exact and even offer recordings.)

So... given two of these quotes are from people who have been considered leaders in the Republican and conservative vein and in a position to get in the way of Obama's bills, I'd say part of the reason for Obama's failure rests with them.

I'm not exonerating the Democrats because their performance has been less than stellar too. But at least they didn't openly state they wanted Obama to fail, take steps to make him a one-term president, work on engineering failure in the Executive Branch then turn around abd try to tell me that he failed on his own.

Srsly, u guys?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

*inciting hate between classes, and racism. I thought surely THIS President would be color blind - instead, he's anything BUT color blind.

Being colorblind IS being racist. In a massively racist society, to pretend not to see the crushing effects widespread racism has on people of color, IS the racist thing to do.

[Lamplighter]

I'm not exonerating the Democrats because their performance has been less than stellar too.

I'm curious about some specifics.

Given the stance of the 2010 Republican Connally/Ryan-controlled House of Representatives,
what could the Democrats do that they did not do (stellar-ish-ly) ?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Adak

I hadn't heard of Gary Johnson, but I wish he had run in the GOP primaries, with us. Would have been interesting!

Wow. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a GOP shill doesn't know a Republican Party outcast.
Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[12] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget through a 43% reduction of all federal government spending, protection of civil liberties, an immediate end to the War in Afghanistan and his advocacy of the FairTax. On December 28, 2011, after being excluded from the majority of the Republican Party's presidential debates and failing to gain traction while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, he withdrew his candidacy for the Republican nomination and announced that he would continue his presidential campaign as a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian Party.[13] He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012. His vice-presidential running mate is Judge James P. Gray of California.

Unfortunately, we have a two party system, so if you want a conservative, and you vote for Johnson, you're handing the election to Obama - because third party candidates never get any kind of a decent number of electoral votes.

Now I'm the uninformed one, can you give me the chapter and verse of your precious constitution which says that?

The last 3rd party candidate that did well, was Ross Perot - who had a good platform - but his supporters handed the election to the democrat, on a silver platter.

There's that entitlement thinking again. The two major criminal enterprises do not have a right to anyone's vote.

Think twice about voting for a third party candidate, and look at the history of them, and their effect on candidates they are closest to in their platform, who are also in the race.

We've heard this tale before. Vote for a war-mongering, religious nutter, crony capitalist when you want limited government. That makes perfect sense.

Don't hand the race to Obama, by voting for Johnson. Get Johnson to run as a Republican, perhaps for a Senate seat? (and President whenever he would like to run for that - but as a Republican, not a Libertarian).

I like the Libertarian platform, but we can't win elections with that party.

Once more a little bit louder. You're forgetting that the GOP is run by war mongers, religious nuts, and crony capitalists, they don't want libertarians. Will we ever find out how much money Romney made on the Delphi automotive bailout scamming the taxpayers and workers alike? Two criminal organizations but the Republicans seem to profit more from the schemes.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Being colorblind IS being racist. In a massively racist society, to pretend not to see the crushing effects widespread racism has on people of color, IS the racist thing to do.

Ibby, you have to be careful with this. There is very fine line between being colorblind (not racist), marginalizing racism (bad intentions), and trying to make up for racism (still racist).

Republicans tend to be racist by marginalizing racism, not by actually being color blind, which would not be racist (that's the definition). In fact, treating someone different based on ethnicity is technically racist no matter the intention. This includes calling black people criminals or Asians good at math. Many white liberals act in racist manners by trying to make up for past racism as well, which can end up be extremely condescending to whoever they are trying to help.

Being colorblind but acknowledging that racism exists is the best bet (ideally) in my opinion.


Also, as a side note...I could call our current "racism" as more of a "culturalism" since very few people believe in race anymore. It is just that culture is tied to race here in The States.

[Ibby]

Psychology Today - Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism

[Ibby]

also, PH45, i take it from your description there that you think it's possible to be racist against white people. That's not true.

Definitions Explained Better Than I Ever Could.

This is an exerpt from the article Why There’s No Such Thing as Reverse Racism. It is a fantastic article and I encourage you to read it in it’s entirety. For now, I want to highlight the explanation/definition of three specific words.

Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype. Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it’s for an ethnic group, or for a religious group, or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people. The important thing is they just don’t like them — in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief. You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you’re careful not to act on your irrational dislike.

Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice. This describes those moments when one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation. Or even because of their looks (there’s a lot of hiring discrimination against “unattractive” women, for example). You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you’re in a position of power over the person you want to discriminate against. White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being interviewed.

Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as “normal” throughout an entire culture. It’s based on an ideological belief that one “race” is somehow better than another “race”. It’s not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.

[Clodfobble]

According to that set of definitions, it's not possible to "be" racist at all, unless you are the embodiment of an entire society. If you want to insist on your definitions--which are certainly not the same as the vernacular usage common today, but the common person isn't always right, it's true--then you might be better served by saying, "an individual cannot be racist, you mean discriminating," rather than leading with the notion that white people can't experience it, since that's bound to be inflammatory to those who are in all good conscience using the terms racism and discrimination as synonyms.

[DanaC]

rac·ism
   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

By strict definition, an individual can be racist and a white person in America can experience racism at the hands of a black person.

I don't think the two experiences of racism in any way equate, mind you. There is a power differential to consider.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibby

also, PH45, i take it from your description there that you think it's possible to be racist against white people. That's not true.

