Romney vs. Obama

[LightyKD]

Hate to double post so please forgive but, NEW strategy kids! We vote Obama in now, get Jill Stein to switch parties (From Green Party to Democratic) temporarily and get her on the 2016 Democratic ticket. That way we can have another bad-ass as president for eight more years and secure some progress for this damn country!


Jill Stein's Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jill_Stein

 

[pubert09]

I love how a few people don't really answer the question....

I would have to say Obama. I have looked at both candidates' views on things, and I agree with Obama more than Romney over the issues that are more important to me.

As for winning I have no idea. I haven't heard much as far as who will vote for who besides here or how likely they will win on news sources.

 

[The Catboy]

How come no one has ever informed me of Jill Stein?
I am throwing my vote to her now!

Jill Stein is a badass, but since she has no chance of winning, a vote for her actually helps Mitt Romney. Since she and Obama are 80-90% the same, I would just as soon vote for Obama, even if my political quiz had come out with Jill Stein on top. That's my view anyway.

Also, for those of you who want to see how we answered our political quizzes, all you have to do is take the numerical code in our picture URLs and paste them in the results URL. For example:

My results photo: http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/67835249.jpg

My code: 67835249

My results page: http://www.isidewith.com/results/67835249

She's not just a bad ass, I looked her up and was shocked that there was someone out there that literally stood for the same things I stand on! Almost every last detail!

 

[Skelletonike]

I'm not American but I did that quizz just for fun:

I didn't even know of that woman, but it seems like she and Obama value the environment and immigration problems (I don't live there but I know that it's pretty hard for illegal immigrants, especially the kids, which are innocent).

Well, it's hard to find any real decent politicians nowadays, and it takes a long time to change a country, especially one as big as the USA, so people shouldn't diss Obama that much.

 

[Hanafuda]

And one final point: There have been 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud, and 400 cases of registration fraud in the entire country since 2000, and it's likely that the new voting laws in Pennsylvania alone will potentially bar 758,000 registered voters from voting in the state.

No, those are just the ones that have been caught and successfully prosecuted, i.e. proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For every one instance that gets caught, how many do you figure get away with it? How many do you figure get caught, but a good criminal defense lawyer finds a hole in the case and gets it pleaded to something else? And for every one instance of fraud in your statistics, how many actual fraudulent votes? Don't tell me 1 fraudulent vote per case - after the 2010 election they arrested the county clerk, county commissioner, and the county sheriff of a county not too far from where I live, and they admitted to stuffing the box with "over 100" fraudulent absentee ballots, which means there was more likely hundreds. That counts as one case in your list, but at least a hundred votes.

Statistics never tell the truth.

 

[Lacius]

No, those are just the ones that have been caught and successfully prosecuted, i.e. proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For every one instance that gets caught, how many do you figure get away with it? How many do you figure get caught, but a good criminal defense lawyer finds a hole in the case and gets it pleaded to something else? And for every one instance of fraud in your statistics, how many actual fraudulent votes? Don't tell me 1 fraudulent vote per case - after the 2010 election they arrested the county clerk, county commissioner, and the county sheriff of a county not too far from where I live, and they admitted to stuffing the box with "over 100" fraudulent absentee ballots, which means there was more likely hundreds. That counts as one case in your list, but at least a hundred votes.

The type of voter fraud you're referring to would in no way be affected by stricter voter ID laws, so forgive me if I'm failing to see your point. If you do some more research on the topic, you'll see that the number of in-person voter fraud cases in the U.S. does not warrant potentially barring 758,000 registered voters from voting (in Pennsylvania alone). Side note: I picked Pennsylvania as my example arbitrarily.

Statistics never tell the truth.

That's a pretty bold statement, haha. It's also a pretty convenient belief to have when one is making bold claims and either doesn't want to have to provide evidence or wants to ignore contradictory evidence. Quite honestly, it appears that voter suppression is the real voter fraud.

 

[Hanafuda]

Statistics never tell the truth.

That's a pretty bold statement, haha. It's also a pretty convenient belief to have when one is making bold claims and either doesn't want to have to provide evidence or wants to ignore contradictory evidence. Quite honestly, it appears that voter suppression is the real voter fraud.

The purpose of a statistic in politics is to distract the audience from the big picture and instead focus their attention on a tiny 'fact' and present it as the whole truth. Case in point, your number of 758,000 people in Pennsylvania who won't get to vote. It's horseshit. First of all, where does the number come from? Democrat party state officials. Second, what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%? Then what do you figure is the typical voter turnout among people who've never bothered to obtain either a driver's license or govt-issued ID? Finally, that total is based on the number of total registered voters in the state, but every state in this country is full of voter registration rolls that are greater than the actual population (including children, puppy dogs, and trees).

