If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Does it really matter? They were just going to write-in Ron Paul   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, write-ins, absentee ballots, Shindad Air Base, election officials, hanging chads, disfranchisements, Palm Beach County, cargo aircraft  
•       •       •

4383 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 8:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 10:54:00 AM  

GanjSmokr: King Something: GanjSmokr: borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.

Gary Johnson *is* running, and you don't even have to write his name in in 48 states, so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name..

The only wasted votes are those cast for someone you don't agree with.

/swing state Johnson voter

Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes, partly because some of the people who would have voted for Gore had those two been the only guys on the ticket heeded your advice and voted for this guy instead:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 245x290]
so remember that no matter how many names are on the ballot and how much you actually agree with the also-rans, you've really only got two choices.

So if you live in a swing state, especially Ohio and Florida, vote not for the candidate whose stances on the issues you most agree with, but for which of the two major-party candidates you would rather have within arm's distance of the Big Red Button. And vote as if your life, the lives of everybody you know and love, and the lives of every living creature on the face of the Earth depend on it, because the outcome of this election will likely determine whether or not World War Three happens in the very near future.

/100% serious
//early voting in Florida began either 3 or 2 hours ago, depending on where you live
///will vote either later today or tomorrow

The bolded part is where we disagree completely.

You tell me to vote for the person I agree with *most* out of the 2 majors. According to my results at http://www.isidewith.com, I side with GJ 95% and both O/R ~50%.

I will not vote against my morals to make someone else happier with my vote. If one of the major candidates loses by a close margin, that's their own damned fault, not mine.


Look, I'm glad you're standing up for what you believe in, but it's just like I said: a few thousand people who would have voted for Gore voted for Nader instead, for the exact same reasons you're voting for Johnson rather than Obama or Romney.

Bush wound up winning the election because of that (and other factors). 9/11 happened partly because Bush didn't lift a finger or raise an eyebrow after receiving multiple warnings about how Bin Laden was determined to attack; 3000 Americans died. Rather than come down like ten tons of bricks on the people responsible, he half-assed the effort in Afghanistan while cooking up some intelligence that (relatively) semi-liberal secularist Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with ultraconservative theocrat Osama Bin Laden so that he'd have an excuse to start Operation Daddy Didn't Hug Me When I Was In Grade School; 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, tens of thousands more Americans and millions of more Iraqis were injured. Bush then won reelection over Kerry in an election not entirely devoid of the appearance of electoral shenanigans -- an opportunity he would not have had if he wasn't the incumbent. 9-and-a-half months later, hurricane Katrina happened, and the federal government's response wasn't good enough to be called half-assed; hundreds, or perhaps thousands, became homeless.

All because a few people voted for Nader over Gore for the same reason you're voting for Johnson.
 
2012-10-27 10:59:48 AM  

clkeagle: hasty ambush: About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

The Military Times polls exclusively measure the active duty vote. There are over 60,000 Guard and Reserves currently mobilized - you'll generally find more political balance among the reserve components. Another thing that isn't measured - a very disproportionate number of servicemembers are from safely Red states in the first place.

The military absentee vote simply isn't going to affect swing states one way or the other. I wouldn't look for conspiracy on either side - just chalk it up to the utter and total lack of cooperation and planning on the part of large bureaucracies. This happens every election cycle, and they're stunned by it every time.

crab66: Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?

Don't ever do that.

I spent about a week playing around in Yahoo comments last month... never thought I could do anything about the hardcore loonies - just thought some actual facts and data would help influence the younger kids in there who probably don't know any better. I couldn't sleep the first two nights. So I changed my strategy from "reason and logic" to "openly mocking and making funny jokes at their expense." It still didn't help - I had to just give up on it completely.

As much as some of the usual trolls on Fark drive us crazy, they've taken barely two sips of Kool-Aid compared to Yahoo. Most of those commenters seem to be drinking it from a fire hose.



It is a strange phenomenon. I think there's a 'crazy event horizon' wherein once a certain number of crazy people start posting on a forum, the number of sane people starts dropping off dramatically. The sane voices get drowned out by the idiots who have nothing better to do than ramble on about birth certificates and Kenya all day so they just give up.

I think point moderation systems make it even worse. I looked through a few threads and unhid any hidden comment, and every single one of them were reasonable posts. Hell one guy said he was a marine vet and he was voting for Obama. nothing trollish or incendiary: 57 downvotes, 0 upvotes.

And the trollish inflammatory comments were all +50 or more.


Some sociologist should study Yahoo comments. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned about mental disorders.
 
2012-10-27 10:59:49 AM  
badhatharry
2012-10-27 10:50:22 AM
Great_Milenko: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.

in WWII, soldiers probably voted overwhelmingly for FDR, but it's completely irrelevant to this election.

I can see McCain's popularity as he was an actual veteran with a notable service record, but why would they possibly support Uncle Pennybags? Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.

They don't care how much money he has. They know he will protect American lives and not abandon them under fire
.


Pray tell, how would they know that?
He's abandoned every core principle he ever had. But to be fair, only if it was convenient for him.
How many deferments?
 
2012-10-27 11:00:02 AM  

Tor_Eckman: Maybe I am Charlie Brown.

What of it?



I chuckled.
 