You should really take what I say with an open mind and not assume you know what I believe. These -isms are very complicated and much more vast than the popular labels used here in the states. (Note, this post is much longer than I intended....I'm rambling)

First of all, before throwing around other people's views, we need to talk about the definition of racism. Racism is social doctrine that is held and enforced by a population. This has a MUCH wider scope than the white versus black racism that we usually refer to. For example, if my community thinks Italians are lazy and routinely pass them up on job applications, that community (generalized) is racist against Italians. If a community thinks Chinese people are mathematically smart and only hire them for mathematically based work, that is racism. It doesn't matter the intention or severity, it a group of people enforce a stereotype (social doctrine), it is by definition racist.

I don't want to go too far into this because it is extremely controversial, but I strongly believe our society's narrow definition of racism does more harm than good. We need to realize that since our society is racist, everyone is going to pick up some racist behavior no matter your skin color. I have had discussions with multiple "pro-revolution" black people and they have all admitted that they harbor racist thoughts against themselves as well. Only then, can we have a intelligent discussion about how to address the current state of racism in our society because we need everyone on the same page. Right now, everyone is all over the place so naturally, no one can agree on the best course of action. This why I said earlier in a different thread that racism has changed and so the reaction against it needs to follow as well.


Second, "colorblindness" can mean many different things so we need to figure out what we are talking about. As I said before, there is a difference between acting in a color blind manner and marginalizing racism. Right now, as a graduate student in engineering, I study with people from all over the world. I would never treat the black person I study with any different than the Chinese person I study with. If I did, it would be racist and condescending to the black person because he is just as capable as the Chinese student. On a person to person basis, I try my best to treat every person, regardless of skin color or background, the same.

On the other hand, I recognize the racism in our society and do not try to marginalize it. This line between colorblindness and marginalizing is subjective so there will naturally be some overlap and disagreements but that is another discussion. However, I feel it is best for society and federal institutions to address and equalize the racist inequalities in our society, not individuals. Individuals can take part and support our institutions in doing that, which I do, but I will not take it upon myself, as a white person, to dictate what is best for black people since I have no perspective.


As for the entire "there can be no such thing as reverse racism" crap, that entire discussion is stupid in my opinion because it is narrow minded. Especially now, we cannot quantify racism within a society due to its complexity and fluidness. You can not just assume that racism is flat and equal. There are some parts of our white versus black racial interaction that is racist against white people and some parts that are racist against black people. I just believe that the parts that are racist against black people are MUCH more severe and have a MUCH greater effect on a person's life. So, if you take the "average", yes, it one way, but to claim that racism can only go one way limits discussion of how racism really works and therefore ends up hurting the fight against racism due to lack of understanding.


As a last point, and don't take this as an insult, but I think your signature line "show me a problem you don’t think is caused by white people and i’ll show you how you missed hundreds of years of cultural hegemony and imperialism/colonialism." is racist. Now, I don't believe it is racist against white people, but racist against people of color. By claiming that all of the world's problems are caused by white people is extremely condescending towards people of color by claiming they have no control over their lives. Now, white people have done a lot of fucked up shit and still continue to do fucked up shit to other countries (the not marginalizing part...), but people of color have much more control over their world than you are making it out to be and by denying them that claim of control, you imply that they do not have the ability of self-determination. Just so you realize, white people do not have full control over everyone's lives. We have had a major influence, but people from other countries are no different from us. They have politicians who are lying sacks of shit and opportunist who will fuck over their entire population for wealth and power too.

Thankfully for us, the United States has institutions that protect us to a much greater extent from these fuckers and unfortunately, many third world countries do not enjoy these institutions (partly because of white people...). I know full well that white people can fuck over America and I damn well believe that black people can fuck themselves over as well.

[Lamplighter]

Remember that post about John Ludlow

Now look at the crap going on in that election...


Times Union.com
STEVEN DUBOIS, Associated Press
November 2, 2012

Ballot tampering reported in Clackamas County

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Authorities said Friday they were investigating suspected ballot tampering
by an election worker in one of Oregon's most populous counties.

Clackamas County Clerk Sherry Hall said a criminal violation of election law was uncovered
by her office Wednesday and reported to the secretary of state's Elections Division.
Hall declined to identify the worker or describe the specific nature of theviolation.<snip>

[Skuttle-butt says a female, temporary, employee in the Sec of State's office
was illegally marking ballots for John Ludlow when the original voter had not voted for either candidate.]

Oregon was the first state to conduct elections exclusively by mail,
and this is the fourth presidential election in which the system has been used.
Despite initial fears that the method would lead to fraud, allegations have been rare.

Because it's a criminal matter, the Elections Division referred the case to the state Department of Justice.

"We can confirm we are currently investigating criminal felony violations of Oregon's election laws,
which allegedly took place in Clackamas County and allegedly involved a
temporary county elections employee tampering with cast ballots," said Jeff Manning,
a department spokesman.
<snip>

Officials wouldn't say how extensive they suspect the tampering might have been.
About 95,500 of the county's 228,000 registered voters had returned their ballots as of Thursday.

Clackamas County is home to 10 percent of Oregon's registered voters,
and is almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats,
It's considered a swing county that is pivotal in deciding close statewide races.
Three neck-and-neck legislative races could be decisive in determining
which party controls the state House.

Republicans party officials are already denying everything,
and demanding an apology from Ludlow's opponent, Charlette Lehan,
after her campaign chairman made the following statement:

“It throws the entire election result in doubt at this point,”
said Chris Edmonds, campaign manager for Lehan
“We don’t whether this was part of a larger and more coordinated effort in the elections office.”