I'm too late for this round of elections, but I just sent out my voter registration. I can't wait for the midterms!
Printable View
I'm too late for this round of elections, but I just sent out my voter registration. I can't wait for the midterms!
i can definitely tell you that as someone who deals with the public that there has been more support for Romney here than I ever saw for McCain. If enough upper-class people in the West Hills and wealthier counties flipped their vote that could tip the entire state to Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I already voted for Obama, though.
Looks like a mighty scientific methodology you got there. Can I touch it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TODE
Obama won Oregon by 16 points in 2008. That's a lot of flipping.Quote:
Originally Posted by TODE
With the pot legalization bill up in Oregon I'm sure the younger voter turn out will be a lot higher. And guess who those hippes are more likely to vote for.
Gary Johnson/Jill Stein. But who does that take votes from?
I bet many of the "hippies" won't vote for a presidential candidate at all, if they are just there to vote in legalized marijuana. Just 'cause that issue inspires them doesn't mean any of the candidates appeal to them.
"I just voted for weed. Fuck the rest of that bullshit."
You think the people of Oregon are that corny?
No one knows who the third party candidates are. Not even in Lemme rip one mOregon.
I've served as an election judge a few times in Chicago and I can tell you that plenty of people come in and spend about ten seconds on a ballot, not counting the time it takes to get your bearings. I imagine there are a lot of one-issue voters that aren't thrilled with any of the candidates.
Heck, I briefly considered not voting for president this year but voting the rest of the ballot.
I've decided to only vote for which flavor Mountain Dew should make year round.
Geoff Keighley can help with that.
I would say that SOME are. And I never claimed I was a scientician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
A friend of mine says he voted Libertarian, but he wasn't gonna vote for Obama. So I guess Romney lost a vote there.
I really don't know what will crack the two-party system. It has historical momentum, legislative backing, gobs of money, etc. I know it's a cynical and undemocratic thing to say, but voting third party in this country is throwing your vote away. I think at this point if you're a slick young libertarian type and want to take an ideological stand then I think your best bet is something weird and radical like the Free State Project, but really..let's be honest, it's just a commune without the drum circles.
I'll cancel him out with my Libertarian vote that wouldn't have had a chance of going to Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by TODE
Popular vote instead of electoral vote bullshit, 100% public financing or finance caps, and including everyone in ALL the televised debates might work. Doubtful a single thing could break the two party grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
The attack ads against the WA Democrat governor-to-be are the worst I have ever seen. The insult to anyone's intelligence is astounding.
These ones should be singled out. I wish I could find them online. If these are the worst attacks you can come up with, you suck
I'm just glad this is the last Sunday where every commercial during football is a political ad.
Two more days. Voted anti-Romney (So Obama by default) and pro-gay marriage. I hated to vote yes on every spending bill on the list but they were all necessary. Apparently living in a civilized country is pricey. Who knew?
James
We had no ballot measures at all, which I find interesting. You would think that you would try to get measures on the presidential year ballots, unless you were trying to avoid a high turnout for whatever reason.
I don't think I ever remember seeing a ballot initiative that wasn't during the midterms. Though, I don't think measures and other direct democracy stuff is as big on the east coast, might have something to do with the way and time when our state constitutions were formed. I dunno.
Voted absentee this year.
I voted for Mitt Romney because he's not Barack Obama.
I voted for Tim Kaine because he's not George Allen.
I voted for Scott Rigell because he hasn't been a colossal fuck-up, which is pretty much the benchmark for your average Congressman.
Bonus round: I voted for an amendment that would severely limit the state's ability to use eminent domain.
I thought about throwing my vote to Gary Johnson, but since my protest vote for Barr in '08 didn't exactly shake up the system, I kept it in the mainstream.
Did anyone actually vote for someone and not against someone this year?
You know, personally, I never liked Tim Kaine. The only thing he's ever done I cared about was know Mark Warner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Same here, but Allen is the worst. In a perfect world, Jim Webb would be on the ballot.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Locally we had a sales tax increase and a vote to give more money to the local community college, both of which I voted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I fully expect the sales tax increase to be defeated and the college vote to be passed, which is hilarious to me.
George Allen is the racist, right?
Macaca guy, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
We had twelve amendments on our ballot, all of which I voted no on. One to "repeal" Obamacare, one to allow more funding to religious groups, and ten others that, upon reading, I also said "hell naw." We also had a 3/4 cent sales tax measure to improve local roads (county), which I voted for, and which will undoubtedly be voted out. I think that sales tax measures are the best way of generating income for services that everyone uses. Florida does not have individual income taxes. The other issue was to extend a funding service for local public schools. The county has pretty good schools, and even though I don't have kids, keeping the schools competitive is still important.
Hay guys what's going on here?
