Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Zingoleb on 06 Nov 2012, 18:15

Title: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 06 Nov 2012, 18:15
(http://i.imgur.com/qdMA0.png)

Oh god, Romney can't be winning. This whole thing is stressing me out.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 18:21
it moves in jumps and spurts.  California is a bunch of electoral votes you know Obama will get, and a lot of the numbers from other states jump arouns based on the counties that report.
There is a good updating map at hffpo:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 18:23
It's because a lot of the southern and middle states have checked in. The battleground states haven't checked in yet (the important ones, like my state!) and neither has the west coast. (I don't think the west coast is even done yet? Or are they...) So once those start popping up...then it'll get interesting.

But I can tell you right now, Ohio is leaning towards Obama and no Republican has ever won without Ohio. There's hope! If it pops up red, I'm gonna cry. And probably drink myself to death.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 18:24
California polls close at 11 pm eastern
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 18:58
Richard Mourdock, that idiot who said if a woman got pregnant because of rape, God intended it, is the projected loser.

HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SUCK IT.

Edited for spelling.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 19:06
so I am pretty drunk now, and when drunk a person's prorities change.

I am watching the Huffington post live feed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/election-results-2012-live_n_2036137.html


Sabrina is so lovely. pretty face, pretty legs.  Also the black man, whoes name I keep missing lips I want on mine.  (either meaing is fine). 

Also it is stressfull that the wild west just got called so Romny jumped ahead, bu tI still believe
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 19:08
Akin just got slaughtered by Claire McCaskill. HAHAHAHAHA! Happy dance!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 20:22
268 of 270 for Obama!!!!!!   squeeeeeeee   



It occors to me that I am asuuming we are all rooing for things to go that way
I hope I cane be happy and not start a debate or that if whatecer happens this gets moved as needed so I am not innappropriate. 

Also I am sad the emergency manager provision seems to be passing in Michigan.  But glad that the 2/3 vote for a tax hike and popular vote to build bridges ones are failing. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Nov 2012, 20:22
For better Googling, "Mourdock" not "Murdoch".

I mourned when he won the primary. Richard Lugar was something of a hero of mine.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 20:23
Update!


Huffingtom post has called it for OBAMA!

My uterus is safe!!!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: TheEvilDog on 06 Nov 2012, 20:24
And so the rest of the world collectively unclenches its ass in relief.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 20:29
My uterus is safe!!!!!

Ditto! Hooray!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: dr. nervioso on 06 Nov 2012, 20:30
'MERICA
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 20:34
FUCK YEAH
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 20:35
WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 20:52
have you guys seen Donald trumps twitter?

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3p9kMkJe1qzimwpo1_500.png)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Kugai on 06 Nov 2012, 20:57
[SamuelLJacksonVoice] Shut the FUCK up Trump!! [/SamuelLJacksonVoice]
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Nov 2012, 21:07
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 21:09
Looks like Obama might get the popular vote too.

Also the emergency manager law has lost ground. No is winning (though just) with 51% reporting.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 06 Nov 2012, 21:11
Washington, Oregon, and Colorado all just legalised marijuana.

HOLY SHIT YES
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 06 Nov 2012, 21:28
Washington, Oregon, and Colorado all just legalised marijuana.

I'm now in the middle of a dilemma... Stay in Minnesnowda or move to the drug states.

God damn it.

And of course, Obama won. Because Romney was a bit wishy-washy and abrasive, most likely... I hope the 'Bomster gets a bit more done this term than he did last. My state's Marriage amendment is basically a dead tie, same with our voter ID amendment. I have to wait for results in the morning.  :-\
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 06 Nov 2012, 21:35
Richard Mourdock, that idiot who said if a woman got pregnant because of rape, God intended it, is the projected loser.
Where do the Republicans find these people?

Congratulations Mr. Obama.

Who cares what Mr. Trump thinks? What was his share of the popular vote?

Why is Florida so slow?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: purple.platypus on 06 Nov 2012, 21:46
Someone needs to explain to The Donald that it's people like himself and Romney the rest of the world laughs at.

As a Canadian who keeps an eye on US politics, I'm obviously glad the election went the way it did. What I don't really understand is how it's possible for it ever to have been close, even in the college (let alone for the popular vote to be essentially even and if anything slightly in Romney's favour).

I mean... I can't believe that 50% of Americans, or even 50% of Americans who give enough shits to get out and vote, are stupid or evil. Certainly most of the ones I met during my five years living there weren't, and that was in Texas (albeit mostly Rice University students and faculty who probably aren't representative of Texans in general). Yet I find it even more unbelievable that anyone who is not stupid or evil could vote for the Republican party in its present form. Help me out here...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 06 Nov 2012, 21:56

Why is Florida so slow?

Because it is so close there.  They use a combination os exit polls (askign people who they voted for afte rthey vote) and the incomign results to predict winners before a state has reported 100%. As votes come in from precincts they see how they align with what they predicted, and the better the align and the bigger the diff between canidates the sooner they can call it.  So i NYS was called before even 1% of the vote was in, because it was clear it was going that way.  In Fl. the race is close and the votes not counted are not east to predict, so they are left waiting for the actual count to come in. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Nov 2012, 22:04
Mitt's concession speech was actually pretty thoughtful and well said. 



Insincere as all getout, but you can't have everything...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: valley_parade on 06 Nov 2012, 22:05
Washington, Oregon, and Colorado all just legalised marijuana.

Oregon did not.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 06 Nov 2012, 22:18
What! I have been lied to!

...on the other hand, gay marriage is a go in Washington. Fuck yes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: mustang6172 on 06 Nov 2012, 22:52
How does a president with 50% approval ratings squeak by, but a Congress with approval ratings below 10% goes unchallenged?  Sounds backwards.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Omega Entity on 06 Nov 2012, 23:01

Also I am sad the emergency manager provision seems to be passing in Michigan.  But glad that the 2/3 vote for a tax hike and popular vote to build bridges ones are failing.