2012-10-27 11:02:00 AM  

King Something: All because a few people voted for Nader over Gore for the same reason you're voting for Johnson.


Again, I will not vote for someone who stands for things AGAINST my morals just to make someone else happier with my vote.

Period.

And another again, it's not my fault if neither of the majors EARNED my vote. I don't vote for you just because I hate the other guy more. I vote for you because you REPRESENT what I believe in. These 2 major bozos do not. Thus they do not get my vote. It's that simple.
 
2012-10-27 11:04:51 AM  

EngineerAU: You mean the postal service in a war zone sometimes has issues?


Yeah, but enough about Detroit.
 
2012-10-27 11:07:43 AM  

JohnnyC: Of the few military guys I know, most of them seem to be leaning towards Obama. The one thing I heard mentioned more than once was that they felt he was trying to work towards a peacetime strategy and they liked that. They also mentioned their concern that Romney would take us straight into a war with Iran.

Granted... I don't know a whole lot of active military folks, but that's what I got from the ones that I do.




I have a friend who is in the marines. He's very Liberal and posts pro-Obama things all the time. I usually go in and comment on his statuses backing him up with facts, but man some of his marine buddies are dumber than dirt. I accidentally got sucked into an argument with one of them who said that "Obama supports the muslin(sic) agenda". In retrospect I should have known better than to reason with him, but jesus christ, he was literally calling every single muslim on the planet a terrorist 'whose only mission is to kill christians, as commanded by allah'.

I finally snapped and said "I guess I'll have to go ask my Muslim friends why they're doing a shiatty job of not killing me" and removed myself from the conversation. He then went on an elongated rant about how I must be a "secret muslin(sic)" because no true christian would befriend a muslim.

You just can't argue with stupid.
 
2012-10-27 11:09:39 AM  

sillydragon: The comments on that article are full of the crazy. Not that I expected differently...


This.
 
2012-10-27 11:10:36 AM  
I dont think Obama is going to do well with the military this year, horses and muskets was a great soundbite, but considering that Virginia knows where its bread is buttered (expensive and largely pointless naval defense spending) I actually wonder if that oft quoted soundbite wont cost him Virginia because of military and defense votes.
 
2012-10-27 11:10:39 AM  

GanjSmokr: I don't care for provisions in the NDAA. Again, neither of the majors will do anything about that - they like their power too much.


I'd say there is some difference even on this one point. Romney would be much more likely to actually abuse the offending the section of the NDAA and Obama would very sign a bill repealing Section 1022 if it were to go through congress, who knows what Romney would do though? (yeah I know, Obama shouldn't have signed the NDAA in the first place and taken the hit on not supporting the troops, but I still mostly blame this on congress for putting this crapola clause in such an important bill in the first place).

I do agree with you though that these problematic stances in the Obama administration. But I just take a broader view of the race and look at who will bring more stability and do something about the run away wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

The drug wars will have to be fought on a state level for now, and if enough mandates are passed on the state level federal politicians will eventually have to take notice.
 
2012-10-27 11:11:14 AM  

GanjSmokr: Gwyrddu: GanjSmokr: I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."

On the other hand, I think it is perfectly fair to vote strategically for a major candidate who you agree on a lot or some subjects but not others while the opposing major candidate you disagree on most or all subjects, rather than a third party candidate who you agree mostly with but has an extremely low chance to win.

Our system of voting in the US ensures that the strategically optimal way to vote to maximize the chance of getting the most issues you care about on the forefront is to vote for the one of the two major party candidates who is closest to your position. The exception being when the two major party candidates don't differ in any way that matters to you, then you have nothing to lose by voting third party.

I decided there was just too much I don't approve of with both O/R that I couldn't vote for either and be happy with myself.

I don't care for our drones over other countries dropping bombs on groups of people who we're pretty sure are terr'ists. From what I've seen, neither of the majors will stop that practice.

I don't care for provisions in the NDAA. Again, neither of the majors will do anything about that - they like their power too much.

As my name says, I like to smoke the devil weed. I know that both of the majors are going to continue the war on drugs.

Those are all pretty important issues to me. On all those issues as well as many others, Gary Johnson shares my views of what should change. That's why he got my vote. And I didn't have to feel dirty afterwards.


"Yes, Obama duped young people by not doing every single thing they want, so now, they'll all vote Republican. It's like when I want some bread, I won't settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass." Stephen Colbert

And yes, I know you are not suggesting that people for R, but not voting for Obama only helps Romney. You will only be hurting yourself by voting third party. This is the only real reality of the situation. 

Your posts indicate that you are a young, naive idealist. This is why I thought your calling me "kiddo" was so ridiculous. Now let me not mind my own business for a moment: Vote your ideals down ticket. You are not going to change the system from the top. There are only two choices, and one of them is far better than the other. You do not seem like an idiot, so you must be able to see this. If you want to see more people like Johnson or Paul actually have a chance in national elections, you are going to have to start at the bottom with local and state elections.

Now back to my regularly scheduled minding of my own business.
 
2012-10-27 11:18:27 AM  

Great_Milenko: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.

in WWII, soldiers probably voted overwhelmingly for FDR, but it's completely irrelevant to this election.

I can see McCain's popularity as he was an actual veteran with a notable service record, but why would they possibly support Uncle Pennybags? Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.



