ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Growing up interferes with tEH OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Presidential Election Part 4
- Thread starter ericredaxe
- Start date
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Me too.
Gotta love Republicans.
Yeah, Romney. Let's abolish FEMA.
http://americablog.com/2012/10/nyt-romney-abolish-fema.html
Me too.
Gotta love Republicans.
Yeah, Romney. Let's abolish FEMA.
http://americablog.com/2012/10/nyt-romney-abolish-fema.html
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Were "guards told to stand down" or was a CIA field office told not to send aid? Are the CIA guys the guards? Are they located at the building that was attacked? Do you guys even bother to make this stuff plausible?
So, you're drawing the conclusion that the CIA is actually saying that they didn't give the order to stand down, but someone else did? Meaning the President? From what I can find, that's a leap, a convenient leap.
I can just as easily look at the statement and conclude that no one was ever told to stand down. The field officers wouldn't have gotten a call directly from the White House, would they? Wouldn't the White House call the CIA and tell a superior what to do and then the order would have travelled down the chain? For the field office to stand down, they would have gotten an order from their superior - who would have been in the CIA.
Maybe I just don't understand how these conspiracies work...
"'Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,' the president again said. 'I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.'
"In response (to the Fox report), CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, 'We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.'"
Were "guards told to stand down" or was a CIA field office told not to send aid? Are the CIA guys the guards? Are they located at the building that was attacked? Do you guys even bother to make this stuff plausible?
So, you're drawing the conclusion that the CIA is actually saying that they didn't give the order to stand down, but someone else did? Meaning the President? From what I can find, that's a leap, a convenient leap.
I can just as easily look at the statement and conclude that no one was ever told to stand down. The field officers wouldn't have gotten a call directly from the White House, would they? Wouldn't the White House call the CIA and tell a superior what to do and then the order would have travelled down the chain? For the field office to stand down, they would have gotten an order from their superior - who would have been in the CIA.
Maybe I just don't understand how these conspiracies work...
"'Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,' the president again said. 'I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.'
"In response (to the Fox report), CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, 'We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.'"
Last edited:
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Something like this comes up every four years, usually attached to "President ____ is going to declare martial law!"
Something like this comes up every four years, usually attached to "President ____ is going to declare martial law!"
This is a nothing story made up by a lazy and stupid press, but I believe this is incorrect. Election day as first Tuesday after first Monday in November I think was codified by a law passed in the 1840's which also set inauguration day in March. FDR had that moved to Jan IIRC. Congress could indeed change the law without a Constitutional amendment but as elections are held on a state by state basis that would be a nightmare.
Regarding Silver, I suspect he's doing a couple of things. 1) Few swing state polls actually show Romney leading. This is a key fact that a statistician would have to take into account moreso than a pundit. Silver discounts partisan polls when coming up with his aggregates, so while he wouldn't dismiss a Rasmussen or a Garing-Hart-something or other poll for the GOP and Dems respectively, he knocks a few points off of it depending on their historical bias. That makes a ton of sense and is probably why he's more accurate. Romney may very well have momentum but until he starts leading in the polling in these states Silver would have to assign them to Obama just like because one poll showed Obama even in Arizona you don't give that state to the President.
2) I'm not sure if Silver is doing this, but some consideration has to be given to early voting trends on a state by state basis. Early voting in CA or TX if it exists there is meaningless, but if you can get good data in NV, CO, IA, OH, NC, FL etc you might be able to shade your predictions one way or the other.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
The GOP will balance the federal budget around the same time that I do.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
RE: Silver:
So take the latest polling:
Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (Newsmax/Zogby)
Florida: Obama 47%, Romney 47% (SurveyUSA)
Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Newsmax/Zogby)
Virginia: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Newsmax/Zogby)
Newsmax is a righty outfit, but I'm not sure if that's reflected in their polling. Lets say for the sake of an example that they tend to shade 2 points GOP. Silver might then conclude in VA say Obama is actually approaching the 50% mark in that state given his ability to hit 48% in a poll tilted against him.
