Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I feel like she is a genius because of her facial expression. She knows what she is doing.
I doubt the way that candidates react to the storm will have any real effect on the election, but is anyone else (on the blue ticket) stressed out and worried that the storm will result in large numbers of North Eastern folks, who are typically easy wins for Dems, not being able to vote? If Obama loses even one or two North Eastern states because of this, that would be all it would take. At a minimum, I fear that this will have a real impact on the popular vote (which means diddly poo on who is the winner, but let's face it: if Obama wins the electoral vote and loses the popular vote, this country is going to poo itself).
Post by Dave Maynar on Oct 30, 2012 16:20:53 GMT -5
I would laugh a little if Obama won the electoral but lost the popular. It'd be like the Republicans got the Democrat's electoral mess of '00 and losing to a beatable incumbent of '04 all in one election. Also, it would be fun to watch Fox News explode about the electoral college being bullsh*t.
On to the reason I came here, I just went to Papa Murphy's to get a pizza. I overheard a couple talking about early voting being on the road we were at. I told them I had seen the sign for voting a couple doors down while I was walking in. The woman (who was 55-ish, had dyed blonde hair with all over tiny braids and short gym shorts on) asked if I was voting for Romney. I told her no. She gave me the shame on you finger wag. Given her appearance, I totally did not see that coming.
Is it true Scott Brown has passed Liz in recent polls?
No. Though polls are all over the place, and I just don't really like to trust them in general. One recently shown Warren up 7, another Brown up 1-2, a third tied.
I'm more worried about the $100M woman somehow pulling a win out of thin air. I'm pretty sure my Linda McMahon campaign infomercial was brought to me by local news coverage of Sandy. It's getting that bad.
Watching the debate won't help change the "two jackass" system. I'm not really sure what can change that.
I have a plan. Kind of lengthy to share on my phone here & probably makes me come off sounding like Admiral Ackbar, though...
Following up on this... for ITM for posing the question & for Dan'ROO as the only one out there who bothered to Like it.
So, yes. We have a two-jackass system. On this, I think everyone can agree.
This is an inevitable consequence of having a system in which representatives are elected via single-member geographic districts. The ensuing results from using such a system is that competition is narrowed to two viable parties. This is why we wind up with one flavor of jackass or another just about every time.
We have problems which haven't been - and won't be - solved by such duopolistic jackassery. I, for one, find myself increasingly of the belief that drastic - but preferably not violent - action needs to be taken.
So, what to do about it?
I teased earlier that I was going to sound like Admiral Ackbar here. We need to find and exploit a weakness in the existing system, and blow the whole damn thing up.
All we really need is one Senator to get it done.
Our Senate rules need to be changed. In the absence of that, considering we've got the ineffectual Harry Reid in charge, we've got the weakness to exploit.
As it stands, any given Senator can - anonymously - place a hold on any pending piece of legislation, preventing it from being deliberated and voted upon. Now, we've seen instances of "hostage taking" on select pieces of legislation. The debt ceiling debate last year comes to mind. I say we need one Senator in there willing to take the whole thing hostage, willing to shut the whole legislature down, willing to make a "do nothing" Congress literally that. Willing to take the whole damn system hostage with a series of demands. Use one of the jackasses' most effective tactics against them.
Barring an impeachment or unlikely rule change (which would have to occur at the onset of a Congress,) that is six years of complete and absolute obstructionism... a hostage with which to make demands, lest literally nothing gets done.
What are these demands? I'm not 100% certain.
I know it begins with a constitutional amendment. Preferably a whole other constitutional convention resulting in something like a Bill Of Rights for the 21st Century, but this is putting the cart before the horse.
Our Constitution allows for two methods of amendment. The first is for an amendment to be proposed in Congress and subsequently be ratified by the states. The second is for two thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to be called by the Congress, to subsequently be considered and (possibly) ratified by the states. Every single amendment proposed in our nation's history, whether ratified or not, has gone through the former process.
Our one brave Senator would have to hold the entire system hostage to amend the Constitution through the latter process. Let's pit the state legislatures against the national one. Let's see who wins.
Of course, in such a shutdown/hostage situation, the states will be increasingly at odds with the federal government. Federal action and aid will be shut down in such a situation. As I see it in this situation, pressure on the federal level from the state level will increase... as will the leverage for the hostage situation.
So, coming back to our hypothetical one brave Senator with the cajones to do this... What are the demands, the amendment(s) to be made?
First and foremost: the censure, resignation and lifetime ban from office for anyone who currently holds or has held (possibly even sought?) federal office from doing so again. (I would be in favor of declaring the lot of them treasonous for their failings, but that might not be part of the end result.) The motivation for your state legislator, aside from taking that wrench out of the works? Obvious - politicians are opportunists, and they will sense an opportunity.
