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
Pretty much.
in lighter news, this is 100% fact
@rationalinsanity, the Republican narrative is that the Dems already cheat, constantly, and the system is rigged to hide it. Thus they justify any amount of cheating on their part as "balancing the scales", much as Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced". That this belief is contradicted by facts is irrelevant.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'd be interested to learn more about Romney junior's supposed connection to the voting machines. I can't help but notice that the sources that article links to do not contain the text it presents as direct quotes. As a matter of fact, none of them mention any connection between Romney junior and Hart Intercivic at all. So while I wouldn't be surprised if there is some connection, that particular site appears to be hosting blatant liars and should not be trusted as a source of information.
<><Why choose between corporations and government when both are working together to screw you over?. The battle between capitalism and communism has ended in both sides taking a third option.
edited 20th Oct '12 11:27:52 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly@Loose Cannon; no such luck up here. The Conservative Party got a majority (probably would have won anyway but with another minority) through robo calling voters in battleground ridings that were known to support other parties and giving them false polling station locations.
But this race isn't over. Election night is going to be brutal unless either campaign really screws the pooch shortly beforehand.
edited 20th Oct '12 11:32:02 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I quit following this thread about 20 pages ago 'cause I had too many fast-moving threads the I wanted to keep on my watchlist. Now, some of those threads have slowed down, so I'm thinking of re-joining this discussion.
I don't want to Archive Binge on the admittedly low number of pages I missed, yet I don't want to ask you guys to repeat everything that I missed on the thread. But I would like to know how the televised debates between the candidates have gone.
I read that Obama was perceived to have lost the first one, but how did the second one go? If someone can give me a brief summary about that without taking the thread on an unnecessary repeat of recent pages, I'd be grateful.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Obama came across as far more energetic, confrontational and less tired in the second debate. Romney screwed up by bungling the Libya questions (should have been easy points) and when the question over gender equality in hiring came up he said he had "binders full of women". This instantly (like 20 seconds afterwards on Twitter) became a meme and the main soundbite of the debate.
Obama all but outright called Romney a liar and didn't make any obvious errors. It wasn't a knock out win but Obama has stabilized the situation somewhat.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I attended part of the debate showing/discussion session and this is what I got: the questions were awfully specific, and the candidates weren't so much directly answering them; they were offering tangential proposal/view of the general issue, and incorporating the question into the answer. Not necessarily a bad thing though.
I remember the two of them arguing about when Obama reported the Libya news.
^
Quite.
I guess the questions were so specific that neither of the candidates could have been easily briefed in enough detail to answer them in the debate?
Keep Rolling On

Don't jump to conclusions yet. The current Supreme Court is not 100% predictable. More like 80%, and the other 20% chance upheld PPACA.