All y'all R's ready to lose? ;)
I voted to legalize pot in Oregon. I don't use it, but now we could tax those that do. Take that, hipsters!
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Voted FOR Obama.
FOR a small sales tax increase for law enforcement.
FOR gay marriage.
FOR a couple judges.
FOR attorney general.
But I understand your point.
Many, many folks just don't like whoever is in there/against the status quo.
Dude we've got soooo many shitty amendments on our ballot this year. I don't know what you get up your way but the ads to go with some of them are the worst. I've also heard that this is like the first time in FL history that there are no voter requested amendments ( can't remember the proper term for this) on the ballot. All this shit comin' from Tally-Ho and it all blows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tones
I voted FOR SMOKE WEED E'RRY
it's because it funds the schools and we know they need it.
Thomas Jefferson would've done it too.
Dude, Tommy-J-J and B-Frank were growing the illest ganja money could buy back in those days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
I think 90% of Maine would vote in a weed amendment, if it ever hits the ballot.
Nobody's ever managed to explain to me why gay marriage is bad. "Because gays are icky" doesn't actually count as a reason, no matter how many different ways they find to phrase that sentiment.
One of the attack ads I've seen running around here is against the person who's going to win the senate seat, Angus King. Did you know he put up windmills? That bastard! Windmills, cluttering up Maine's pristine beauty! It's one of those attack ads that makes me more likely to vote for someone, like finding out they're pro-choice or have a functioning education, or similar.
James
Religion says that it is bad. That's about 9/10ths of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Nobody's ever managed to explain to me why we financially reward marriage with tax money in 2012. Marriage allows people to enjoy income tax breaks, estate tax breaks, and Social Security and other government benefits that they would not otherwise be entitled to. I fully support gay marriage for any religion that allows it. I fully support gay spouses being recognized by medical providers as equal to heterosexual spouses when it comes to next-of-kin and visitation matters. I fully support gay partners being accorded the same privileges and protections as heterosexual partners when it comes to inheritance, family leave, adoption, and many other issues. I do, however, question the overall expansion of the federal entitlement infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I might be wrong about this, but I'm guessing we decided to reward marriage financially because of perceived benefits to societal stability and particularly because of perceived benefits to children from being raised in homes with two parents. If there are tax breaks for parents, they should extend to all parents equally, whether it is a home with a male and a female, two males, or two females raising the child. However, I think - and I have not studied this issue in depth, nor do I consider it one of the top issues facing the country at the moment - that we should look towards scaling back some federal entitlements because they are anachronistic.
Clearly, some of the safest places to live in Chicago are areas where there are a lot of single homosexual and heterosexual individuals. And I trust it is the same wherever you go. I don't think being married makes you a greater contributor to society, as some of the best citizens out there are single and some of the greatest scoundrels out there are married. So there's no reason in 2012 to push for marriage to strengthen the backbone of the nation - in other words, it isn't a national security or general welfare issue in and of itself. And we don't need a population boost either.
Furthermore, it is no longer expected or typical that Americans will mate for life with the man working and the wife staying home to raise the kids and tend to the house the entire time. If it were still the case that one spouse worked for wages and the other didn't, then I could easily defend the right of a spouse, and even the right of a divorced spouse, to claim benefits off the pay record of the wage earner. But a spouse - and a divorced spouse - can claim those benefits even if that spouse also worked for an entire career and never had children. In effect, you can have the following scenario:
- Adam and Eve are married. They each worked for forty years and retired at age 62.
- Adam used to be married to Lilith, but they divorced before Adam met Eve. Lilith also worked for forty years and retired at 62.
- Adam made $4,000,000 over that period of time. Eve made $1,500,000. Lilith made $1,000,000.
- None of the three had any children in any relationship. They all worked full-time for those years.
- When Eve and Lilith retired, the government started paying then benefits based not on their own work records, but based on Adam's earnings. They automatically became eligible for a higher benefit just because of their marriages.
So more tax money was spent than otherwise would be spent. And why? To protect children or reward child-rearing? No. To strengthen the fiber of the country? We don't have any reason to believe their lives would have turned out much differently if they just stayed single. So why the extra entitlements and why expand on those entitlements at this point?
It's even more elaborate than what I've laid out. There are situations that completely go against common sense. And the reason they are in place are because some politicians wanted to secure votes by extending entitlements. It's a federal payoff system where constituents exchange political support for extra tax money. I'm telling you, there are a lot of loopholes that would surprise you.
So, I am for gay marriage. I just think it will cause another little expenditure boost among many that should be evaluated by a fiscally responsible Congress, if we ever get one.