Have to admit I voted yes on all of those. I can see the reasons for disagreement on the first, but why the last two?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Jace on 06 Nov 2012, 23:22
How does a president with 50% approval ratings squeak by, but a Congress with approval ratings below 10% goes unchallenged?  Sounds backwards.

This right here! I was surprised at the amount of Republicans taking house seats still.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 06 Nov 2012, 23:42

Also I am sad the emergency manager provision seems to be passing in Michigan.  But glad that the 2/3 vote for a tax hike and popular vote to build bridges ones are failing.

Have to admit I voted yes on all of those. I can see the reasons for disagreement on the first, but why the last two?

With the tax vote, it would essentially mean that absolutely nothing would ever get done. The fact is, taxes are the main source of revenue for states, and a state that is in ridiculous dire straits being clipped at the legs in being able to raise revenue (because it's hard enough getting a 2/3 majority popular vote for anything at all, much less taxes) is basically guaranteeing that it'll just never happen.

Also it comes up with the ridiculous scenario that taxes can never be lowered, because there is no chance of them ever being raised again, especially since repealing consititutional amendments is a lot more diffcult than dealing with a normal bit of legislature.

As for the bridge, the only reason it was even up for vote is because the current private owner of the only international bridge in the state (giving him a monopoly) doesn't want a state owned option or competition. Also Canada is covering most of the costs of the new bridge and it's kind of insulting that a state constitutional amendment was put up to protect an individual's monopolistic business interest.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Omega Entity on 07 Nov 2012, 00:25
Huh. Well, guess I screwed the pooch on that one.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Nov 2012, 00:27
How does a president with 50% approval ratings squeak by, but a Congress with approval ratings below 10% goes unchallenged?  Sounds backwards.

This right here! I was surprised at the amount of Republicans taking house seats still.

Tip O'Neill was well known for saying, "All politics is local".  It's pretty well known that people want high ideals in their national leaders, but when it comes to the folks who actually represent them locally, they want someone who will work for things that they think will be to their advantage. 


Like cutting taxes. 

Our state legislature race was between two professors at the local Penn State branch campus.  Both educated, well spoken men, neither one stupid.  The democrat promised to work hard to solve local problems, and had a lot of good plans to get the region working again, improve infrastructure, and improve life in general.  The republican promised things that made no sense - abolish property taxes, and cut income tax, and cut government services beyond the bone.  My favorite was "return control of our schools to the community" (does he even know what a local school board is?)  But he used all the emotional triggers, and so you knew he was going to win. 

Oh, and I used to work with both of them.  The Democrat is a Physics professor, a smart, nice, down-to-earth guy.  The Republican is a political science professor, a pompous git, very condescending and pretty rude.  And, with republican backing (read: money) he sent out a whole stack of incredibly slick mailers full of emotional, button pushing gobbledeygook.  The democrat really never had a chance. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 07 Nov 2012, 00:57
How does a president with 50% approval ratings squeak by, but a Congress with approval ratings below 10% goes unchallenged?  Sounds backwards.
Gerrymandering works better at the local level.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: snalin on 07 Nov 2012, 01:10
Hehe, you can vote against paying taxes. Great idea. Why has nobody thought of that before*?

I, too, am perplexed that you could get close to a 50% for Romney. He hates women, gays and immigrants, and that should cover at least 60% of the voting population. His stance on the middle east should make anyone with an arab or iranian background avoid him, anyone who's ever needed any kind of welfare should be running... Is 49% of the voting population of the US either white, rich, male bigots, or are there really that many stupid folk?


*
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 01:16
To be quite honest, the popular vote numbers depress the hell out of me.

But yeah, around 65% of white men vote republican. Also 20% of gay men vote republican, which seems to be kind of like throwing yourself in front of a bus in order to use public transportation and still paying the toll. Obama had an 18 point lead in the female vote if I recall correctly, which still means that around 40% - 42% of women voted for Romney.

The statistics are just depressing as hell, but it was still a clear victory in the popular vote, Obama - 50% Romney - 48.4%, which is a damn good thing. It's depressing none the less.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: idontunderstand on 07 Nov 2012, 01:57
Congratulations on making the better choice, USA.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 07 Nov 2012, 02:17
It's the lamestream media's fault. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/?intcmp=trending)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: LTK on 07 Nov 2012, 02:23
Dude! Warn us first when you're going to link to Fox News, kay?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 02:23
Sounds just like someone influenced by the "liberal" media.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 07 Nov 2012, 02:45
Gay marriage just passed in Washington, from what I can tell. I heard Maryland and Maine both voted, too, but I can't find anything on Minnesota.

God, it feels almost like America is figuring out how to be a proper fucking country.
Title: Re: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Nov 2012, 02:51
Those liberals with their facts!

I was amused that the state of the economy was summarised by four measures: growth, unemployment, deficit, and price of gasoline.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 07 Nov 2012, 02:53
[...]
God, it feels almost like America is figuring out how to be a proper fucking country.

'Almost' being the key word there ...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 02:59
These were some of the big ones for me

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Gy_NhvQXPh4/UJoSKg381BI/AAAAAAAAHRk/cwZZpn44pd8/s791/Final-Proposition-Map.jpg)

A hell of a lot of good got passed and denied this voting round. Some misses, but overall it's a damn good year.

Edit: Also, if you're interested in more detailed ballot results for each state, click on a state to get those results. (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 03:30
I, too, am perplexed that you could get close to a 50% for Romney. He hates women, gays and immigrants, and that should cover at least 60% of the voting population. His stance on the middle east should make anyone with an arab or iranian background avoid him, anyone who's ever needed any kind of welfare should be running... Is 49% of the voting population of the US either white, rich, male bigots, or are there really that many stupid folk?