My brother-in-law is deployed in afghanistan, he's in charge of managing 'rec media' stuff; like ordering and setting up televisions for soldiers to watch. He says that the only news station they ever watch over there is Fox News. Every other station will get your ass kicked if you don't change it quickly. It seems as though they are simply believing the propaganda and don't really know any better.

Not that the other news channels are any better mind you.

- Kerry served in the military; media called him a traitor.
- Romney protested FOR the draft and then dodged it; media completely ignored it.

- Kerry changed his mind about one thing after he learned that the Bush admin fabricated WMD evidence; media brands him 'flip flopper'
- Romney flips on literally every single one of his positions, sometimes on the same day; media completely ignores it.



Liberal media my ass.
 
2012-10-27 11:20:45 AM  

theinsultabot9000: I dont think Obama is going to do well with the military this year, horses and muskets was a great soundbite, but considering that Virginia knows where its bread is buttered (expensive and largely pointless naval defense spending) I actually wonder if that oft quoted soundbite wont cost him Virginia because of military and defense votes.


Luckily Obama doesn't need Virginia.
 
2012-10-27 11:21:40 AM  

theinsultabot9000: I dont think Obama is going to do well with the military this year, horses and muskets was a great soundbite, but considering that Virginia knows where its bread is buttered (expensive and largely pointless naval defense spending) I actually wonder if that oft quoted soundbite wont cost him Virginia because of military and defense votes.


Except that those folks have been crying that the military has been gutted by Democrats for the last several decades even though the Pentagon has stated they don't need Cold War levels of spending. On the other hand the VA has been consistently cut by Republicans yet they're the ones who support our troops.
 
2012-10-27 11:22:41 AM  

Tor_Eckman: "Yes, Obama duped young people by not doing every single thing they want, so now, they'll all vote Republican. It's like when I want some bread, I won't settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass." Stephen Colbert

And yes, I know you are not suggesting that people for R, but not voting for Obama only helps Romney. You will only be hurting yourself by voting third party. This is the only real reality of the situation. 

Your posts indicate that you are a young, naive idealist. This is why I thought your calling me "kiddo" was so ridiculous. Now let me not mind my own business for a moment: Vote your ideals down ticket. You are not going to change the system from the top. There are only two choices, and one of them is far better than the other. You do not seem like an idiot, so you must be able to see this. If you want to see more people like Johnson or Paul actually have a chance in national elections, you are going to have to start at the bottom with local and state elections.

Now back to my regularly scheduled minding of my own business.


Another farker put this all in perspective a while ago: This is really just single-issue voting. Third partiers have made hay with marijuana legalization talk, garnished with a couple of other pie-in-the-sky ideals and they suck up the votes of people who really just want to smoke weed and care not about the dirty business of actually leading (for now) the world's largest super-power.

When third-partiers tell you they're not going to be proactive in fighting terrorism, they're either misguided or lying to you. When third-partiers tell you they won't sign bills they don't 100% love, they either don't know how Congress works are or lying to you. When they tell you they can have the deficit licked and debt erased in the next 10-20 years, they either never looked at the bill for running a society of 311 million people or are lying to you.

But when they say they want to make weed legal...they might be telling the truth. Maybe. And that's enough to suck a vote away from one of the two guys who actually will be President this coming January.
 
2012-10-27 11:23:58 AM  

MithrandirBooga: theinsultabot9000: I dont think Obama is going to do well with the military this year, horses and muskets was a great soundbite, but considering that Virginia knows where its bread is buttered (expensive and largely pointless naval defense spending) I actually wonder if that oft quoted soundbite wont cost him Virginia because of military and defense votes.

Luckily Obama doesn't need Virginia.


he doesnt, but it would be Gorram nice to have, wouldn't it?


Becha team Obama would sleep a lot better at night if they had say, 2.5 more points in Virginia, God knows I would
 
2012-10-27 11:29:56 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.



Ah yes, the ever familiar if you are against Obama you must be racist chant. If true , the military being about 38% minority (depending on branch of service) you would think that Obama would pull in least 30% instead of a mere 26%.

I could just as easily argue that the only military supporting Obama are either racist (voting FOR him because he is black either because they are black (the Samuel L. Jackson syndrome)or because they have some misplaced sense of white guilt (the Chris Matthews disorder). Voting for somebody because of their race is just as bad as voting against somebody for the same reason.

That 26% is probably majority single parent (who should not be in the military to begin with) gays and the Samuel L. Jackson Chris Matthews types.
 
2012-10-27 11:30:13 AM  

The Great EZE: But when they say they want to make weed legal...they might be telling the truth. Maybe. And that's enough to suck a vote away from one of the two guys who actually will be President this coming January.


On a related note, I remember when Jesse Ventura ran in my state for governor, he also promised to legalize weed and absolutely nothing came of it. On the other hand, Ventura did get the first light rail line worked on because both major parties were too scared of failure to have their name associated with it. Anyway, I remember both the Democrats and Republicans put up douchebag candidates, so Jesse Ventura actually did deserve to win despite all the mockery of a former wrestler governor.
 