Statistics never tell the truth.

 

[BlueStar]

what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%?

Not possible, because that's a statistic so it cannot be true.

Anyway, looks like you got yesterday's GOP line-toing memo about what position to take if people start trying these dirty liberal tactics of using things like facts and evidence.

'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers'

http://www.theatlant...heckers/261674/

Quite...

 

[Guild McCommunist]

If anyone's curious...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/

 

[Lacius]

The purpose of a statistic in politics is to distract the audience from the big picture and instead focus their attention on a tiny 'fact' and present it as the whole truth. Case in point, your number of 758,000 people in Pennsylvania who won't get to vote. It's horseshit. First of all, where does the number come from? Democrat party state officials. Second, what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%? Then what do you figure is the typical voter turnout among people who've never bothered to obtain either a driver's license or govt-issued ID? Finally, that total is based on the number of total registered voters in the state, but every state in this country is full of voter registration rolls that are greater than the actual population (including children, puppy dogs, and trees).

To be fair, I never said, "758,000 people in Pennsylvania who won't get to vote." I was very careful in how I worded that, so please go back and read. You're not going to change the fact that all the estimates point to there being 758,000 registered voters who do not currently have the proper voter ID in Pennsylvania. A lot can change between now and then, so I'm definitely not claiming that there will still be 758,000 people in Pennsylvania who are unable to vote, and I'm not claiming that all 758,000 of those registered voters will try to vote, but those are the facts. Unless you can show me a.) In-person voter fraud is a much bigger issue than the facts appear to claim, or b.) A significant number of people won't be affected by these new voter ID laws (side note: disproportionately against Obama voters), then I fail to see your point.

Even if you were to make a case for just one of those, you might have a point. If there really were a voter fraud problem and these voter ID laws prevented more cases of voter fraud than it did block legitimate voters from voting, we might be able to talk. However, since there is virtually no voter fraud, nothing is gained by these new voter restrictions. Likewise, since there is evidence that many people do not currently have the voter ID necessary to vote, you're left with a significant net loss of eligible voters. By your own admission, you're just guessing that there's an in-person voter fraud problem (the facts say there isn't), and you're just guessing that it won't have an impact on voters who fail to have the necessary voter ID (the facts say it will).

Statistics never tell the truth.

That's still a pretty bold statement, and it's my personal opinion that a world without numbers often times makes the truth pretty relative.

I would also like to point out that, in Pennsylvania once again, that Republicans have stated that because of the voter ID laws, Romney will win Pennsylvania. This either means that a.) They're arguing that Obama did/would only win Pennsylvania because of voter fraud, further feeding into the fairy tale that Obama isn't a legitimate President (birtherism anyone?), or b.) That voter ID laws disproportionately affect Obama voters, giving Romney an edge. Don't pretend this is something it's not.

 

[Hanafuda]

what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%?

Not possible, because that's a statistic so it cannot be true.

Anyway, looks like you got yesterday's GOP line-toing memo about what position to take if people start trying these dirty liberal tactics of using things like facts and evidence.

'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers'

http://www.theatlant...heckers/261674/

Quite...

No, I didn't read any 'talking points memo' or whatever your article's about, I was only discussing the use of statistics in politics (and law). The purpose of a statistic in politics is never to prove the truth of something - a statistic's purpose is always and only to persuade the audience to reach a desired conclusion or belief, rather than the conclusion or belief put forth by the opponent. It is an argument in favor of a particular point of view, nothing more or less. It is never "the truth." There is ALWAYS another side to the story. Both parties use statistics this way - it's to be expected. Basic stuff. Just look at any political race or even any political argument as if it were a trial in a courtroom - truth is not the objective. Winning is. That's politics.

 

[LightyKD]

Anybody watching this crappy ass Republican Convention, more importantly this horrid speech? I swear the Republicans are just annoying.

 

[koimayeul]

French but my aunt lives in Oklahoma so i took the quizz anyway. Good one!.

 

[BlueStar]

what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%?

Not possible, because that's a statistic so it cannot be true.

Anyway, looks like you got yesterday's GOP line-toing memo about what position to take if people start trying these dirty liberal tactics of using things like facts and evidence.

'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers'

http://www.theatlant...heckers/261674/

Quite...

No, I didn't read any 'talking points memo' or whatever your article's about, I was only discussing the use of statistics in politics (and law). The purpose of a statistic in politics is never to prove the truth of something - a statistic's purpose is always and only to persuade the audience to reach a desired conclusion or belief, rather than the conclusion or belief put forth by the opponent. It is an argument in favor of a particular point of view, nothing more or less. It is never "the truth." There is ALWAYS another side to the story. Both parties use statistics this way - it's to be expected. Basic stuff. Just look at any political race or even any political argument as if it were a trial in a courtroom - truth is not the objective. Winning is. That's politics.

This is what Romney is running his campaign on, the logical fallacy of false equivalence and the bizarre idea of factual relativism. You look at it like a court? As in, when someone goes "we found 230 spots of the victim's blood on the suspect's clothes' and you go" That's just prosecution bias, that's just, like, your opinion man."

If one person says there are 51 states and one says there are 8,that doesn't mean they're both equally valid opinions, or that the answer must lie somewhere in the middle. If Romney comes out with an easily fact checked lie, like a specific figure in an order signed by Obama it is not partisan bullshit to point out it is a lie. Likewise, if a politician claims something is true when reality shows differently. If you truly believe what you are saying, I presume you don't vote because you think both parties are just as good as each other as you're not capable of distinguishing if what they're saying is true, if their policies would work, if their concerns are genuine...

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

 

[Sterling]

what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%?

Not possible, because that's a statistic so it cannot be true.

Anyway, looks like you got yesterday's GOP line-toing memo about what position to take if people start trying these dirty liberal tactics of using things like facts and evidence.

'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers'

http://www.theatlant...heckers/261674/

Quite...

No, I didn't read any 'talking points memo' or whatever your article's about, I was only discussing the use of statistics in politics (and law). The purpose of a statistic in politics is never to prove the truth of something - a statistic's purpose is always and only to persuade the audience to reach a desired conclusion or belief, rather than the conclusion or belief put forth by the opponent. It is an argument in favor of a particular point of view, nothing more or less. It is never "the truth." There is ALWAYS another side to the story. Both parties use statistics this way - it's to be expected. Basic stuff. Just look at any political race or even any political argument as if it were a trial in a courtroom - truth is not the objective. Winning is. That's politics.

This is what Romney is running his campaign on, the logical fallacy of false equivalence and the bizarre idea of factual relativism. You look at it like a court? As in, when someone goes "we found 230 spots of the victim's blood on the suspect's clothes' and you go" That's just prosecution bias, that's just, like, your opinion man."

If one person says there are 51 states and one says there are 8,that doesn't mean they're both equally valid opinions, or that the answer must lie somewhere in the middle. If Romney comes out with an easily fact checked lie, like a specific figure in an order signed by Obama it is not partisan bullshit to point out it is a lie. Likewise, if a politician claims something is true when reality shows differently. If you truly believe what you are saying, I presume you don't vote because you think both parties are just as good as each other as you're not capable of distinguishing if what they're saying is true, if their policies would work, if their concerns are genuine...

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

He's saying that Statistics are easily manipulated into data that they want you to get behind. Something like the amount of people who signed a contract is a hard number. But a statistic stating that the number of people who could have signed the contract were prevented by (specific reason here). When in actuality someone could have not signed it for some other reason. To the uninformed, such a thing can easily be manipulated into data that sways people because the main reason is perceived to be bigger than the rest. This gives an overriding sense of importance that shoves everything else out of the way.

 

[BlueStar]

He's saying that Statistics are easily manipulated into data that they want you to get behind.

But the solution to this is not to throw your hands up and say "We will never know! All statistics are equally wrong!" (or even more absurdly "All statistics are always wrong all of the time") it's to actually look at the methodology and application to see how accurate the claims are.

 

[spotanjo3]

I dont vote anybody. They are the corruption of the nations. I dont understand why people vote them. We are the powers and we can vote ourselves. Why vote them ?

 

[Etheboss]

The USA could use a third political party at the top to level things out.

In present times a 2 party system is outdated and unfair for a lot of people that are voting, they allways have to pick the less worst for them.

 

[Hanafuda]

The USA could use a third political party at the top to level things out.

In present times a 2 party system is outdated and unfair for a lot of people that are voting, they allways have to pick the less worst for them.

There was an old joke back in the cold war days that involved an American telling a Soviet citizen how sorry he was for him, because when elections were held he only had one choice - the communist party candidate. And the Russian replied,"Yes, you Americans are so free - you get two to pick from." or something like that.

 

[tatripp]

Obama, because while he hasn't got much done, he didn't break everything. I'm not sure that would still be true with Romney as president.

I disagree. Obama has done a lot and did break everything. Look at the current debt. He has already created more debt than bush did in all 8 years. Congress probably also has much more to do with the budget than the president so I guess it isn't fair to completely blame him or bush.