Alright, some really interesting, though maybe not surprising, exit poll data concerning voting blocs for this election.

President Exit Polls (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls)

Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 07 Nov 2012, 03:37
Also, keep in mind it's not 50% of America voting for Romney. It's 50% of people voting that voted for Romney - about 60,000,000, to be generous, so that's actually really only 19% of America voting for Romney (and another ~20% for Obama!).

Edit: Running the latest numbers, as of this post, Romney's actually gotten 18.1% of the vote, whereas Obama got 18.9%. Christ. That's barely over a third of America voting (which, given that about a third are ineligible to vote for whatever reason, means about half of the people eligible to vote didn't turn out. Yeesh).
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Nov 2012, 03:43
Appears you guys just scraped having your independence revoked :wink:

http://vonkleist.soup.io/post/286587927/A-MESSAGE-FROM-THE-QUEEN
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Spike on 07 Nov 2012, 03:48
The  biggest concern I have now is simply that despite their loss, the Republican party didn't lose big enough to drive them to return the extreme elements to the fringe of the party and that they will not abandon the obstructionism and other behaviours that were kind of disgusting and  wholly destructive.  I hope that I am proven wrong here.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 07 Nov 2012, 04:15
You have had some intense media coverage of some truly insane people on the right wing and I sincerely hope never ever to see any of them again.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 07 Nov 2012, 05:12
I was almost late for work because I was busy doing the Snoopy dance this morning. Super proud to live in a state (Maryland) that passed gay marriage and a Dream act!   :-D
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 07 Nov 2012, 05:48
also...

How does a president with 50% approval ratings squeak by, but a Congress with approval ratings below 10% goes unchallenged?  Sounds backwards.
Gerrymandering works better at the local level.

Did someone say gerrymander? Check out the new congressional district map that just got upheld in Maryland (http://www.planning.maryland.gov/PDF/Redistricting/2010maps/Cong/Statewide.pdf). This thing is absurd. Contiguous and compact, my ass. But since the idea, apparently, was to kick out the longtime Republican in District 6, I guess it worked. Romney won Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties by 75, 65, and 58%, but the three together only counted for 35% of the congressional district, which the Democrat won by 59%.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 07 Nov 2012, 05:57
I first saw that revocation of our independence after the Bush/Gore election when we were still trying to figure out who won. It was amusing then, but I am not sure it makes sense now.

I'd like to correct Stephen on one point about the Michigan proposals (and maybe give a little context to non Michiganders).  Mr. Moroun does not own the only bridge to Canada.  There is also one up in Port Huron which is owned by the government.  But, he does own the Ambassador bridge which is the one in Detroit, and the busier of the two crossings.  A deal was reached with the Canadian government to build a second bridge in Detroit, which even without the public/private issues there is enough traffic to warrant.  The Canadian government agreed to foot most of the bill, in light of the state's current financial situation.  This would also buy up a lot of land in an area of Detroit which looks exactly like what most people imagine when they think of Detroit (think empty decaying buildings, including the remains of several burned down warehouses and the like) and would create some jobs as the bridge is built, maintained and staffed.

Mr, Moroun is understandably threatened by the idea of a new bridge and his company drafted the proposition has lobbied hard for it by claiming it will cost the state money which could be spent on firefighters and police.  I think this missed the point that we are getting an excellent deal on this bridge.  The plan aims to spend no Michigan money on construction or land aqusition, though might need some funds for administraive things and does include applying for some federal funds and the bridge tolls would go to paying off any construction debt.  Also, building bridges is something that I think firmly falls within a governments rights.  Even if this were not an attempt by one main to maintain a monopoly (one which I don't understand how he even got... how can you own an international bridge?? ) I don't think I would support it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 06:03
Motherfucking Big Bird (http://scott-lynch.livejournal.com/269876.html) is a bad ass.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 07 Nov 2012, 06:09
Super proud to live in a state (Maryland) that passed gay marriage and a Dream act!   :-D

High fives for your state! I was super happy when I heard about the DREAM act and then was even happier when both issues passed.

My favorite was "return control of our schools to the community" (does he even know what a local school board is?)

He also doesn't seem to understand that he alone can't do this! Also that statement is just plain stupid, especially someone coming from a party that still really likes NCLB.

I can honestly understand why the House is still conservative (most rural areas are conservative and most of this country is rural), but I am glad the Senate got some Democrats (I'm looking at you Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, and especially Indiana and Missouri, among the others I'm missing), so at least both sides of Congress are not conservative. For Indiana and Missouri, I'm just glad that what those two men were saying has officially been voted to NOT be ok and I'm betting a lot of members of the Republican party are sad that they even endorsed these men.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: lepetitfromage on 07 Nov 2012, 06:55
And, with republican backing (read: money) he sent out a whole stack of incredibly slick mailers full of emotional, button pushing gobbledeygook.

It blows my mind that some people actually read those things. They go right from my mailbox to the trash, with the exceptions of just a few that I stop to laugh at first.



Also- yay Obama! And yay for Sean Patrick Maloney taking Nan Hayworth's seat in congress! Woooooot


ETA:
Quote from: The Queen
you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

Bwahahahaha that is amazing. Thank you for posting that link, VonKleist.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 06:59
Here is a big list of important ballot initiatives that were being voted on by states. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/major-progressive-victories-and-some-defeats-ballot-measures-across-country#.UJpyby4f-qk.google_plusone_share)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: valley_parade on 07 Nov 2012, 07:48
Apparently Washington is too close to call, but Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland have all voted for gay marriage.

One step closer, my friends.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Nikolai on 07 Nov 2012, 08:17
I don't know what party I would technically fall into. Is there one that's pro-gay marriage, 2nd Amendment, and weed?

I guess now that I'm a card-carrying citizen (and a 'grown-up'), I should probably start paying more attention to politics.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 08:36
Also, it looks like Puerto Rico will be applying for statehood (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/07/puerto-rico-statehood.html) soon and I see no reason why Congress would deny it.