2012-10-27 11:30:59 AM  

Tor_Eckman: "Yes, Obama duped young people by not doing every single thing they want, so now, they'll all vote Republican. It's like when I want some bread, I won't settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass." Stephen Colbert

And yes, I know you are not suggesting that people for R, but not voting for Obama only helps Romney. You will only be hurting yourself by voting third party. This is the only real reality of the situation. 

Your posts indicate that you are a young, naive idealist. This is why I thought your calling me "kiddo" was so ridiculous. Now let me not mind my own business for a moment: Vote your ideals down ticket. You are not going to change the system from the top. There are only two choices, and one of them is far better than the other. You do not seem like an idiot, so you must be able to see this. If you want to see more people like Johnson or Paul actually have a chance in national elections, you are going to have to start at the bottom with local and state elections.

Now back to my regularly scheduled minding of my own business.



I'm 40+. I can legitimately call many people here "kiddo". However, when I did it in this instance it was meant to be part of a snarky comment about minding your own business turned back on you. I apparently failed miserably in my snark. Meh. It's not the first time, won't be the last.

I'm no idealist. I just can't vote against my morals nor should I be asked to.

I'm not naive. I know Gary Johnson has absolutely no chance of winning. But if GJ gets 5% of the popular vote, the party gets federal funding next presidential election. That could cause some real change IMHO. It can help to get away from the two "choice" system that is causing much of the problem.

If I want to see more people like Johnson or Paul, I have to help get to that 5%, not vote against it.
 
2012-10-27 11:31:56 AM  
Has anyone mentioned how odd it is that this crash was not reported until now? How do we have details like the weight of the lost mail but no mention of crewman? No other details whatsoever. This is farking weird. Normally a plane crash is news immediately.
 
2012-10-27 11:36:06 AM  
I havent checked this so feel free to laugh at me if I am wrong somehow, but I am pretty sure GJ is already getting federal funds, they were talking about it on POTUS yesterday how his debt was still an issue even after he was getting federally matched payments.
 
2012-10-27 11:36:48 AM  

ExpressPork: Has anyone mentioned how odd it is that this crash was not reported until now? How do we have details like the weight of the lost mail but no mention of crewman? No other details whatsoever. This is farking weird. Normally a plane crash is news immediately.


It's in a war zone and apparently didn't result in any fatalities.
 
2012-10-27 11:40:37 AM  

The Great EZE: Another farker put this all in perspective a while ago: This is really just single-issue voting. Third partiers have made hay with marijuana legalization talk, garnished with a couple of other pie-in-the-sky ideals and they suck up the votes of people who really just want to smoke weed and care not about the dirty business of actually leading (for now) the world's largest super-power.

When third-partiers tell you they're not going to be proactive in fighting terrorism, they're either misguided or lying to you. When third-partiers tell you they won't sign bills they don't 100% love, they either don't know how Congress works are or lying to you. When they tell you they can have the deficit licked and debt erased in the next 10-20 years, they either never looked at the bill for running a society of 311 million people or are lying to you.

But when they say they want to make weed legal...they might be telling the truth. Maybe. And that's enough to suck a vote away from one of the two guys who actually will be President this coming January.


Take the weed issue out completely and I'm still with GJ.

Either way, Amendment 64 in CO is looking like it might pass, so making it legal and possibly making some state funds off it might happen anyway without any help from DC. With a anti-weed president in office (O/R), it might get pretty interesting enforcement-wise.
 
2012-10-27 11:46:44 AM  

theinsultabot9000: I havent checked this so feel free to laugh at me if I am wrong somehow, but I am pretty sure GJ is already getting federal funds, they were talking about it on POTUS yesterday how his debt was still an issue even after he was getting federally matched payments.


Link

From the site tagline, I probably wouldn't believe that site for anything else, but this paragraph was in that article and there's really not much reason to lie about it.

The only third party nominating convention to have received public funds was the now-defunct Reform Party in 2000. Libertarians have never come close to the 5 percent threshold needed to get the money in question.


If I find something contrary to that I'll post it.
 
2012-10-27 11:47:23 AM  

borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.


Ron Paul
votes will be counted in California.

It may be better to be counted in with those that want to try and save their country.
 
2012-10-27 11:50:59 AM  

GanjSmokr: theinsultabot9000: I havent checked this so feel free to laugh at me if I am wrong somehow, but I am pretty sure GJ is already getting federal funds, they were talking about it on POTUS yesterday how his debt was still an issue even after he was getting federally matched payments.

Link

From the site tagline, I probably wouldn't believe that site for anything else, but this paragraph was in that article and there's really not much reason to lie about it.

The only third party nominating convention to have received public funds was the now-defunct Reform Party in 2000. Libertarians have never come close to the 5 percent threshold needed to get the money in question.


If I find something contrary to that I'll post it.


hmm...now I am curious, lets try going to teh googles

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/gary- j ohnson-presidential-matching-funds/1#.UIwCBIYrVkY

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/fec-declares-gary-j o hnson-eligible-to-receive-federal-matching-funds/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82899.html?hp=l6


Unlike President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Johnson, a former New Mexico governor who initially ran as a Republican presidential candidate, accepted federal matching funds to help run his campaign. By doing so, he reaped more than $333,000 in public money for the election cycle.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82899.html#ixzz2AVzrwp00


eh, seems like he is already getting it to me?
 
2012-10-27 11:53:07 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.


How about this,?you find me the last time a Democrat presidential candidate pulled better than 40% of the military vote. Not even Gore or Kerry could do it. The best Dems have been able to do is high 30s in recent history
 
2012-10-27 11:56:49 AM  

hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat


Hey bud, the Democrats aren't the ones known for trying to disqualify ballots. See Florida in 2000, and also the Lisa Murkowski shenanigans in 2010.
 
2012-10-27 11:59:01 AM  

theinsultabot9000: GanjSmokr: theinsultabot9000: I havent checked this so feel free to laugh at me if I am wrong somehow, but I am pretty sure GJ is already getting federal funds, they were talking about it on POTUS yesterday how his debt was still an issue even after he was getting federally matched payments.

Link

From the site tagline, I probably wouldn't believe that site for anything else, but this paragraph was in that article and there's really not much reason to lie about it.

The only third party nominating convention to have received public funds was the now-defunct Reform Party in 2000. Libertarians have never come close to the 5 percent threshold needed to get the money in question.


If I find something contrary to that I'll post it.

hmm...now I am curious, lets try going to teh googles

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/gary- j ohnson-presidential-matching-funds/1#.UIwCBIYrVkY

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/fec-declares-gary-j o hnson-eligible-to-receive-federal-matching-funds/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82899.html?hp=l6


Unlike President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Johnson, a former New Mexico governor who initially ran as a Republican presidential candidate, accepted federal matching funds to help run his campaign. By doing so, he reaped more than $333,000 in public money for the election cycle.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82899.html#ixzz2AVzrwp00


eh, seems like he is already getting it to me?


That's not the kind of money we're talking about... $333K is nothing...

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

PARTY CONVENTION AND GENERAL ELECTION GRANTS

The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant is approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. With the exception of the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, every major party nominee has accepted the general election grant since the program's inception in 1976. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period.

Public grants of $18,248,300 went to each of the major parties for their conventions in 2012.

Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election. 
 
2012-10-27 11:59:55 AM  

King Something: Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes, partly because some of the people who would have voted for Gore had those two been the only guys on the ticket heeded your advice and voted for this guy instead:


Why the hell does Nader get all the blame? Pat Buchanan got over 17,000 votes; Harry Browne got over 16,000 and even John Hagelin got over 2,000. Do you ever hear anyone complain that John Hagelin threw the election to Bush? No, you don't, because it would be stupid. And don't give me the "Nader voters would have voted Gore had Nader not been on the ballot" because it's hogwash. You can't know that, and it's irrelevant anyway.

And by the way, if we're going to say that a voter is throwing away his vote if he casts his ballot for a candidate without a realistic shot at winning, then every Democrat who voted for Mondale in 1984 threw away his vote.
 
2012-10-27 12:00:53 PM  

Great_Milenko: Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.


You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.

farm1.static.flickr.com

www.darleenclick.com
 
2012-10-27 12:03:09 PM  

hasty ambush: Great_Milenko: Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.

You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.

[farm1.static.flickr.com image 294x500]

[www.darleenclick.com image 335x296]


OMG, three people. That's like all the Democrats everywhere for all time! Including General Wesley Clark!
 
2012-10-27 12:03:16 PM  

MithrandirBooga: You just can't argue with stupid.


Not really no...

I don't mind unintelligent people... I dislike stupid people. Unintelligent people just aren't very smart. Stupid people are purposefully and willfully ignorant.
 
2012-10-27 12:04:00 PM  

dstrick44: badhatharry
2012-10-27 10:50:22 AM
Great_Milenko: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: hasty ambush: IlGreven: Great_Milenko: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.

FTFT.

If it was such a myth Democrats would not target military absentee ballots for disqualification (ie 2004 Florida)

About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.

in WWII, soldiers probably voted overwhelmingly for FDR, but it's completely irrelevant to this election.

I can see McCain's popularity as he was an actual veteran with a notable service record, but why would they possibly support Uncle Pennybags? Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.

They don't care how much money he has. They know he will protect American lives and not abandon them under fire.

Pray tell, how would they know that?
He's abandoned every core principle he ever had. But to be fair, only if it was convenient for him.
How many deferments?


He is going to start a war with Iran then spend the next two years in France. Duh!
 
2012-10-27 12:17:38 PM  

hasty ambush: You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.


Yes, because cutting taxes needed to support the most expensive military in the world makes so much more sense. I'm guessing selfless service isn't one of the military values people should strive for despite every army recruit being told otherwise.

right-thinking.com
 
2012-10-27 12:21:09 PM  

hasty ambush: Great_Milenko: Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.

You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.

[farm1.static.flickr.com image 294x500]

[www.darleenclick.com image 335x296]


I disagree with these idiots but at least they ain't dodging the draft for the entire Vietnam war and then protesting to send more people over.

Face it, you can try to insert the extreme left into my argument all you want but Romney is essentially what CCR sang about in Fortunate Son.
 
2012-10-27 12:51:30 PM  

The Great EZE: Another farker put this all in perspective a while ago: This is really just single-issue voting. Third partiers have made hay with marijuana legalization talk, garnished with a couple of other pie-in-the-sky ideals and they suck up the votes of people who really just want to smoke weed and care not about the dirty business of actually leading (for now) the world's largest super-power.

When third-partiers tell you they're not going to be proactive in fighting terrorism, they're either misguided or lying to you. When third-partiers tell you they won't sign bills they don't 100% love, they either don't know how Congress works are or lying to you. When they tell you they can have the deficit licked and debt erased in the next 10-20 years, they either never looked at the bill for running a society of 311 million people or are lying to you.

But when they say they want to make weed legal...they might be telling the truth. Maybe. And that's enough to suck a vote away from one of the two guys who actually will be President this coming January.


this is pretty much how I see a third party vote. It's not "I agree with them, but I won't vote for them because they won't win", it's "I agree with them, but marijuana legalization (which I am in favor of) is not my highest priority at the moment." And it's not like it's some kind of misconception about third parties, it seems like even their own supporters tend to latch onto what are (in my opinion) 3rd tier policy positions as if it was the frontline position and shiat-else was going on in the country.


Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I'm also skeptical of whether or not 3rd parties would actually do anything different against NDAA, Marijuana legalisation, drone strikes, etc. It strikes me as (unfortunately) naivety that will inevitably be met with political reality with the added bonus of not having any political allegiances in Congress. So maybe the bigger issue is voting in 3rd parties on a local, state, congressional levels first, but voting 3rd party in the presidential election just seems strategically inept at this point.
 
2012-10-27 12:57:14 PM  

hasty ambush: Great_Milenko: Everything he represents is the polar opposite of the American soldier.

You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.

[farm1.static.flickr.com image 294x500]

[www.darleenclick.com image 335x296]


Do you really want me to start posting photos of right-wing wackjobs? Do the words "Westboro Baptist Church" mean anything to you? Because I've seen them at funerals of many of my fellow Guardsmen.

If it comes down to the military experience of the two candidates - I'll take the guy who never got involved at all instead of the one who demonstrated in favor of a war he dodged three times. Keeping Obama makes a lot more sense from my military perspective. He takes advice from people who understand 21st century security matters. His administration understands how to use drones, special forces, and technological capabilities to keep boots off the ground, and is extremely hesitant to send billions of dollars and thousands of overpaid contractors to "nation-build."

Romney has surrounded himself with Bush's military and security advisers - the same idiots who have poured thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars into a failed "nation building" experiment in Afghanistan. The same idiots who are responsible for over 4400 American military deaths, 300 allied military deaths, and at least 150,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.

I would have no faith whatsoever in a Romney administration's ability to handle modern international security. They seem to think that we need billions of dollars worth of tanks, fighters, bombers, and warships to defeat a few hundred civilians with assault rifles and cellphone-detonated landmines.

The last few Republican administrations have seen the military as nothing more than an inventoried supply of resources used to implement policy decisions, and are completely apathetic toward veterans. The last few Democratic administrations seem to view the military and veterans as human beings.
 
2012-10-27 01:20:36 PM  
Top Contributors:

Barack Obama
University of California $1,079,526
Microsoft Corp $761,343
Google Inc $737,055
US Government $614,665
Harvard University $602,992

Mitt Romney
Goldman Sachs $994,139
Bank of America $921,839
Morgan Stanley $827,255
JPMorgan Chase & Co $792,147
Credit Suisse Group $618,941

Ron Paul
US Army $115,458
US Navy $92,350
US Air Force $90,611
Google Inc $42,478
US Dept of Defense $39,500
 
2012-10-27 01:21:04 PM  

Tor_Eckman: And yes, I know you are not suggesting that people for R, but not voting for Obama only helps Romney. You will only be hurting yourself by voting third party. This is the only real reality of the situation.


Additionally, I've converted more Romney leaning voters than Obama leaning voters over to Johnson so it's kind of the exact opposite of that in my experience.
 
2012-10-27 01:26:16 PM  
If I were a veteran, I would definitely vote for RON PAUL.

RON PAUL ended the repeated extended 15 month combat tours with no time off in between.

RON PAUL got our forces out of Iraq.

RON PAUL is winding down the war in Afghanistan and should have our troops out by 2014.

RON PAUL rehired General Eric Shinseki the Army Chief of Staff that told Rumsfeld and the neo-cons they were full of shiat about numbers needed for Iraq. (Shinseki himself was under by several hundred thousand.)

RON PAUL doesn't want to break the nation's economy by running up debt building ships and tanks that aren't needed or wanted by the military.

RON PAUL doesn't want to invade Iran unlike some other Republican candidate who has made it a goal of his administration.

Yes, if I were a veteran I would vote for RON PAUL. He's the only logical choice.
 
2012-10-27 01:40:40 PM  

Fart_Machine: ExpressPork: Has anyone mentioned how odd it is that this crash was not reported until now? How do we have details like the weight of the lost mail but no mention of crewman? No other details whatsoever. This is farking weird. Normally a plane crash is news immediately.

It's in a war zone and apparently didn't result in any fatalities.


"Apparently" didnt result in any fatalities? Thats exactly my point. What is your source for this? You don't find it a tad peculiar that there's no mention of casualties in a crash big enough to destroy that much mail?
 
2012-10-27 01:43:54 PM  

Gwyrddu: hasty ambush: You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.

Yes, because cutting taxes needed to support the most expensive military in the world makes so much more sense. I'm guessing selfless service isn't one of the military values people should strive for despite every army recruit being told otherwise.