Second? We need to expand the size of our Congress. Yes, it seems counterintuitive, that the solution to the problem of Congress is more Congress... See what I mentioned above, about the scarcity of seats coupled with geographic representation leading to the inevitable two-jackass system. Our Constitution (Article I, Section 3) contains guidelines for the maximum size of Congress, but there is no minimum contained within. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand. George Washington was infamously quiet at our original Constitutional Convention, but he did speak up in favor of this particular language, in favor of preventing the legislature from becoming too large. One representative for every thirty thousand people? Today, that would work out to a House of Representatives numbering roughly 10,500 members. Compare that to the cap of 435 which has been in place for eight or nine decades. This ratio currently stands at one representative for every 723K citizens - a hell of a way off from the Founders' 30K ceiling. Now, our Constitution specifies that we have a republican form of government. It is not precisely one citizen, one vote. We have representatives to make these decisions for us. But we're a democratic republic, dammit. I feel that, collectively, we at least need to try to put the "democratic" back in "democratic republic." That entails a more flexible system, and 435 in the House just isn't doing it. Why a bigger House? To bring the ratio of representatives to people closer to the Founders' ideal. To bring about the end of that duopolistic jackassery which currently reigns. To allow for a method of determining representation other than single-member geographic districts which lead to our present two-jackass stranglehold. To allow for more reflective ideological representation than allowed by a geographic-based winner-take-all system in which one of two major parties inevitably wins. (Give us at-large districts, give us geographic districts with more than a single representative, give us anything better than this...) To give more reflective representation in terms of population. (For example, Wyoming. They have less than 1/435 of our total population, but receive an oversized 1/435 share of our House.)
Basically, throw all the bums out and build a better system than the one which they currently occupy.
Now, I'm not saying these should be the only demands. There is campaign finance, corporations as people, money as speech, and other issues. But if you want to end the two-party bullshit, you have to give third parties a foot in the door. That's not going to happen with the status quo. Not with the advantages of incumbency, not with single-member districts.
Take the hostage, shut the whole damn thing down, send that status quo and its practitioners into the dustbin of history.
Absent something proactive like that... I think we're doomed to either hit rock bottom and wait until it's too late before trying reforms like this, or citizens will have to take matters into their own hands in a less civil manner.
I, for one, prefer evolution to a revolution. But if anyone's got a better idea, I've got open ears...
I have a plan. Kind of lengthy to share on my phone here & probably makes me come off sounding like Admiral Ackbar, though...
Following up on this... for ITM for posing the question & for Dan'ROO as the only one out there who bothered to Like it.
So, yes. We have a two-jackass system. On this, I think everyone can agree.
This is an inevitable consequence of having a system in which representatives are elected via single-member geographic districts. The ensuing results from using such a system is that competition is narrowed to two viable parties. This is why we wind up with one flavor of jackass or another just about every time.
We have problems which haven't been - and won't be - solved by such duopolistic jackassery. I, for one, find myself increasingly of the belief that drastic - but preferably not violent - action needs to be taken.
So, what to do about it? ..... I, for one, prefer evolution to a revolution. But if anyone's got a better idea, I've got open ears...
Interesting proposition. Not likely, but interesting nonetheless. And several food for thought items where I inserted the ellipse. Which I will go think about. Thanks.
I'm in Alabama. Actually struggling with whether I should vote for Obama or Jill stein.
Of course Bama will go to Romney, so I'm wondering which will help my vote "count" more: showing Alabama leaning more dem or more third party? Corporate influence in Washington is a key issue of mine.
I would vote Stein. The only reason you should vote Obama is if you are in Virginia, Florida, Colorado, N Carolina, and Ohio.
Anywhere else you should pick someone who is closest to your beliefs. Pick someone who you actually like, not the lesser of two evils. A third party vote in a non swing state helps show something to the establishment - a vote of no confidence in either the GOP or the Dems.
But you could live in Tennessee - where your Senate race is between a guy who floats around in hate groups and a corrupt asshole. Go figure which one is which, and hope you have a third option.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Bonnaroo 2008-2013
0ct 11 Pearl Jam
Oct 12 Pearl Jam
March 16 Arcade Fire
April 29 Arcade Fire
Sept 4 Wilco
Sept 9 The Hold Steady
Oct 16 Pearl Jam
Oct 17 Gaslight Anthem
You voted for Obama from Texas? I always say if my state is far out of reach, then I vote 3rd party. Unless you're actually a fan of Obama, then ok.
It's the second part.
Yeah, god forbid people vote for someone they want to win the election. I know, I know, they're all evil, blahblahblah.