Gonna fuck the shit up out of our flag.

Edit: It depends on what you mean by 2nd Amendment rights. If you just don't want them banned, that's pretty much all of the parties and within a few years I fully expect the dems to start leaning pro-weed pretty heavily. Dems and Green Party are the two most prominent "pro-marriage equality" I can think of at the moment, though the dems are a fairly recent convert.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Nikolai on 07 Nov 2012, 09:00
I'd say the biggest thing I take issue with is any sort of gun registry. Background checks? By all means. I just don't like to advertise that I own firearms, and I'd rather not have the government (or anybody, for that matter) having a list of the guns I have.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 09:03
Well, the closest you might get to that is the Libertarian Party, but to be frank they're all over the place on things. They follow a general thread of logic on individual rights, but it depends on how much you can stomach the party largely being run by wealthy white men who are calling for the dissolution of government and housing an awful lot of racism and sexism.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 07 Nov 2012, 09:40
YES! No constitutional amendment that would be hard as fuck to repeal for either voter ID or gay marriage... RE. FUCKING. JECTED. Fuck yeah.

Of course, the marriage thing still isn't legal, but after this I think that a certain state law will be challenged in the next year or two...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 09:41
Holy shit... (http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Republicans-Lose-Supermajority-in-Texas-House-177596401.html)

Quote
Republicans Lose Supermajority in Texas House
 

AUSTIN, Texas - Republicans have lost their 102-member supermajority in the Texas House, opening the door for Democrats to slow or block the majority's conservative agenda.

Democrats have won more than 50 seats in the 150-member lower chamber of the Legislature. That means Republicans can no longer suspend the rules to push through legislation over the objections of minority Democrats.

Last year, Republicans had enough lawmakers to form a quorum without any Democrat showing up for work.

Democratic leaders have said they will use their increased strength to block conservative bills and demand compromise on public education and health care issues.

Republican lawmakers point out that they remain the majority party and will continue to demand less government spending and lower taxes.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Nikolai on 07 Nov 2012, 10:20
Can somebody please enlighten me as to why voter ID is a bad thing? I was under the impression that it was just to help prevent things like double voting and other types of fraud...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Redball on 07 Nov 2012, 10:50
Can somebody please enlighten me as to why voter ID is a bad thing? I was under the impression that it was just to help prevent things like double voting and other types of fraud...
It appeared to be a hurry-up solution in search of a problem. Double voting and fraud committed by voters by all accounts is miniscule. Voter ID may not be a bad thing in the long term, but to me the issue was the unseemly haste to put it into effect before this election that was so suspicious.

A lot of people, many of them on the margins in this country, are entitled to vote because, dammit, they're citizens. But they don't necessarily have the paperwork -- driver license, birth certificate, for starters -- to prove their citizenship, even if they've lived in, say, a little rural community all their life, or have lived in a large cardboard box in LA for a year or five.

Sure, those people may be shown how to fill out the paperwork and mail it to the right place, and have a return address to pick up the document. Or they might be required to make a trip to the nearest county courthouse -- with what vehicle?

Anyway, that's how I saw it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 10:51
Basically it follows a long traditional history of voter suppression that largely targets students, minorities and the poor.

Also the fact that actual in person voting fraud is ridiculously rare, with slightly over 200 cases since 2000.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 07 Nov 2012, 11:01
Voter ID laws generally require you to have a photo ID with your current address on it.  The idea is that it proves you belong in this district/state and that you are who you say you are so that you can only vote once. 

The problem is, as Redball said, people double voting or voting in more than one district or voting as someone else are problems which are not really problems.  It is very very rare.  Most states have some way to deal with it.  A much bigger problem we have is people who are registered to vote not doing so.  Voter ID laws make this problem worse, and they do it unequally across the population. 

Middle class and wealthier people are likely to have a valid driver's licence and to not have recently moved.  Under voter ID laws they would simply have to go vote.  If you don't drive you would have to go and get a special ID, and if you drive or not and you have moved in the past year, you would need to go get a new one.  The people likely to not drive and/or move frequently? Poor people, young people, recent immigrants.  These are the same people who are already less likely to vote.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Nov 2012, 11:22
Also, unless that ID is free, the requirement is a poll tax.

The intent becomes clear when a state worker is fired for urging his coworkers not to conceal the availability of free IDs.

-------

Gerrymandering:

Senators are elected statewide, so gerrymandering can't affect them. State legislators are elected from local districts subject to manipulation. Republicans want to go back to having Senators elected by legislatures and not by the public. I've never seen anyone point out the cause and effect relationship.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 07 Nov 2012, 11:24
Can somebody please enlighten me as to why voter ID is a bad thing? I was under the impression that it was just to help prevent things like double voting and other types of fraud...

In the state of Minnesota, it would discourage certain individuals from voting (Because they cannot/ are not willing to pay for a new ID) while not giving any true benefit. Nationally, it is also worthless as voter fraud has never truly decided the outcome of a presidential election, or a congressional one (if I'm remembering my senior year gov class correctly). In the Minnesota example our state has some of the loosest rules on voting (you can register the day of and as long as you have a tax certificate, drivers license, student ID, title deed or two people that can vouch that you live in the county/ state of Minnesota) and we have the lowest rate of voter fraud in the nation (last election, at least).

The ID law here would be like cauterizing your entire arm for a paper cut on your pinky to make sure it doesn't get infected or hunting mosquitoes with a bazooka.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKlkD-D20OI)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Nikolai on 07 Nov 2012, 11:33
Thanks for clearing that up. Makes a lot more sense now. And poll taxes are unconstitutional! I learned that studying for my naturalization test.