[right-thinking.com image 320x231]



It is more than about their pay it is about being well equipped and trained. As anybody who was there can tell you about the dismal state of both equipment an training in mid to late 70s and mid to late 90s (Peace dividend my ass).

I am not talking about high dollar jets and ships. But things like mortars, trucks and radios. I am taking about having enough ammo, fuel and spare parts for training. (I remember our vehicles being limited to 3 miles per month, due to fuel costs unless authorized by the Battalion commander).

What good does it have the best aircraft or fighters in the world if you nobody is trained how to use them? Pilots need flight time, sonar operators need experience tracking targets under reatl conditions etc. etc. Simulators are not enough-and also cost money

If you want o look at the real cost of having a military it is personnel and training costs. Procurements costs can be spread out over years and decades but you cannot do that with training.
Look at the Middle East Countries that spend billions on the latest weapons but their troops perform poorly . Their government either do n to want to spend the money on training or do not trust their troops to train them well. They limit that to a so called elite- the Iraqi Republican Guards for example.

You leftists are great about pointing out about how we have the most expensive military in the world but like to ignore the fact that we also have the most expensive welfare(( $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011) and education systems( over $900 billion FY2011) in the world but that does not keep you from insisting they need more tax dollars. 

At least with military spending we have a first class military with hardware and terrorists put down for dirt naps to show for it. Exactly what are we getting for our trillions of education and welfare dollars that warrants giving them more money? Neither system is first class despite all the money we spend.
 
2012-10-27 02:00:44 PM  
If it only affects one zip code, why give way for bad Americans to re-vote again who don't live in that zip code?
(Bad Americans, you know they are out there, voting for Romney or Obama. imageshack.us)
Anyhow...

I wonder that people who know deep in their heart that it's wrong to vote by party...
if they have a bitter taste of something shiatty in their throat when they do it.
 
2012-10-27 02:32:53 PM  

hasty ambush: At least with military spending we have a first class military with hardware and terrorists put down for dirt naps to show for it. Exactly what are we getting for our trillions of education and welfare dollars that warrants giving them more money? Neither system is first class despite all the money we spend.


Bull crap, we have the best university system in the world
Science in the US
which leads to us being on the cutting edge of science which leads to more patents and more businesses which keeps our country afloat, we actually get a lot out of education system.

And you'll get no argument out of me of where our spending priorities are misplaced in the military. Romney would make that problem worse while paying no attention to veterans, while Obama and Democrats in general have done much more to fulfill their obligations to veterans. Part of the issue has been exacerbated especially under Bush by a higher reliance on contractors to do the tasks the troops used to perform because they wanted to act like the war wasn't a big deal so they never got congressional approval to increase the size of the military, it was their way to fighting two engagements while keeping most of the costs off the books.

I'm not going to get into welfare spending because that's a whole other can of worms and I'm short on time. I will say that they w
 
2012-10-27 02:34:42 PM  

Gwyrddu: I'm not going to get into welfare spending because that's a whole other can of worms and I'm short on time. I will say that they w


Sorry, posted too soon. I will say that that a lot of medical care side of welfare can be reduced by going to a single payer system, as every country that has such a system pays much less in welfare than we do in the US.
 
2012-10-27 02:35:29 PM  
 
2012-10-27 02:45:09 PM  

Gwyrddu: hasty ambush: At least with military spending we have a first class military with hardware and terrorists put down for dirt naps to show for it. Exactly what are we getting for our trillions of education and welfare dollars that warrants giving them more money? Neither system is first class despite all the money we spend.

Bull crap, we have the best university system in the world
Science in the US
which leads to us being on the cutting edge of science which leads to more patents and more businesses which keeps our country afloat, we actually get a lot out of education system.



In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders

And you'll get no argument out of me of where our spending priorities are misplaced in the military. Romney would make that problem worse while paying no attention to veterans, while Obama and Democrats in general have done much more to fulfill their obligations to veterans.

Backlog of Veterans' Disability Claims Increases 179% Under Obama

Part of the issue has been exacerbated especially under Bush by a higher reliance on contractors to do the tasks the troops used to perform because they wanted to act like the war wasn't a big deal so they never got congressional approval to increase the size of the military, it was their way to fighting two engagements while keeping most of the costs off the books.

How is contractors driving trucks etc hurting things.? It frees up troops to fight rather than running a water truck form point A to point B our setting up tents somewhere. I wish we had more contractors when I was in.
 
2012-10-27 02:52:50 PM  
hasty ambush:

Let's break this down.

It is more than about their pay it is about being well equipped and trained. As anybody who was there can tell you about the dismal state of both equipment an training in mid to late 70s and mid to late 90s (Peace dividend my ass).

I am not talking about high dollar jets and ships. But things like mortars, trucks and radios. I am taking about having enough ammo, fuel and spare parts for training. (I remember our vehicles being limited to 3 miles per month, due to fuel costs unless authorized by the Battalion commander).


First off - what timeframe are you talking about with the fuel costs? In the 90s we were driving CUCVs, HMMWVs, and deuce-and-a-halfs in huge loops twice a month on the local highways. Why? OPTEMPO miles for Class VIII money.

And do you really want to start talking about the basics? In the 80s and 90s, all services wore the very inexpensive BDU, switching to equally inexpensive desert and cold-weather variants as necessitated by deployment. Now let's fast forward to the modern DoD. We have 2 versions of MARPAT, the ACU, the ABU, and the NWU. These uniforms cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to develop, and eliminated DoD-wide commonality of basic items like pistol belts and canteen covers due to color and pattern. And are those last three uniforms being worn in the AOR? Nope. Deployed units are issued Multicam, which isn't even approved for wear in CONUS.

If anyone in congress or the SecDef's office looked at this for two seconds, they'd slap all four services upside their heads, ban all four utility uniforms, and mandate Multicam across the board. It would be a 60% savings to taxpayers, and that is an extremely small category of supply.

There is no reason whatsoever that the services use different equipment for the same exact missions. Do the services have unique missions and requirements? Yes. But tell me what the mission difference is between their helicopters, land vehicles, ground radios, desktop computers in their offices, commercial fleet vehicles on CONUS installations, etc. There is room for billions of savings across the DoD budget, without any sacrifice of capability.

What good does it have the best aircraft or fighters in the world if you nobody is trained how to use them? Pilots need flight time, sonar operators need experience tracking targets under reatl conditions etc. etc. Simulators are not enough-and also cost money

Yeah, about that whole "best fighter in the world" thing... how many combat hours to F-22s have? Our pilot training, however, is second to none. I've seen ANG pilots flying Block 30 F-16s fly simulated missions against RAAF pilots in their best F/A-18s. Our part-time pilots, in our oldest aircraft, slaughtered the Aussies. And the RAAF, in turn, could slaughter any threat that an undeveloped nation could throw at us our our allies. Our military is ready to respond to any threat, regardless of what is in the inventory.

If you want o look at the real cost of having a military it is personnel and training costs. Procurements costs can be spread out over years and decades but you cannot do that with training.

24% is personnel and training costs. 14% is procurement, which are only the contracts specified in the Defense Appropriation. 44% is O&M, which is the purchase and repair of "things" not specified in the Appropriation bill (anything from vehicles to computers to munitions to contract employees). 16% is R&D - money spent that doesn't result in any actual product this year. So 24% is the "real cost," not the combined 74%?

Look at the Middle East Countries that spend billions on the latest weapons but their troops perform poorly . Their government either do n to want to spend the money on training or do not trust their troops to train them well. They limit that to a so called elite- the Iraqi Republican Guards for example.

What they spend on weapons and equipment is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend, proportional to GDP. You're right about the training though. The Republican Guard, which Fox News painted as our greatest threat during the '03 invasion, were roughly the equivalent of a US Army Private in Week 5 of Basic Combat Training. The average E-4 from the 3rd ID (who handled a good chunk of the invasion) was better trained than most Republican Guard commanding officers.

You leftists are great about pointing out about how we have the most expensive military in the world but like to ignore the fact that we also have the most expensive welfare(( $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011) and education systems( over $900 billion FY2011) in the world but that does not keep you from insisting they need more tax dollars. 

The argument isn't raw dollars - it's percentage of total federal expenditures. We give an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of taxpayer (and borrowed) funds to defense contractors and maintain a ridiculous number of overseas bases compared to other developed countries.

At least with military spending we have a first class military with hardware and terrorists put down for dirt naps to show for it. Exactly what are we getting for our trillions of education and welfare dollars that warrants giving them more money? Neither system is first class despite all the money we spend.

What "trillions" do we spend on education, unless you're counting college tuition? There are 2.1 million active duty servicemembers, and 1.2 million reservists in this country. There are 48 million children in public school. We're spending money on stealth attack fighters that can't fight, tanks that will never see an open battlefield, and a navy whose greatest threats are bomb-laden rowboats and pirated fishing vessels. We're still purchasing weapons to fight a uniformed enemy fighting a conventional war. Other than those 20 days in 2003, our enemy is non-uniformed, using surplus small arms, and hiding among the civilian population. We have no conventional enemies. The only country who could ever pose any conventional threat is China, but they will never be an enemy while American companies are selling Chinese goods domestically. So let's start weaning some of that money out of the defense industry (not from the troops themselves) and back into domestic programs.

What do you think the average Afghanistan veteran needs more? Hundreds of new or upgraded tanks that will never see combat during his few remaining years in the military, or the promise of a healthy domestic economy and an educated population for his entire life?
 
2012-10-27 02:56:50 PM  

Gwyrddu: Gwyrddu: I'm not going to get into welfare spending because that's a whole other can of worms and I'm short on time. I will say that they w

Sorry, posted too soon. I will say that that a lot of medical care side of welfare can be reduced by going to a single payer system, as every country that has such a system pays much less in welfare than we do in the US.


Now I am calling BS. No, other country has a single payer one size fits all system for a very diverse population of over 300 million people spread out over 3 million square miles, not a single one.
Even Canada withe a population of about 35 million (85% of whom live within 100 mile sof the US border) allows each province to run their own type of system. British Colombia's is very different from Quebec's for example.
Both Sweden and Norway give local counsels wide latitude in running their programs.

The idea of a one size fits all plan imposed Washington would work as well as a once size fits all education plan like Obama's race to the top or the Bush /Kennedy no Child left behind .
The Education and health care needs of Utah certainly differ from those of of Washington DC don't you think?
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report