2012 US Presidential Election

[zherok]

Another solidly Democratic state? How that work out for D.C?

There are arguments against DC statehood that don't apply to Puerto Rico. I'm sure Republicans could find a less partisan angle to argue against it, but I think they have a better chance than DC does.

Apparently Romney was even for unconditional statehood if PR was so inclined for it. That could have been purely political pandering for the primaries though. =/

In conclusion OSCE is "not impressed" with the election as they very diplomatically put it.

It's incredibly all over the place, yes. You mentioned centralized voting earlier; we don't even use the same methods to vote from place to place. The way I've voted for years is you use a pen to connect a line marking an arrow at the candidate on a paper ballot. But there are probably countless different paper ballots alone, nevermind different electronic means, absentee ballots, email, etc depending on what place you're in.

Worse, Republicans have focused heavily on voter suppression in the last few elections; the aforementioned disenfranchisement of felons is one thing, but also "roster purges," inconsistent and sudden voter id requirements, all aimed at discouraging people from the polls. One of the most blatant attempts was the Ohio Secretary of State attempting to restrict early voting times in heavily Democratic areas. He couldn't get away with something that obvious, so he ended up restricting them across the state. I'd love to see a more consistent system in place, there's really no reason to handle it haphazardly.

[Tiffanys]

could not vote because they were not registered (whatever the hell that means)

We have to register to vote: http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml

Typically registrations are permanent once registered, but sometimes you can have to re-register. It's pretty easy to check online if you're registered though.

[AceHigh]

Is there any practical reason for that?

[Nikkoru]

Accountability.

You don't register to vote in Norway?
 

[AceHigh]

Everyone is automatically registered, so it's not something we do on our end. Citizenship is a registration... well, Swedes, Danes, Icelanders and Finns that have a permanent address and pay taxes in Norway can also vote. (We might as well make our own Scandinavian union with the way we integrate our neighbours like that)

In fact every time there is an election I get the polling card and I have never done a thing to register anywhere myself. The exception is if you want to register your own political party, then there is some paperwork you need to do in good time before the election. Maybe I will do that next time for the lulz, my campaign will be based on eating babies, banning non-alcoholic beverages and all vehicles must be tracked, with brand new tanks showing up in your local car dealer shops.

[Ixarku]

I always thought that every citizen should automatically be registered to vote as well, but voting in the U.S. is another one of those areas that's regulated largely by individual states.  Frankly, I think it's an outdated holdover from the time of the Constitution's creation, but I suppose it exists the way it does because the idea is that the states as a whole come together to agree on who should be in the federal government.  And of course the actual voting process varies from state to state.  I read somewhere yesterday that Washington state, I think it was, votes entirely by mail.  Some states are experimenting with touch screen machines, obviously, and others are still doing paper ballots.  It strikes me as anachronistic for every state to be doing their own thing.
 
I'm also surprised that no one's mentioned it yet, but Florida is once again the bastion of election day incompetence.  I think it's hilarious that the big important swing state is the last one to get its votes in, and the election has been decided without us.  So I went from living in 'one of the most important counties in the country with regards to the election' to a place that's completely irrelevant.

[Tiffanys]

Actually, if you haven't seen it... we're working on a more technological solution with a new polling machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmPtfy9P714

[Ixarku]

Oh, yeah, I like that one.  Burk or Nikk or somebody else shared that a few days ago.  I reposted that on FB, and a few of my friends got a kick out of it too.

[AceHigh]

Well, still better than EU where citizens don't even get to vote for the EU presidents. It's just some guys that nobody knows or cares about. The fact that there are several of them just makes the clusterfuck even worse.

Also hasn't anyone thought of using IRS database for automatic registration? They are probably the ones closest to a unified database on all legals in the country.

[Ixarku]

Well, still better than EU where citizens don't even get to vote for the EU presidents. It's just some guys that nobody knows or cares about. The fact that there are several of them just makes the clusterfuck even worse.

Also hasn't anyone thought of using IRS database for automatic registration? They are probably the ones closest to a unified database on all legals in the country.

I don't think the issue is whether or not the information could be gleaned from national sources like the IRS.  It's more that tradition and legal precedent has pretty firmly established that voter registration and most regulation of voting rights occurs at the state level.  Almost every state currently requires that people actively choose to register to vote.  As well, I think individual states maintain their own separate lists of registered voters.  With the modern revolution in computer & information technology, I don't see any insurmountable technological limitations in gathering & maintaining the necessary information at a national level, but states-rights people and people who distrust the federal government would likely oppose it.