...or hunting mosquitoes with a bazooka.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKlkD-D20OI)

...I see nothing wrong with that. Does that make me a Republican?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Nov 2012, 11:40
The testimony in PA against the voter ID law was very moving - people who were married recently (name changed on the license, but not on the voter registration?  Sorry, you can't vote!) or people who can't get to one of the statewide DMV's to get a free ID (there are 67 counties - some don't even have a branch of the DMV, and there are only 5 in Philadelphia, and only one (!!) in Pittsburgh).  After all, if they don't have a license, how can they get to another county to gete an ID? 

It was a stupid law, enacted without enough time to put it into effect in a reasonable way.  Initially, the free ID at the DMV wasn't even in the statute, it was added as an amendment.  It had one and only one purpose - to stop poor, minority and young voters from being able to.  I think there was some shmoe in the state house who actually said that it "cinched the election for Romney" when it passed. 

And it wasn't revoked  just delayed.  You were still asked for an ID at the poll (I was, even though all the pollworkers know me), but if you didn't have one, you could still vote and it still counted.  I think that counted as intimidation, myself.  Bear in mind that you need to sign a registration form before you can vote anyway, and it has the signature you registered with for comparison, so you've already been ID'd that way! 

Most of it was a poorly planned ploy, plotted by pernicious pricks. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Nov 2012, 11:44
You remember correctly. It was Representative Mike Turzai.

------------------

Re: Trump: it's worth knowing that the rest of the world got surveyed about who they would vote for in the US presidential election if they were allowed to. http://globescan.com/commentary-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2012/245-global-poll-obama-overwhelmingly-preferred-to-romney.html. I don't know whether the rest of the world laughs at us for almost electing Romney. I suspect they grimace instead.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 07 Nov 2012, 11:49
Nikolai- To get a sense of the candidates/parties, you can take a quiz at ISideWith.com. They include all 4 of the "third"-party candidates from this election so you get pretty comprehensive results. There's a lot of questions on a range of social, economic, and military issues.

A voter ID law in Texas was struck down because it was found to be an undue burden (I think that was the phrase - something like that) on poor and minority voters. You had to have one of a few types of ID like drivers license, but if you didn't you could get a free voting ID. All you had to do was get to the local security office (4 or 5 near the major cities, 1 in most counties, none in some) by some method (because, no driver's license hopefully means no car) with your birth certificate or other proof ($20 if you need to get a copies).

I mean, I'm not sure how people function day-to-day without SOME kind of photo ID, but three months before elections is not the time and place to start trying to change that.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 07 Nov 2012, 12:01
It doesn't just have to be some photo ID, it has to be a photo ID with your current address.  If you have moved you need to go get a new ID, that costs money, in NY anyways. 

Also, forms of photo ID without your address:
Student ID
Government benefit card (in some states these have your photo)
Passport

That's right, the ID that is good enough to get one across the border, would not be good enough to let you vote. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 07 Nov 2012, 12:07
That quiz was really interesting. Apparently I side the most with Stein and Obama, which is not surprising since I consider myself to be a Democrat with Green leanings. Though I find myself disappointed with the education questions, but none of the candidates really had a platform I agreed with anyways. (Politicians don't really get public education, but sadly not enough educators [I'm specifically talking about public schools, not college professors] become politicians.)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 12:10
If the Green Party would stop being douchenozzles about participating in local elections and campaigning, I'd consider registering as Green. As it is, I'm sticking with Independent who tends to vote Democrat for practicality reasons and Green when I think it can be spared and/or it's local.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: lepetitfromage on 07 Nov 2012, 12:11
The quiz suggested that I vote for Stein, but Obama got my vote because, well.....as much as I hate to think so, any vote for a third party might as well be a vote thrown out the window at this point.  :-\


You were still asked for an ID at the poll.....

I wasn't.....granted, they did the signature thing but yeah. No ID.

Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 07 Nov 2012, 12:14
After what happened with Nader in the Bush/Gore elections...yeah. I kind of agree with you on that one.

I don't think I've ever seen a local Green candidate. I wish there would be, though, because Cincinnati is a mess.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 12:26
We had 3 or 4 Greens running for various local and state positions, but the Green Party spends next to no money on campaigning, instead opting to spend all of their campaign money on the useless presidential campaign. They need to start with local work, senate seats and go from there, they aren't going to have any long term impact outside of "that crazy commie party" otherwise. It hasn't worked for them yet and it's going to continue not working for them.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 07 Nov 2012, 12:30
You vote for a third party is not thrown out if you live in a state which has no chance of swinging, but if you live in a state where the margin is small, a vote for a third party is a vote from one of the big two.

This year I voted for two green party members for school board.  They both lost.  One of them was also a socialist, so I knew he had no hope of winning.  When your homepage says you support free education for everyone that wants it, including college and post-grad all people here is "I want to raise taxes" not that as a member of the school board he would have had that power anyways.  The non socialist one actually got 2.25% of the vote though. 

I also voted for a libertarian for county prosecutor.  I figure a person whose political believes question the right of the government to lock people up is a much better prosecutor than one who brags that they have a "98%" conviction rate.  If you are convicting that many people, the system is broken.  Some people are supposed to be found innocent.  If you had a district where 100% of the people in court were guilty then that would be a pat on the back for the police, not the prosecutor.  The libertarian got over 15% of the vote, which I was shocked by.  He only had one opponent though.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Nikolai on 07 Nov 2012, 12:34
Nikolai- To get a sense of the candidates/parties, you can take a quiz at ISideWith.com. They include all 4 of the "third"-party candidates from this election so you get pretty comprehensive results. There's a lot of questions on a range of social, economic, and military issues.