I pretty much always will vote for sales tax increases, as everyone has to pay it. My county's only other major sources of income are property taxes and traffic fines. The sales tax votes are purely a political move, however, as it never passes, but it's the county government's way of saying "See? This is why we can't have nice things, you people won't pay more taxes."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tones
Sales tax can hit the poor pretty hard, though. If you have to use 5% of your income (after rent, etc.) for tax at Walmart, the gas station, and the other vendors you frequent, that money is gone. If you have to pay 5% in state income tax, though, you can easily file a return at the end of the year to get that money back if you're too poor. A homeless guy that made ten bucks raking leaves or panhandling will suffer if there is a sales tax increase but won't be affected at all if there is a comparable income tax increase.
We have to pay for the services that everyone uses somehow.
My problem with entitlement reform is that it's often entirely politically motivated and ultimately counter-productive. I'd be all for some sort of bi-partisan commission designed to rewrite all of our country's outdated and inefficient legal code with reforms that make sense for the modern era, but I doubt we'll ever see that. Instead, we get crusades against non-existent 'welfare queens' that gut a lot of good parts of a program to tackle statistically insignificant abuse or worse add even more red-tape as a form of punishment for people who seek entitlements (like 'welfare-to-work').Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Should the government reward people for getting married or offer them special benefits? No. Not on a federal level, but on the state or local level it's been explained to me that some incentives for married couples or at least cohabitating couples helps encourage them to settle in an area, thus adding to the economy and tax base. No different from offering businesses tax breaks to move into your town. So, yeah, on the whole legal recognition for same-sex couples is elementary, we shouldn't even need to debate it, but a re-examination of marriage legislation on the whole should be the eventual outcome. But, if I were a married gay person I'd probably ask why should I lose the chance at benefits that heterosexuals have enjoyed for almost a century if not longer?
The way it was explained to me is that anything he'd buy with that ten bucks would be luxury items; cigarettes, booze, etc. since there are programs and entities in place to provide for all his essentials tax-free (shelters, food banks, etc.) so he should be taxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
My rationalization for supporting sales tax over property/income taxes is simply because there are a ton of people in my area working under the table who pay no income tax, and also do not own land so they only pay property taxes on their vehicles.
I won't lie and say it isn't self serving, however, seeing as how I pay a ton in state income taxes (more than federal) and I'm looking to buy a house.
What is your current sales tax rate?
Mine is 8%. Guys in Buffalo like K3V, Sinista, and Netwurked are at 8.75%.
I think that's a bit high.
7.something% at the moment.
We're at 9.5% with various surcharges bringing it up as high as 12.5%. That highest rate is for soft drinks, and I'm not sure if it's raised even higher by our downtown food-and-beverage surcharge.
Hey, if you are on facebook, help support my cause of electing politicians who will criminalize the act of aborting unborn children conceived in the unfortunate act of rape and SAVE THE RAPE BABIES!
Nick: if out sales tax was that high, I wouldn't vote it any higher either. When you get close to 10% it starts hurting local sales as people go to the internet or neighboring states for large purchases.
Illinois taxes Internet purchases, too, but that use tax is "only" about 6.25% to 7.25%.
City of Big Spending can be the complement to City of Big Shoulders. There's a non-binding referendum tomorrow concerning Chicago teacher pensions and another concerning government employee pensions statewide. Neither will substantially change anything.
Here's my prediction for tomorrow/next week/whenever the SCOTUS decides to just give it to Romney: http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio...php?mapid=bnVU
I'm gonna move Virginia and Florida over to that blue column, but otherwise yeah.
QFMFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Sales tax is regressive.
0.0% in Oregon. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
ours is 7%
but our gas and cigs are kind of cheap. Gas is something like 3.20-3.37 depending
Gas here is around $4.
Marlboros can go for $7/pack
10% here, but I also live in the city with the dubious distinction of currently having the biggest municipal debt in U.S History, so there ya go.
That just seems insane to me. You earn a dollar, you get taxed. You spend a dollar, you get taxed. You save your dollar, invest it, and turn it into two dollars, you get taxed. You have a dollar when you die and want to pass it on to your kid, it gets taxed.
There has got to be a better way. Or at least one that disguises it better so that you dont feel like youre being robbed at every turn.
Investing and turning it into two dollars only taxes you on the dollar you earned. It's no different from earning a dollar in the first place.
And your kid won't get taxed on the money you pass onto him unless you are extremely wealthy.
http://i.imgur.com/9gFIr.jpg
Black guy working at polling place = New Black Panther Party
So that isn't a member of the New Black Panther Party? Or do you just like saying, "black guy"?
I am going to watch the hell out of Fox News tonight.
It should be glorious
It's possible that the amount of money youre allowed to pass on without being taxed will revert to $1,000,000. Accruing $1,000,000 in assets over a 70 year lifespan doesnt make you extremely wealthy.
I don't expect that to happen, but even if it did, truthfully most assets can be shielded fairly easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
In 2011 about 3,300 estates paid taxes. The exemption was like $5 million. Even when it was smaller - in 2007 it was $2 million - only about 17,400 estates were taxable. How many people die in a given year, 1.5-2.5 million?