[Nikkoru]

I can't tell if Florida is incompetent or corrupt. Those long lines are either rooted in intentional disenfranchisement efforts or are merely incidental to terrible planning with no specific malevolent ends.

I didn't understand the Florida situation in 2000 -- being 12 or so at the time -- but I think I get it now.

[Burkingam]

I don't know about raising taxes on the rich as much as we need to redefine our social contract, so that the disparity of incomes is not as insane as it currently stands. And I do not have a solution.

Wow that's an extremely extremely liberal thing to say. I didn't expect it from you.

[Monkeyfinger]

They've had several... this is like their 4th one or something I think.

Also... Churches are pretty ridiculous to be honest... You see multi-million dollar churches usually every couple blocks. Usually 3 or 4 of them at a time... I mean, they have no need for such extravagance. They could use that money to help their communities instead.

If not taxes, maybe some kind of regulations on charitable foundations. Because if people take donations and use it to build palaces... should it really even be considered a charity? It's certainly not in line with proper charities. Maybe some kind of charitable organization regulations need to be put in place, if nothing else.

Who really gives a crap what churches do with the money people willingly throw at them? We have 12 million people who can't find work, 45 million people on food stamps, and the highest poverty rate since like 1940. So if the economy is still in the shitter in 2016 will the democrats get another pass? Will everyone be too worried that the republicans are too rich, too white, too religious to hold office? 

[Burkingam]

Who really gives a crap what churches do with the money people willingly throw at them? We have 12 million people who can't find work, 45 million people on food stamps, and the highest poverty rate since like 1940. So if the economy is still in the shitter in 2016 will the democrats get another pass? Will everyone be too worried that the republicans are too rich, too white, too religious to hold office?

It's not just that we are worried that republicans are too rich, too white and too religion it's also that they are the one who fucking caused this economical crisis to begin with and their so-called "plans" to fix the economy wouldn't do shit except grow the deficit even bigger than it already is.

As for what churches do with people money, I wouldn't give a fuck if they payed just as much tax as people who do something equivalent in a non-religious setting.
When an magician performs some magic tricks to an audience if his public then pays him money for it, he has to pay taxes on this money. Therefore if a preacher perform some religious tricks in his church and people throw their money has him he should pay taxes on it. Also every organisations tax on their properties but churches. Everyone pay taxes on their salary but ministers. Ministers even get a tax credit on the personal home they buy just because they are ministers. Isn't it great living in a multi-million dollars mansion like some mega-church ministers do and paying less taxes than a family living in a bungalow? Meanwhile if a church catches fire still have firefighters going there and saving the day on your dime. If you give tax exemption to churches to do the same things they would have to pay taxes for if it was done in a secular setting, in my book, it's called subsidizing religion and that's unacceptable.

[zherok]

Who really gives a crap what churches do with the money people willingly throw at them?

When people give tons of money to a church that then spends that money on political campaigns that actively seek to bar civil rights from citizens (as the Mormon church did in California with backing Prop 8 ) I think there's a pretty solid reason to give a crap.

Republicans will always find something more pressing than dealing with their reprehensible social stances. Just look how pressing the deficit was under Bush, and how conjoined the party of rape was with the deficit hawks in 2012. We could talk about the economy more if it weren't part and parcel with their social policies.

[Pharismo]

how many condidates there were on USA election? I know there were more then 2candidates or there werent?

[zherok]

Depends on where you live, as some of the third party candidates aren't on ballots nationwide. There were a half dozen on mine (including Romney and Obama.)

[Monkeyfinger]

I agree that religious and charitable organizations should never contribute to political campaigns. In fact, if they do they can and should lose their exempt status.

Both religious and charitable organizations are already heavily restricted under IRS regulation. They are 501(c)(3) organizations and they are not allowed to influence any legislation or participate in election activities. Straight from the IRS website. Why don't you get your panties in a wad over labor unions, which contribute almost exclusively to democrat political causes. Worse yet, in most states their members don't have a choice whether or not to pay dues, it's a condition of employment.