RE: Silver:
So take the latest polling:
Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (Newsmax/Zogby)
Florida: Obama 47%, Romney 47% (SurveyUSA)
Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Newsmax/Zogby)
Virginia: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Newsmax/Zogby)
Newsmax is a righty outfit, but I'm not sure if that's reflected in their polling. Lets say for the sake of an example that they tend to shade 2 points GOP. Silver might then conclude in VA say Obama is actually approaching the 50% mark in that state given his ability to hit 48% in a poll tilted against him.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
The inauguration dates were determined by Constituional Amendment (12 and 20 for March and January, respectively), and how the electoral college works (which MUST be on the same day for the entire country), but a specific date is not specified.
The inauguration dates were determined by Constituional Amendment (12 and 20 for March and January, respectively), and how the electoral college works (which MUST be on the same day for the entire country), but a specific date is not specified.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I also like when people are willing to make predictions based on hard data. There's too much mealy mouthed "it could go either way" in the press. No sh ! t it could, so why are we listening to you? (hint: we aren't).
A guy named John Ellis (Bush II's cousin) pops up time and again and he had an analysis of how if Obama wins 37% of the white vote (low but possible) and the non-white vote remains at 25% of the total (a little less probable but still within the realm of possibility) Romney would win the popular vote. I may not agree with the guy, but he's basing his predictions on something concrete so good for him. Maybe its my financial brain, but I can't picture going into a meeting at quarter end and when the execs as you how the #'s are looking you say "well, too close to call. could go either way".
I also like when people are willing to make predictions based on hard data. There's too much mealy mouthed "it could go either way" in the press. No sh ! t it could, so why are we listening to you? (hint: we aren't).
A guy named John Ellis (Bush II's cousin) pops up time and again and he had an analysis of how if Obama wins 37% of the white vote (low but possible) and the non-white vote remains at 25% of the total (a little less probable but still within the realm of possibility) Romney would win the popular vote. I may not agree with the guy, but he's basing his predictions on something concrete so good for him. Maybe its my financial brain, but I can't picture going into a meeting at quarter end and when the execs as you how the #'s are looking you say "well, too close to call. could go either way".
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
It's not about how much money for each given event. It's about doing the right thing. And, if you screw up, not trying to cover it up with some bogus mob/You-tube video story. FWIW, the Ambassador was caught up in an arms deal gone wrong with Libyans who turned out to be Al-Queda. Same as the Mexican deal. That is why they had so much intel on the compound. Obama and co. knew exactly what was going on and didn't do anything to stop it. Could have been right from the script of "Clear and Present Danger." I wonder who has the "get out of jail free " card.
It's not about how much money for each given event. It's about doing the right thing. And, if you screw up, not trying to cover it up with some bogus mob/You-tube video story. FWIW, the Ambassador was caught up in an arms deal gone wrong with Libyans who turned out to be Al-Queda. Same as the Mexican deal. That is why they had so much intel on the compound. Obama and co. knew exactly what was going on and didn't do anything to stop it. Could have been right from the script of "Clear and Present Danger." I wonder who has the "get out of jail free " card.
streaker, I'm going to mail you a crowbar to get your head out of where its currently lodged.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Don't forget the thousands of dead people voting for the hope N changster in Chicago. You can blame that lie on the Mittagator too.
Don't forget the thousands of dead people voting for the hope N changster in Chicago. You can blame that lie on the Mittagator too.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I guess once you go Joe-the-Plumber you never come back.
I guess once you go Joe-the-Plumber you never come back.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
LOL. 6 days left, then I'll help you do that if the messiah wins again. If not, I'll give you directions to where you can put it.
LOL. 6 days left, then I'll help you do that if the messiah wins again. If not, I'll give you directions to where you can put it.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
At least he knows how to unplug things, rather than continueing to fill up the bowl.
At least he knows how to unplug things, rather than continueing to fill up the bowl.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Proof?
I can see where there would be rampant voter fraud in a Presidential election in a solidly blue state.
OP with a Daley's Chicago reference in 3, 2, 1...
Presidential election, not a local Chicago election in the 60s.
Proof?
I can see where there would be rampant voter fraud in a Presidential election in a solidly blue state.
OP with a Daley's Chicago reference in 3, 2, 1...
Presidential election, not a local Chicago election in the 60s.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
- Status