But Obama has the economy on the rise, unemployment down, the housing market not only recovered but on the verge of thriving again, Osama killed, auto industry saved, a new focus on education and R&D (for any intellectual this should outweigh almost everything else), an economic policy that doesn't ignore 98% of the country, healthcare for all individuals, an energy and infrastructure plan that isn't deplorable...
I realize some people will hate him no matter what, and to be fair that's their right, but when you take the 4 years of Obama and compare it with the 8 years of self-inflicted chaos from the Bush administration, Obama earned my vote. He doesn't just get it by default. He did everything that I've listed (and more), all while dealing with a political party whose strategy was literally to just say no to any and everything the President put forth to Congress.
Maybe it's my intense schooling in economics, but people really don't comprehend how close they were to total and complete economic collapse. I know everyone likes to think the US economy is bulletproof, but that couldn't be further from the case. The US economy used to be built on manufacturing, hard work and innovation. One of those is gone (manufacturing), one is fading (hard work) and the other is the country's best chance for a thriving economy. The money spent by Obama and the federal gov't saved the country and millions of jobs and it's created millions more (I think the figure for last month was close to 150k new jobs). Now the same people who criticize Obama & the democrats for spending a dime (a complaint which is asinine in and of itself) wants Governor Christie kicked out of the GOP for thanking Obama for pledging federal dollars to assist New Jersey's rebuilding and recovery effort.
A lot of the people calling for Christie's head are the same people who get federal assistance when a hurricane slams the south or a tornado ravages the midwest. It's in-sane how a person can take with one hand while simultaneously wringing their other hand at the same act being performed by someone else.
Christie gained a lot of respect from me, and that's from one of his biggest critics. I could be wrong about him, but FWIW it takes a lot for a guy to swallow his pride and ask for help from someone he's spent weeks/months speaking out against. It's hilarious that anything Pro-Obama is seen as Anti-GOP/Mitt, and now Christie is being taken to the cleaners by crazed conservatives with no more bullets left for Obama. Even in times like these, with one of the states with the highest GDP needing its gov'ts help, people have no shame when it comes to using the acts of a select few to try and further a national political agenda. Hey sh*theads, peoples' houses floated into the Atlantic over the weekend, put your pitchforks and torches away for a week and be a human being. It's infuriating this even needs to be said.
But yeah, some of us actually do like and support our President, and many of us think he deserves our vote to continue the work he's done to "steady the ship," so to speak. I get why people in decided states (like NY) would vote 3rd-party, but I also think that if I believe a candidate should win, I should vote for him or her. I think Obama should win, so I'm voting for him regardless of how meaningless my vote is (and it's one of the most meaningless votes in the country, I readily admit that).
For the most part I'm voting Dem, because our G.O.P. options are truly horrifying. The idea of Linda McMahon being ANYWHERE near Washington D.C. makes me nervous.
This is the situation for my area, as well. I still vote in my parent's district and, believe it or not, I'm conservative in a lot of economic issues that would lead me to side with republicans in many situations. But the local GOP in middle-NY is just so atrociously run that the candidates they put forth are insulting.
If they wanted to take over my area they would just need a single charismatic, young republican who can converse with people on a personal level. But they don't do that, they literally have people repeat Romney's speeches to crowds and hope no one is smart enough to know better.
I like Obama because his policies are economically viable, responsible and visible (Romney's plan meets none of these criteria) and his hand was forced by the sh*tstorm handed to him in 2008. If a regular Presidential administration had spent like Obama's without it being dictated by economic failure, I'd vote him out of office, too.
But the GOP's head is so far up its own *ss that it can't see daylight. They can't get out of their own way, and while they have infighting and a lack of any real leadership I will not be voting for them in most cases.
They also essentially punted this election by propping up Mitt, who has more holes in him than a mesh tank top. I can't respect a candidate whose own party doesn't respect him, and that's what they've given us.
Early voted today here in NC. As I was walking in to the polls a sweet (likely delusional) little old lady asked me if I wanted a Republican Sample Ballot. I'm usually quite polite but I laughed right in her face, hard.
Now, now, Horn. Shouldn't my response warrant an up-vote since I show that it is possible to affiliate oneself with multiple parties and vote according to the issues at hand, rather than a blind "this guy sucks, that guy sucks, I vote this way because I always vote this way"?
I'd love to read that, then tell you why you're wrong.
How are you voting down ticket?
For the most part I'm voting Dem, because our G.O.P. options are truly horrifying. The idea of Linda McMahon being ANYWHERE near Washington D.C. makes me nervous.
I want Linda to get elected and then turn heel and bring out the NWO and take over. Then a steel cage match.
Yeah, god forbid people vote for someone they want to win the election. I know, I know, they're all evil, blahblahblah.