Nifty. Apparently I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate, but the Republicans as a party. Not sure how that works, but cool, I guess? Yay for learning about politics!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Nov 2012, 12:43
Makes sense, the Libertarians have a lot in common with the Republican party policy wise, technically. Do some more reading on the subject and actually see what you think of the stuff you find when you dig deeper into the parties and their voting and policy records though. It can get kind of nasty and worrying no matter which party you go with. for example, the Republican Party (aka the GOP) is pretty well known for anti-gay marriage, racist rhetoric and policy making and "traditional families".  Not all Repubs are bad clearly, but it depends on if you can stand getting into the climate the current GOP has. Same with Dems, same with Libertarians, same with Green Party.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 07 Nov 2012, 12:49
Which is why I advocate for everyone voting for people and not parties.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 07 Nov 2012, 13:17
I apparently match up with Jill Stein's policies almost 100%. I'm somehow unsurprised.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 07 Nov 2012, 13:21
You vote for a third party is not thrown out if you live in a state which has no chance of swinging

Well...that's my problem. Ohio has ALWAYS been a swing state. We're kind of in a bind here. The majority of the votes come from the major cities, but if all of the liberals vote for a third party and everyone else continues to vote Republican, we lose. And if the rest of the country isn't also voting for that third party, then it's kind of like shooting ourselves in the foot.

I can post more later, but I've got to head to class.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 07 Nov 2012, 13:44
Can somebody please enlighten me as to why voter ID is a bad thing? I was under the impression that it was just to help prevent things like double voting and other types of fraud...
That is the thoroughly disingenuous excuse. For the real story read up on things like "literacy tests", poll taxes, and other disenfranchisement techniques used during the Jim Crow era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era). Australian had similar laws.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lupercal on 07 Nov 2012, 14:44
Mitt's concession speech was actually pretty thoughtful and well said. 



Insincere as all getout, but you can't have everything...

'I Want To Congratulate The President,' Romney Says In 240,000th And Final Lie Of Campaign (http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-want-to-congratulate-the-president-romney-says-i,30283/)

Very pleased to see Obama get a second term. It would've been closer had Romney not made so many awful gaffes and had a fair few extremists behind him. I'm focusing on this because he seemed to mention so very little of what he was actually going to do as president!

Trump, an ass as always. Maybe if Obama releases his college records, Trump can finally make it common knowledge what advanced scientific anti-gravitational shit he's using to keep hair on his head.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Nov 2012, 21:08
It's just white glue mixed with grits. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: cesium133 on 07 Nov 2012, 21:16
It's a white fluid, anyway. Not sure if it's glue.  :roll:
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 07 Nov 2012, 23:30
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Z0czeNENs3M/UJsqaSUO_MI/AAAAAAAAAOA/sotzRC4huY0/s572/12+-+1)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 07 Nov 2012, 23:32
Buzz= Oregon
Woody= Texas

Pretty much how that's going down. :P
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 07 Nov 2012, 23:40
[...]
http://globescan.com/commentary-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2012/245-global-poll-obama-overwhelmingly-preferred-to-romney.html. I don't know whether the rest of the world laughs at us for almost electing Romney. I suspect they grimace instead.
Most people I have spoken to have the feeling that we, the world, dodged a bullet there. We're already afraid of the next election.

I still think that if the US pres. wants to style himself 'leader of the free world' there had better be an election in which the free world can have its say.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 08 Nov 2012, 02:13
Buzz= Oregon
Woody= Texas

Pretty much how that's going down. :P

Oregon didn't legalise it, apparently. Let's call him Seattle, instead.

There's a guy up in Seattle that drives around in a van and sells seriously high quality pot out of it. He delivers. It's great.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Barmymoo on 08 Nov 2012, 08:54
I also instinctively thought "why is requiring photo ID a bad thing?" but then I thought about our system. Here, all I have to do is turn up at the correct polling station and announce my name. I don't have to show any kind of ID whatsoever, including my polling card. There is nothing at all to stop me rocking up to someone else's station and using their name. I have never heard of it being a problem. However, if I were required to produce addressed photo ID I'd be in a bind, because my driver's licence has my mum's address on it and I vote at a station 200 miles away from there.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 08 Nov 2012, 10:55
And that's why ID laws are also an effective tool to disenfranchise college students, aka another group of damn liberals.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: snalin on 08 Nov 2012, 12:17
I think we get a thing in the post that we have to show. I can't remember if showing ID is an alternative, but I think it is. I can see that ID laws would cause problems, but then again, you would probably be able to prevent this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57539706/congressmans-son-resigns-after-voter-fraud-video/) stuff.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 08 Nov 2012, 12:20
Sure, but once again, it's something that happens 15 - 20 (http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/) times a year at most. The only voter fraud that happens in any meaningful way involve absentee ballots and other forms of non in-person voting, and even those have safety measures.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 08 Nov 2012, 13:57
Shady Shit in AZ (http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20121107provisional-ballot-woes-swamp-county.html).

Gotta say, I was worried about this, when before any results were even in, it was being reported that a lot of people that had registered specifically to vote against Arpaio (Our dictator limelight seeking sheriff in this county) were being told they could only vote provisionally - and those votes didn't count in the actual sheriff's election.

This is a big problem, given how MANY of them there are.

It doesn't look good at all. :x
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 08 Nov 2012, 14:01
Also, what some states do now prevents this.  In NYS when you register to vote you sign the form, and when you go to vote there is a book that lists all the people eligible to vote in that district and it shows their signature from their registration form.  When you sign in to vote they cover the half with the signature and you sign the other side.  IF the signatures match you are good to go.  No photo ID, no hassle.  While you could forge someone else's signature, learning to write the signatures of 100 people would not be feasible.  It seems like it would actually be harder to do than get 100 fake IDs.  Most college undergrads can get a fake ID pretty easily.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Jace on 08 Nov 2012, 14:33
huh. I guess that means I'll probably never be able to vote since I have an incredibly inconsistent signature.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: mustang6172 on 08 Nov 2012, 18:52
The quiz suggested that I vote for Stein, but Obama got my vote because, well.....as much as I hate to think so, any vote for a third party might as well be a vote thrown out the window at this point.  :-\


You were still asked for an ID at the poll.....

