dayman

There is no point in arguing this. Either you see Obama as an absolutely terrible president or you don't (same w/ Romney as a candidate). Powell's endorsement won't change the mind of people who are convinced Obama is terrible.

Oh man, Mack? Did you watch the debates/have you seen what Mack is all about? Nelson is a dinosaur I can't deny it, but he's an ok dinosaur. Mack is, quite literally, an idiot. He can't even discuss things intelligently he's seriously less up on some things than many posters on this board.

For what it's worth he threw in that he wasn't comfortable with Romney's economic ideas or plans on education, climate, education, etc. As well as generally saying his view on the state of the country is that we are on the right track moving from 2008. Of this of course, is blasphemy to the narrative that Obama's foreign policy is a disaster and Romney would be better as well as contradicting the popular GOP view that America is falling apart.

And of course btw, Scott Brown will probably go down b/c his public reputation is basically the partisan stone on the scale that pushed the GOP bloc over the edge in the ACA showdown, probably the most politically heated event of the last few years...plus he's in a Dem state...so he'll be tied to the party either way...no matter how independent he tries to pitch himself as. And I dont' even really follow this race or know about Brown but you can see that from 10,000ft.

Bill Nelson v. Connie Mack Fla Senate Race There's a race a reasonable Repub could vote Dem. Nelson ain't bad, and Mack is a complete retard. And of all the Repubs up...Scott Brown is clearly on the more likable. Of course the GOP has a knack for making that basically the same as winning the special Olympics but it's still saying something. Bottom line is you don't want people who sign on to partisan quests to destroy people politically in December of 2008 when the country is in free fall...the idea that you can just sit on the sidelines and B word and not play and know that if the other side fixes it you'll get reelected b/c things are good and if they don't you resume power...that's the highlight of partisan hackery. I'm looking at you Mitch Mcconnell and Eric Cantor...and btw I'll throw Issa in there too just b/c the guy is about as transparently partisan as he could be. Of course there are partisan civilians (on this board) who look at this paragraph and say either 1) it isn't true (it is) or 2) that's brilliant (this is the saddest response). EDIT: And just to toss a Dem under the buss for a transparent attempt to be moderate...Mcconnell may have publicly declared their goal was a 1 term presidency...but Pelosi declared her goal was to elect more democrats when she gained the majority. So ...I'm willing to toss her to the wolves she deserves it. Then again it isn't what you say, it's if you work in good faith w/ the goal of reaching an agreement. There are tons of people who should to tossed out. Although it really comes down to the party powers who set the tone and whip everyone into line.

ARRA

Feb 4, 2009. Pretty significant date. 13 days prior to Obama dropping a science bomb like never before seen. Not to say btw, that defense of certain Bush budgets are not just.

Do they meet in December and then officially report the results to the new Congress in January? http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. New Congress convenes on January 3rd.

Hmmm...I'm not trying to argue that is an interesting link. Other sources claim differently.... What happens next? According to the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, a tied Electoral College, which reports results to the new Congress early in January, shifts the presidential choice to the new House of Representatives, with each state's delegation as a whole casting one vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-connelly/electoral-college-tie_b_2001724.html Also here's a non-huffington post claiming it's the newly elected house/senate: If there is a tie in the electoral college (and, as I explain below, there could be), it will be up to the newly elected House of Representatives to elect a President and the newly elected Senate to elect the Vice President. http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/1800-election/1800-election.html

I'll second Oxrock's "Hear, Hear!" Represent the people, no the party.

I don't have a link. But I believe it is very strange. I think the newly elected Congress votes but it is somehow1 vote per state. Which is quite strange. Then the Senate for some reason, votes normally. If that is a tie in the house. Boehner become President free and clear. lol

The machine is designed to convince us that we are always on the verge of victory, always have our enemies on the run, so that we feel the blood and money we waste is worth it. However, the threat will endlessly evolve and shift and thus require huge budgets, more money, continued "war time civil rights," and nonstop war for the rest of time. There is no need to reevaluate though, b/c we are always on the verge of victory. While this dynamic does little for our fiscal health, ability to address domestic issues, or our national security...it makes some people very rich and ultimately some of that money funnels back into campaign bank accounts of patriots on the Hill who keep us safe and ride the chicken hawk rhetoric to reelection.

This is more of a state issue. I agree that the political parties would still be "in line" and also there are positive effects to not having term limits. As much as Washington sucks, people do eventually get somewhat competent in specialized areas...it would be frustrating to those who must deal with government to have people they've worked with over the course of multiple sessions creating or refining things only to start over every 2, 4, or 6 years.

Drug war/other civil liberty issues, political reform, climate change, poverty

Obama makes frank argument about the difficulty of Romney meeting his commitments and his ability to meet more of his in a 2nd term: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/24/14668862-obama-in-off-the-record-interview-laid-out-path-to-fiscal-immigration-deals?lite Issa in such a hurry to post documents that certain individuals and militias were named which may have been better off not named for their own sake and for the investigations sake: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/issa_s_benghazi_document_dump_exposes_several_libyans_working_with_the_us

Not that I really care although I find the string of these to be funny...but in all honesty w/ out being partisan how can you say that isn't basically what he said. "Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." This whole "you don't get it" gig is stupid...there isn't much to get. Life is wonderful and it's Gods intent, even when it comes from rape. Duck boy doesn't have anything wrong there...

Mr. Wolfers estimated that it cost the traders responsible $1,250 to give Mr. Romney, the Republicans’ nominee, a six-minute surge. wut?

I believe he's up but 5 sounds like quite a bit in Ohio. Last I heard on the radio it was 1 or 2 538 has it tighter than that

I will read it with an open mind.

Just got to get it right and show Obama's karate fight w/ Osama

i try

October Surprise is to late round suckerpunch what surprise sex is to rape (or legitimate, or forcible, or emergency rape if you like)

Vote yes/no on prop 10000

DOJ suing on behalf of Fannie and Freddy who had "no idea" these loans were so bad eh? And demanding repurchase of mortgages going under b/c of the economy when they refuse to write them down at the request of various gov't interests? Shocking...

obviously, but you are smart enough to catch my meaning