What would a religious establishment even report as income? Are you really so paranoid to think priests and rabbis are taking home big bonuses (on which they would still have to pay income taxes) if their donations exceed their expenses? And if they are, screw them. The government doesn't need to stick its fingers in every aspect of our lives. Taxing them is not the solution, and I would argue is in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

It is far more reprehensible that democrats don't give a rat's ass about economic stability, or people in general. You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific, yet somehow Obama and senate democrats get a pass on 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. So long as we can stick it to the rich and the religious, and we can get free condoms. This is somehow more important than being able to find a job?

[zherok]

I agree that religious and charitable organizations should never contribute to political campaigns. In fact, if they do they can and should lose their exempt status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8#Religious_organizations

It is far more reprehensible that democrats don't give a rat's ass about economic stability, or people in general. You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific, yet somehow Obama and senate democrats get a pass on 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. So long as we can stick it to the rich and the religious, and we can get free condoms. This is somehow more important than being able to find a job?

Oh?

Seriously, you just ran a candidate who's "strong approach" to the deficit was to cut revenue and increase the military budget. We never got to find out how all the math zeroed out, nevermind actually paying down the deficit. Guess we'll never know.

I can only laugh at the not caring about people in general bit. Yes, the party that overwhelmingly got the support of most minority groups is clearly the bad guy here, not the party that talks about rape as part of God's will, or actively sought to curtail voting just to ensure the outcome in their favor.

You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific

I don't know where you got horrific from. I very clearly pointed out how important deficits were for Republicans under Bush, and how important they view them now, under a Democrat. I'm talking Republican priorities, not how important I personally think the deficit is.

[Burkingam]

I agree that religious and charitable organizations should never contribute to political campaigns. In fact, if they do they can and should lose their exempt status.

Both religious and charitable organizations are already heavily restricted under IRS regulation. They are 501(c)(3) organizations and they are not allowed to influence any legislation or participate in election activities. Straight from the IRS website. Why don't you get your panties in a wad over labor unions, which contribute almost exclusively to democrat political causes. Worse yet, in most states their members don't have a choice whether or not to pay dues, it's a condition of employment.

 First, religious organisations can endorse political causes all they want legally as long they don't explicitly endorse a party or a candidate.  And even that they don't respect and openly challenge all the time and they receive no penalty in response.
Second, unions are not 501(c)(3) organisations. They are 501(c)(5) organisations and they don't have access to nearly as many tax breaks as religious organisations.

What would a religious establishment even report as income? Are you really so paranoid to think priests and rabbis are taking home big bonuses (on which they would still have to pay income taxes) if their donations exceed their expenses? And if they are, screw them. The government doesn't need to stick its fingers in every aspect of our lives. Taxing them is not the solution, and I would argue is in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

It's not paranoia. It's knowledge. Look there are frickin amusement par who gain their 501(c)(3) status just because they are religiously themed. I said, churches should be taxed the same way as a secular organisation performing the same activity would be. Meaning if the church is actually performing charities then they would have the same tax exempt status as a similar secular organisation, provided that they also open their books which they currently don't have to do contrarily to any other 501(c)(3) organisation.

And yes, priests living in fucking castles on your dime.

It is far more reprehensible that democrats don't give a rat's ass about economic stability, or people in general. You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific, yet somehow Obama and senate democrats get a pass on 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. So long as we can stick it to the rich and the religious, and we can get free condoms. This is somehow more important than being able to find a job?

Oh you mean liberals so don't care about people that they want to provide them with education and healthcare while Republicans are so generous that they want to provide taxcut for the richests. Shuutz Y democratz hatez poeplez so mutch!?!

The federal expenditures haven't grown faster under Obama as they did under Bush. The only difference is that their tax income have crashed at the same time as the economy and stop fucking trying to blaming the economic crisis Obama. We both know he inherited it from Bush's administration.

And if you understood anything of Keynesian economics you'd stop complaining about the deficit under Obama. When there is an economic crisis increasing the states expenditures despite the deficit is the responsible thing to do and just like fighting the deficit is the responsible thing to do when the economy is going well. If you understood that, then you'd understand why Obama has had the biggest deficits in the middle of an recession and why Clinton had more or less the only equilibrated budgets in the last few decades when the economy was going well. You'd also understand just how incompetent republicans have been, digging the deficit even when the economy is going well and using the recession as an excuse for more austerity.








On other news: Did you guys know that Jill Stein have been arrested last week?