I wasn't.....granted, they did the signature thing but yeah. No ID.

I too was trying to decide between Obama and Stein.  I went with Obama because after Hurricane Sandy, I was wondering how well Stein would handle a natural disaster having less experience in the public sector.

Despite living in a swing state, I didn’t care so much about helping Obama win.  I figured what are the chances my one vote would get Romney elected by accident.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Nov 2012, 19:45
How many other people were making the same calculation about whether their vote would matter? Betcha enough that their cumulative votes mattered.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: pwhodges on 08 Nov 2012, 23:56
"Tactical voting" we call it - and it can be tricky to decide how to play it.  I have never been in a position where there would have been any benefit from voting for someone other than the person I wanted to vote for.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Nov 2012, 01:11
http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/B002SB8OMA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352452203&sr=1-1&keywords=gaming+the+vote+why+elections+aren%27t+fair+and+what+we+can+do+about+it

It's a thoroughly interesting and well-researched book that I recommend to any politically oriented nerd.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 09 Nov 2012, 04:54
With our transferrable-vote system, tactical voting is a way of life. It is common for the person the voters disliked least to get elected rather than the one who gets the largest share of the votes in the first round. This is supposed to discourage extremism, because would-be MPs have to pick up "second preferences" from people who voted for someone else in the first round. I don't have to bother though, because I live in an district where the Coalition could put up dead wombats and they would get elected.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Redball on 09 Nov 2012, 05:48
One of the defeated Michigan propositions would have guaranteed collective bargaining for public employees, now under attack, in the State Constitution. It overreached in scope, and I agreed that putting it in the constitution alone was somewhat of an overreach. I was certain it wouldn't pass, I believed it probably shouldn't pass, but I voted for it in hopes that a close vote would persuade the Legislation it also shouldn't overreach. Result was 58% against, 42% for.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Nov 2012, 06:08
Yeah, Prop 2 and 3 were the only ones I voted yes on. 2 was one I could have lived with being constitutionally protected if it had gone through, 3 was a lot more iffy. The rest were actually a bit insulting.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Nov 2012, 07:12
Unfortunately, we can't do something similar here in Wisconsin. Might be a nice end-round of our current legislators/executive, but it's not an option.

Only thing we have is the courts.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Nov 2012, 09:02
With our transferrable-vote system, tactical voting is a way of life. It is common for the person the voters disliked least to get elected rather than the one who gets the largest share of the votes in the first round. This is supposed to discourage extremism, because would-be MPs have to pick up "second preferences" from people who voted for someone else in the first round. I don't have to bother though, because I live in an district where the Coalition could put up dead wombats and they would get elected.

It makes perfect sense to me. There have been times when I would also have envied the dead wombat option.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 09 Nov 2012, 11:48
I think what bothers me the most about what's going on here in AZ is that there are so many votes that NEVER WOULD HAVE been counted, had it not been for a couple of the congress and senate races being so close.

Then there's the whole bit where it looks like Sheriff Joe might have actually had some people give different instructions for people in certain neighborhoods.

It's very difficult to believe that we ran a 'CLEAN ELECTION' at this point.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Nov 2012, 11:53
Perhaps we need to send in international observers...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: celticgeek on 09 Nov 2012, 12:05
Sheriff Joe would just arrest them for being illegal aliens.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 09 Nov 2012, 12:41
Well, it's not like he's ever investigated people that were investigating him...

Oh wait, yeah, he totally did that.

Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 09 Nov 2012, 15:42
This is quite amusing (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with). The top map for 1850 could be subtitled "Donald Trump's World".
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Nov 2012, 15:43
Yeah, there have already been complaints from right wing pundits that the "White Institution" is over and complaining that them damn minorities voted more than they expected.

It's almost as hilarious as it is horrifying.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 09 Nov 2012, 15:49
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lPnbuItCoz8/UJ2Xv-DxgKI/AAAAAAAACOw/UKMwERVLLe4/w314-h315-p-k/minority.JPG)

*no stealing from that site aparently... let me try a different way
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 09 Nov 2012, 16:02
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Nov 2012, 08:58
So, a hilarious bit of news came out today.

Mitt Romney is getting sued for allegedly hiding Auto Bailout money in a blind trust. (http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/1818)

Quote
Mitt Romney just lost the election -- and now, he's about to become the first former candidate ever to be charged with violating federal ethics law.

United Automobile Workers (UAW) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are preparing to launch an official lawsuit against Romney for hiding between 15.3 to 111.5 million dollars from the auto industry bailout in his wife Anne’s “blind” trust to conceal the gain and reduce taxes on it.

"The American people have a right to know about Gov. Romney’s potential conflicts of interest, such as the profits his family made from the auto rescue,” the groups said in their official complaint. “It’s time for Gov. Romney to disclose or divest.”

It’s time to expose just how unscrupulous Romney is about making his fortune off the misfortunes of others. Please, support UAW and CREW by calling on Romney to reveal exactly how much he made and continues to make off the auto bailout!

PETITION TO MITT ROMNEY: It’s time to come clean. We demand to know how much money you hid in your wife’s supposed blind trust, and how much you continue to make thanks to the gutting of the auto industry.



Also, it looks like not having to worry about re-election might have genuinely gotten Obama to actually push Republicans on their bullshit. (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/obama-throws-down-gauntlet-gop-fiscal-cliff-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts-now)

Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Nov 2012, 11:43
And yet, one-note Boehner still sings:

Quote from: from John Boehner's facebook
Raising tax rates, as some have proposed, will slow down our economy, hurt small businesses and destroy more than 700,000 jobs. Instead of going over the "fiscal cliff," let's focus together on pro-growth tax & entitlement reform to build a stronger, healthier economy.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 10 Nov 2012, 15:35
I don't claim him.  :x
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: valley_parade on 10 Nov 2012, 15:50
Death to the orange one.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: mustang6172 on 10 Nov 2012, 18:01
And yet, one-note Boehner still sings:

Quote from: from John Boehner's facebook
Raising tax rates, as some have proposed, will slow down our economy, hurt small businesses and destroy more than 700,000 jobs. Instead of going over the "fiscal cliff," let's focus together on pro-growth tax & entitlement reform to build a stronger, healthier economy.