It's ok to tax money 100 times as long as it's those evil rich people's money.
I'm fine with taxing money that would go to some trust fund kid's cocaine habit and spending it on educating middle class kids. The meritocracy is superior to a hereditary class of ultra-rich.
Where is this mythical meritocracy? Certainly no where unions exist.
Voted today and would like to thank my FL GOP friends who enacted excellent voter restriction laws to combat dirty fraud from libtards like me and making voting less convenient than it could have been, I'm sure the lost productivity across the states will more than make up for it.
You do know that seven percent of labor belongs to private sector unions right?
Doodz, it's a hella strong 7% tho'. I know cuz Fox and Friends told me so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The public sector ones are even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1352215737Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Maybe diff means that black people not only all look alike but dress alike.
No, they just don't roll over and take it like the private sector ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
By not rolling over and taking it, you mean giving horrible teachers tenure and the like of course. Again, they're completely the opposite of a meritocracy.
I'm actually not opposed to more liberal use of teacher replacement to get rid of bad teachers but there needs to be solid metrics in place to determine who is bad.
Test scores are not a good metric, nor is giving a petty bureaucrat like the principal more power.
+1 Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Medical Marijuana, Assisted Suicide from liberal pinko commie Massachusetts
No, I mean keeping good teachers who refuse to teach Creationism because their state legislature is full of morons. Or public utility workers who spent their lives serving their community and are told they shouldn't get their pensions because someone spent the money giving tax incentives to companies who 'hit it and quit it' in their states and localities, leaving empty husk buildings, more unemployed and the taxpayers with the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah, we public employees actually have it pretty good. Cry for the actual poor.
So you don't trust the government, but you want to continue to expand its scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Government is people. There are people I trust and don't trust, I support those I do and work to replace those I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It seems like there's a lot more voter turnout this year than last. Took me over an hour to cast my ballot. Glad to see people exercising their right as citizens. :tu:
What city are you in?
Polling station was in Gambrills, MD.
Hardly anyone in line and voting took about ten minutes. I went early, but it was still a hell of a lot faster than last time.
I voted in downtown Chicago. No line, but this was at 6:30 in the morning. We had two ballots to hand in and mine were numbers 17 and 18 according to a display on the ballot reader. So I was the ninth voter?
Chicago's only letting you vote twice this year?
I spent two hours and was 475th by the machine's count............. at 9 am. Thanks FL GOP!Quote:
Originally Posted by Type Ryan
You really would think that 12 years later they would fix that. Banana republic imo.
12 years and it's still shitty to vote in FL. Luckily we don't use a paper punch system anymore but a fill in the blank scan tron that I'm sure somehow causes problems unseen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
So they moved from the 60's to the 70's? Scantron... jesus.
Voting here uses touch screen kiosks, which work pretty well but sometimes has issues with calibration. Also, old people.
Voting here was as easy as I remember it. They have a ton of polling places, I walked right into mine at 10:00 got my ballot and voted. No wait at all. Yay for having early voting for weeks ahead of time so there aren't big lines
We are presented with the head and tail of an arrow. We fill in the middle third of the arrow next to the name we're voting for. Also, the ballots are ridiculously oversized and come in a garish folder that looks like it was made for a ten-foot-tall hyperopic.
I voted on Friday. In and out in 10 minutes. Shit was so ca$h.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Yup, they hand you a ballot (which was giant and took 2 front and back pages), you go to the little booth where they've left a felt tip marker for you (not a #2 pencil) , color in your circles as best you can and then go put it in a ballot counting box that you pray counts your vote(s) properly. I always feel the urge to "cheat" and ask some one next to me what the answer for County Commissioner is.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
Early voting was turned into a boondoggle due to hour limitations and IIRC location limits as well. Adding picture id checks to every single voter also slowed things down a bit and prolly didn't prevent actual election fraud. Just life as usual for the sunshine state. The wife went to vote on Saturday and spent nearly 3 hours in line for early voting. I was going to vote on Saturday too but by the time the Mrs. got back to watch the kids it was too late for me to go, so I went this morning.
Impartial voting site in Philadelphia:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1352226733
I wish Sandy would have miraculously bypassed NJ and NY and just sat on Philadelphia for a week until there was nothing left.
That could influence as many as zero votes!
All touch-screen around here (for years now). Although I voted absentee about 2 weeks ago. That was the first time for that and I think from now on I'll be voting that way. It was nice to be able to do some research before I voted on a few people with the ballot in front of me and I had all the time in the world.
They should cover that mural.
I voted for Gary Johnson because federally criminalizing marijuana is illogical and strict debt reduction is needed. I voted against Ted Cruz because prohibiting abortion is immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi