jjamie12

Pretty sure you've got it twisted. I don't think I commented on whether or not following someone was "grounds to get an ass whoopin". If you'll take a look at the very large fonted quote of mine from your post, you'll see that it was a reaction to the idea that 'being followed' is an innocuous situation. I would suggest that 'being followed' is anything BUT harmless. After that, I explained my thoughts on why anyone defending either of these two was mental, as well as my thoughts on why I think that defending either one of them was silly.

OK. I just did. I must be missing something... What am I missing? Edit: Maybe I don't know what innocuous means? Let me go look it up. Edit2: Nope. It means exactly what I thought it did.

Yes. Do you? Good one. Thanks for your contribution.

I would love to know where you live that "being followed" by someone you don't know can be construed as an "innocuous situation" People have lost their minds over this case. Rush to judgment, followed by condemning the rush to judgment, followed by people digging their heels in, ignoring the reality of the situation and desperately trying to be "right" about their stupidly superficial initial thoughts about a kid you never knew or cared about being killed by a guy you never knew or cared about until the 'left' told you it was a racial killing and the 'right' told you that poor George Zimmerman was the real victim. It's really very easy. George Zimmerman deserves whatever he gets. He shot and killed an unarmed 16 year old. Trayvon Martin didn't get what he deserved, per se -- However, if you're going to go fight someone who's following you, you better damn well understand that that person might have a gun. He gambled, and he lost. I don't feel bad for either of them. Zim is still alive and he killed someone who was unarmed so he gets more share of the blame in my eyes. You can twist and turn words all around, but the end result is the same: The guy with the gun shot the guy who didn't have a gun. I'm supposed to feel bad for him?

I don't think there's any deeper meaning here. It's like asking: "Why is that team still playing defense? They're up by 25 points in the 4th quarter?" You've still got to win the game.

I think this is one of, if not the, best posts you've ever written on this board. Kudos.

Honest questions: Do you think that adjusting the minimum wage up to (insert $$ here) has zero effect on the number of people employed? - If you do, why are you less concerned about those people that this proposal would affect? Do you think that the vast majority of people earning minimum wage are the primary breadwinners of a family? - If not, why do you use things like the 'poverty line' or 'living wage' to buttress your arguments? Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Do you think there's NO legitimate reason for having the 'minimum wage' be something different than a 'living wage'? - If not -- You honestly believe that high school kids stocking shelves and / or washing dishes 'deserve' this 'living wage', rather than the 'minimum wage'?

Agreed. Nope. Absentee ballots in all cases. No Photo ID requirement is going to catch that!

Just wanted to point out that this is another example of voter fraud that 'Photo ID' wouldn't have stopped from happening.

So -- Is your answer "The price should be lower and would be if we weren't 'printing money'" ?

The proliferation of Cable News and the development of the influential blogoshpere, and the hyper-partisanship on display there. It is much easier not to think about an issue from all sides when you can go to the news channel of your persuasion and listen to pundits tell you how "kooky", "mean-spirited", "socialist", and "in the pocket of [insert hated industry of the moment here" the other side is. Thus, your world view is confirmed, while the PEOPLE with the different ideas, more and more, become less and less credible and so you can just dismiss any challenging information coming from them. Edited to add blogosphere.

Maybe he didn't hear. He's been gone down to DC for a long time, but they don't shine shoes no more.

Seriously? No one here has heard of Football Outsiders?

Needless to say, I'm impressed. They got it right and that's why they get paid and I don't!

It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote. Juror#8: I agree with your thoughts about the 'weird responses'. It's almost like a bizarro universe in here. In general, to me, it seems silly to think that this election will have a turnout that looks like it did in 2008 when you had an historical election, with extreme enthusiasm on the D side. It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to predict a turnout that is similar to that. At the same time, people who (theoretically, at least) get paid to be right are telling me that my 'feeling' about that point is wrong. It's a weird spot to be in -- things that don't seem possible to me are, according to the experts, not only possible, but likely. I'm fascinated by what the turnout numbers are, and am extremely excited to find out. I will be very impressed with people who got it right, when it didn't seem to make sense.

The idea is that R's have turned I because they're frustrated with the Republican party (and would, presumably, be less likely to vote in the election). That's why you would poetentially see this type of turnout. As an example -- Last election there are 200 people: D - 80 R - 60 I - 60 They all vote -- so D +10 They switch to (20 R's move to I): D - 80 R - 40 I - 100 and the I's (who are are disillusioned with R's, but more conservative than before) and D's are less enthusiastic about the vote. Now the vote would go something like: D - 60 R - 40 I - 70 In this model you still have a D + 10 or so turnout. Even if there is a 10+ % vote for Romney among I's (so something like 40-30 votes in the I for Romney) that's not enough votes there for him to overcome the loss of all the R's from last election. Result would be 90 votes for D, 80 votes for R. So. All the remaining R's voted -- Higher enthusiasm than last election. 75% of the D's voted -- Lower enthusiasm than last election. 70% of I's voted -- Lower enthusiasm (as the result of a lot of I's being disillusioned R's). This would explain how the models could still be correct, even when accounting for all the things that we're seeing in the underlying data being 'suspect'. I'm not saying that's right -- I'm merely pointing out how it *could* be right. This is the only thing that is keeping me from thinking that this election is in the bag for Romney. I have no basis for having an opinion on whether or not that shift from R to I happened, or whether or not (even if it did happen) create the effect that the models seem to be predicting. In short -- I will be fascinated to see what the turnout numbers are going to be on Wednesday. I'll probably spend way more time than I should looking at these things because either 1) Professional pollsters are really, really bad at their job. or 2) They are actually really, really good at their jobs. I can't wait to find out which.

The only thing I've seen that gives me pause is that there is a theory that there has been a shift from R's to Independents in the past few years, which *could* (I haven't thought that much about this yet, but on its face seems somewhat reasonable) explain why a D+8 turnout could happen again, even with the enthusiasm gap you've described. It would also explain the inconsistencies that you've seen in the underlying numbers -- namely, that Romney is crushing it with Independents (which, under this theory, would be naturally more conservative than in '08) and could still lose the election because the turnout would still be D+8 or whatever. It's a theory I've heard that makes sense. I have no reason to believe that the 'average' Independent is more conservative this time around, but I ALSO have no reason to believe that they aren't. Anyway. It's a theory I've heard that seems to explain what I would consider to be irregularities in the polling. We'll see tomorrow (or Wednesday) I suppose.

You don't forgive the co-signer in the event of death of the borrower. Generally, by definition, the borrower would not have been able to take out the loan unless there was someone else taking on the responsibility of paying back the loan as well. For those of you who are advocating for the bank to 'just forgive the loan', you do realize that you're advocating for higher rates for everyone (in order to protect themselves for all of these 'stories' that they'll need to forgive now -- why stop at death? What about a really bad accident? What about a recession? What about any number of other issues that people have?) or just have them stop lending in this space altogether? Is that what you want? For it to be harder to get loans for college?

That's not it, and that's NOT all you 'need to know'. 538 aggregates polls and polling data then does simulations based off of that data to try to arrive at the 'most likely' course of events. No one really disputes that. What people have been trying to point out (apparently to no effect) is that the *underlying data* for 538 (the polls it uses to aggregate into its simulator) might be wrong. The reason that the might be wrong is because almost all of those underlying polls are using turnout models (different models, to be sure, but generally triangulating in the same direction) that look remarkably like the actual turnout of the 2008 General Election. In other words, D+ 6 or more. Some people are pointing out that this doesn't really 'feel' right. Is turnout going to be like it was in '08? That's "it". *That's* "all you need to know". What about you? Do you think that turnout in 2012 is going to be roughly the same as turnout was in 2008?

I find it as more of a 'smell-test' than anything else. He can write and reason and tell me all sorts of stuff -- Ultimately it comes down to: Will this election (I suppose mostly in the key battleground states) have a turnout that is D + 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever, OR will it have a much lower D+ turnout? It's hard to conceive that turnout for D's (as it relates to R's) will be as strong as it was in 2008. Most of the polling relies on that 2008 model, where turnout is D+ 6+. If it IS D + 6+ President Obama will win going away. If it isn't, well -- since those D+ 6+ polls show toss-ups -- you're probably looking at a Mitt Romney Presidency. I don't think anyone (intelligent) is saying there's some vast conspiracy -- People (the intelligent ones, at least) are saying that D+6 or more doesn't feel like the right turnout numbers to use. In other words, expecting a 2008 style turnout even when we see more R engagement and less D engagement doesn't seem real compelling from a common sense view. I'm sure people can construct a very detailed story where that appears plausible and even likely. However. Stepping back and looking at this thing from 10,000 feet, it sure doesn't feel like we're going to see a D+6 or more turnout. It's very possible I'm wrong -- ask my wife; I'm wrong all the time -- but from a big picture perspective, it would seem D+6 polls are too high on the D side and, thus, inflate the current numbers for the President.

Mitt Romney, very clearly, has said that the 'details' of how to get where he wants to lead to are going to be up to bi-partisan negotiations. He's said, very clearly, that he doesn't want to 'spell out the details' because that puts people in a position, prior to the bi-partisan negotiation, of defending positions in that negotiation,that may or may not make sense. See, he's a real leader. A person with experience who understands that saying: These are my specific decuctions that we'll cap or eliminate boxes people in. He understands that you need a bi-partisan negotiation and that the most effective way of getting there is to state the goal and let the negotiations make there way there. In fact, we might even get a better tax reform by putting all ideas on the table rather than trying to cram Gov. Romney's details down everyone's throat. I know we're not used to leadership like that but maybe we should give it a shot?

Mitt Romney has NOT proposed to extend the "Bush tax cuts for the top two percent". Honestly. Just THINK for a minute so, at the very least, you're making an argument that has basis in reality.

As for 'details': How much more detailed can the Governor be? 1- He has said that he wants to lower marginal tax RATES by 20% across the board. 2- He has said that the 'wealthy' won't pay any less a share of the income tax as they do now. 3- He has said that he wants to close tax 'loopholes' to 'pay' for that 20% across the board cut. Rightly, he has said that there are any number of ways to close the loopholes (from capping deductions at a certain, different, levels, to eliminating any number of deductions) and that there would be bi-partisan negotiation about how the legislation would be crafted in order to make it work. He very clearly said that he would veto any legislation that came across his desk that didn't adhere to the three principles above. That is a more detailed plan than anyone running in this race has given, so I'm not sure what else you're asking for? Or maybe you don't *really* care, you're just searching for reasons to vote for the President... Which is fine -- you don't have to be silly about it, though. Keep reading your own link, PTR... you know, like ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just the headlines that you want to post. Edit: I'll do it for you. "Scott A. Hodge, President of The Tax Foundation, a non-profit research group in Washington... believes that it was possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue neutral tax reform that cuts rates in the way that Mr. Romney described."

Your own original link had an 'expert' who said it could work.

You do realize that there are other 'non-partisan' 'experts' who say that the Governor's plan works great, don't you? Is that what the President's supporters are left with? Cheering for 2.0% GDP growth? Really? We're supposed to be HAPPY with that?