But Obama has the economy on the rise, unemployment down, the housing market not only recovered but on the verge of thriving again, Osama killed, auto industry saved, a new focus on education and R&D (for any intellectual this should outweigh almost everything else), an economic policy that doesn't ignore 98% of the country, healthcare for all individuals, an energy and infrastructure plan that isn't deplorable...
I realize some people will hate him no matter what, and to be fair that's their right, but when you take the 4 years of Obama and compare it with the 8 years of self-inflicted chaos from the Bush administration, Obama earned my vote. He doesn't just get it by default. He did everything that I've listed (and more), all while dealing with a political party whose strategy was literally to just say no to any and everything the President put forth to Congress.
Maybe it's my intense schooling in economics, but people really don't comprehend how close they were to total and complete economic collapse. I know everyone likes to think the US economy is bulletproof, but that couldn't be further from the case. The US economy used to be built on manufacturing, hard work and innovation. One of those is gone (manufacturing), one is fading (hard work) and the other is the country's best chance for a thriving economy. The money spent by Obama and the federal gov't saved the country and millions of jobs and it's created millions more (I think the figure for last month was close to 150k new jobs). Now the same people who criticize Obama & the democrats for spending a dime (a complaint which is asinine in and of itself) wants Governor Christie kicked out of the GOP for thanking Obama for pledging federal dollars to assist New Jersey's rebuilding and recovery effort.
A lot of the people calling for Christie's head are the same people who get federal assistance when a hurricane slams the south or a tornado ravages the midwest. It's in-sane how a person can take with one hand while simultaneously wringing their other hand at the same act being performed by someone else.
Christie gained a lot of respect from me, and that's from one of his biggest critics. I could be wrong about him, but FWIW it takes a lot for a guy to swallow his pride and ask for help from someone he's spent weeks/months speaking out against. It's hilarious that anything Pro-Obama is seen as Anti-GOP/Mitt, and now Christie is being taken to the cleaners by crazed conservatives with no more bullets left for Obama. Even in times like these, with one of the states with the highest GDP needing its gov'ts help, people have no shame when it comes to using the acts of a select few to try and further a national political agenda. Hey sh*theads, peoples' houses floated into the Atlantic over the weekend, put your pitchforks and torches away for a week and be a human being. It's infuriating this even needs to be said.
But yeah, some of us actually do like and support our President, and many of us think he deserves our vote to continue the work he's done to "steady the ship," so to speak. I get why people in decided states (like NY) would vote 3rd-party, but I also think that if I believe a candidate should win, I should vote for him or her. I think Obama should win, so I'm voting for him regardless of how meaningless my vote is (and it's one of the most meaningless votes in the country, I readily admit that).
I wish I could quote this entire thing on Facebook. Well said, sir. And you didn't even touch on all the social issues/reasons why I am voting for 4 more years. If anyone out there is a supporter of Obama and lives in a state whose vote doesn't matter (like myself in Louisiana), I implore you to not view your vote as meaningless. If you plan to not vote at all because of this, PLEASE vote. Every vote matters when it comes to popular vote. I know popular vote is not a deciding factor, but it represents the overall opinion of the nation. If the polls are at all close to reality, it would not take that large of a percentage of people to actually show up instead of thinking their votes do not matter.
And to anyone who truly does like Obama, but wants to vote third party because their state's vote won't matter, think about what you are doing also. You may be doing it to simply show your distaste for only having two candidates, but if you truly are an Obama supporter, then you should vote for Obama. Your candidate is part of the two man system. It just wouldn't make any sense.
If you feel like the vote is between the lesser of two evils, and you truly prefer a third party candidate, BY ALL MEANS please vote for your third party candidate. Everyone needs to vote for someone they truly believe in.
We just can't throw away votes. I mean, think about it: If you feel like the system is so screwed up that your vote in your state does not matter, because your state's vote is predetermined and your vote is pointless, then throwing away a vote to a third party you don't truly believe in is even more pointless.
I repeat, this is only for the few people out there, like myself, who live in hardcore Red or Blue states and feel like their votes don't count. Everyone's vote counts. On a larger scale, it could be the difference in your candidate losing by double digit percentage points, or only losing by 6 or 7. It may not sound important, but it is as much of proving a point as voting third party or not voting at all.
For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
I just think its funny because my job consists of maintaining machines and chemical orders for roughly 150 accounts, most of which are small business. So I talk to a lot of small business owners, and most of them tell me how quacked we are if Obama is re-elected. I've always just acted like I haven't been paying much attention and say something about how all politicians are crooks. I need these people to like me, because that's my job, so I can't let them know I'm an Obama supporter.
Last Edit: Nov 2, 2012 13:28:34 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top