Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is not too much different these days; instead of believing that property zoning is a U.N. conspiracy to dissolve property rights, they believe that Agenda 21 (a non-binding sustainable development plan for developing countries) is a U.N. conspiracy to erode U.S. sovereignty.
Romney Campaign Sues in Wisconsin to Extend Ballot Deadline.
I know Stein is ending up on the Oregon ballot. Usually we're pretty good about including a pretty wide range of third parties in any case.
It's always bugged me that not only do we already have strategic voting making third parties unlikely to be more than a spoiler, but we can't get more than a small handful of states to even include the same ones. That much does need to be locked down on the federal level. For a national position, everyone really does need to be playing off the same list.
edited 15th Oct '12 11:11:48 PM by Pykrete
I'm pretty sure it's only the two major parties that get on the Presidential part of the ballot, though there's probably a write in section I've simply never used. As regards third parties, I'm just kind of terrified of what kind of Libertarian nutjobs might end up popping on to the gubernatorial tickets.
I mean... seriously. The big two have enough crazy people in this state and it's a circus to begin with. Just. Oi, there's a lot of changes to the process that I think would be beneficial but the process would also bring out a lot of nuts.
"I'm pretty sure it's only the two major parties that get on the Presidential part of the ballot, though there's probably a write in section I've simply never used."
It varies by the State.
Here's the Green Party's current situation in regards to the ballots.
◊
And here's the Libertarian Party.
◊
edited 16th Oct '12 1:45:02 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Possibly replying to something that's already been resolved-
Alright, here's the deal, about the unemployment thing. I don't know, or really even care if the number's accurate. The fact is, we've been treating that statistic as accurate since the start of the recession. It's been used to accuse Obama of "not doing his job." Now, it's looking positive for him, and suddenly it's a lie.
You can't have it both ways. You can't suddenly point out the possible flaws and inadequacies of a survey the moment is goes against your preconceptions/interests. It might have a margin of error, but it's highly unlikely it's suddenly become drastically less accurate than it was in the past, back when people were accepting it.
Edit: All surveys are going to have a margin of error. Best you can do is look for the trend, and learn what margin of error is, and what it means.
edited 16th Oct '12 11:58:53 AM by DrTentacles
Thank you for that explanation
Early voting upheld in Ohio, Fox fucks up reporting on the decision.
So, I've discovered that voting may involve walking 20 miles to my precinct office on election day. Here's hoping I can work out a time to vote at the courthouse during the early voting period.
If not, I will totally do it, just so I can tell my kids when they whine that voting is too inconvenient.
edited 16th Oct '12 12:14:17 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Hopefully the President brings up the Washington Post story from today re: Romney sham jobs plan.
7 million of his 12 million jobs are over a TEN year period and the number comes from a study done by a Rice University professor.
3 million of this 12 million jobs are from a Citigroup study that didn't even evaluate Romney's policies but rather talked about how energy independence including fuel efficiency standards Romney will eliminate would create 2.5-3.5 million jobs
2 million of the 12 million jobs are from "clamping down on China". This came from from an International Trade Commission study that again, did not evaluate Romney's proposals, but rather were estimating the impact of China no longer infringing on US intellectual property.
In other words, his jobs plan is completely bogus
"I don't give a rat's ass about going to hell. I guess it's because I feel like I'm already there." -Mugen^
IF you like that you'll love this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/anderson-cooper-mitt-romney_n_1969641.html
Anderson Cooper ftw
"I don't give a rat's ass about going to hell. I guess it's because I feel like I'm already there." -MugenAlso going to remind that Romney cites 6 "independent" "studies" which support his tax plan.
One is from the Heritage Foundation, which, while known for some rather good statistical studies, is also known for becoming pants-on-head-stupid when it comes to evaluating policies in support of Conservative policies.
One is from a Bush Jr economist who said that the boosted economic activity which comes from the lowered taxes would more than make up for the loss of revenue. And we all know how well THAT turned out.
One is from the American Enterprise Institute, which requires that Romney cut preferences for investments, which Romney has promised not to do, and would in fact only go half-way to making the plan workable.
One is his advisers arguing by assertion that the plan works.
And the last two are from the same person in two places, which argued Romney's plan works if you assume growth would be much stronger and if you define middle class as households making less than $100,000 rather than households making less than $200,000. This latter figure is the one Romney has used when he has said his plan would not raise taxes on the middle class.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

ahahaha Virgil Goode
The interesting thing is, from what I know of him, the man doesn't actually believe most of the batshit stuff the Constitution Party believes (like that zoning is a conspiracy of the UN to abolish the concept of private property in the United States). My dad (a local government lawyer) had been considering voting for him based simply on the fact that he was a pretty decent representative up until I mentioned that being a part of the platform.