Look at it this way, by admitting higher taxes slow economic growth, Boehner is inadvertently endorsing Keynesianism.  Take that, Austrian School Tea Party members!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 10 Nov 2012, 19:22
http://www.facebook.com/mittromney

I keep refreshing the page and watching the number of likes dropping. I'm imagining people jumping off of a sinking ship. I mean, if I leave the page for a few minutes, there'll be hundreds less on it.

I'm waiting to see how low it'll drop.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Nov 2012, 19:53
Sheriff Joe would just arrest them for being illegal aliens.
Who would consider arresting an international election observer? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83108.html)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Pilchard123 on 11 Nov 2012, 02:14
Welcome to your daily dose of rage. Do not read if you have high blood pressure or the ability to kill people over TCP/IP.

Quote from: Farcebook
Liberals are so sick, uneducated and have been brainwashed by there own so called honest Democrats in the school system for the passed 30 years they don't even know that it was the Republican party that freed the slaves in the Civil War and fought for women's right's. They don't even know that Dr. Martin Luther King as well as the large Majority of African Americans were Republicans at the time because they knew that it was the Republican party that fought for and respected them and they also knew that it was a democratic group that formed the KKK against them and it was The Democratic party that wanted to repress blacks and minorities from the work place and the education system and has actually succeeded to a far extent which is why today unemployment is at a record high especially among minorities. Liberals have become totally brainwashed by Democrats into believing that Republicans were racist and against them when in fact is was completely the other way around what a shame. Obama has not done a single thing for minorities except continue to repress them and they have become to brainwashed to see it. Obama is and always will be only interested in his own personal political agenda at any cost. He is not the kind of President America needed to make things right for all the people. He knew that he would be able to use race and brainwashed Liberals like the bunch of puppets that they are to gain what he needed and is now laughing behind there backs just like the sudden phony tears he now uses with applause LMAO. I simply do not bother debating with Liberals, it's like talking to dead wood. Now here's the fun part, can't wait to see how many of them here get pissed off because I just taught them a bit of History facts which they will refuse to believe and try to get me to respond to them. LMFAO AT THEM ALL

A bunch of idiots did some pretty horrendous things so anyone that supports their many-generations-forward descendants is automatically evil? I don't get involved in politics, but are there really people THAT dumb out there?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Zingoleb on 11 Nov 2012, 04:44
Well, it's also only partially true. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, yes, but in doing what he did he fractured the Republican party pretty damn heavily.

The Democrats, well, that's not untrue. But the Republican party and the Democratic party were both unrecognisably different in the 19th century compared to where they are now.

MLK was not affiliated with either party, and on top of that, he voted Democratic.

Also, Obama...well, he has some unsavoury policies (I wouldn't call him inherently good, but just better than Mittens - if I had to choose which one I'd want to be my dictator, I'd choose the one in power now), but I'd say he's actually pretty pro-minority. He works in ways that appear to be inclusive of all minorities, even backing the DREAM Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act) - unlike, say, the Republicans who were trying to prevent minorities from voting.

Whoever this person is has a bit of a hard-on for revisionist fantasies, just close enough to the truth to make people fall for it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 11 Nov 2012, 11:41
I know that kid... well, technically he's 42 and I don't actually know him, but the posting style, the word choice and the complete disregard for change combined with what is admittedly a decent bit of charisma can only belong to this guy. He's a notorious troll from another site I've been on, but there is just enough uncertainty in whether he believes what he says or not that he was able to remain unbanned.  :x If death could be transmitted via the internet, this guy would have exploded a long time ago...

I've made so many arguments against him that at this point it just doesn't seem to be worth it anymore... >.> Yes, there are people this stupid out there, this is just one of the more vocal ones.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Nov 2012, 13:55
Anyone who wants to write about the racial attitudes of Republicans and Democrats and lectures others for their ignorance of history deserves no respect if he doesn't know about the Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).

He's parroting something from the right-wing press anyway. I saw it go by recently but don't have the stomach to look it up. National Review maybe?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 14 Nov 2012, 12:05
Still no answers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578117962771953712.html) on a few races here in AZ, among them the final count for Maricopa County Sheriff.  Penzone has already conceded, because of the separation on election night, but frankly, I think he was unaware of just how many votes were not being counted.  Had he known the actual number, I don't think he would have called it so early.  The fact is that a lot of the votes that 'may not be counted' for identification purposes, are the exact votes that could swing the race back in Penzone's favor, and in fact, a large part of those people registered specifically to vote against Arpaio.  And it was known before election day that they were going to.  It looks for all intents and purposes that they were held to different standards when it came to said ID's as well, considering that I dropped my early ballot, and never even had to SHOW an ID.  OF course, I don't live in south Phoenix, I live in a white bread, no crust neighborhood (as my wife likes to call it), and no one questioned me about if I was in the right polling place, or if I had even registered.

Even if nothing was done wrong by Arpaio, something was clearly being done to keep people from being heard.  It's very hard to ignore, and yet, a lot of people here are trying to do exactly that.

I think it's about time I get out of this state.  Was looking at moving to San Antonio anyway, maybe just sooner now.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 14 Nov 2012, 19:18
As far as voting laws go, here in CT it's been pretty simple for as long as I can remember. You show up at your polling place (there are about 8-12 in each town), show your ID (photo ID has been required for years), and they check you off the registrar's list. You take your ballot, fill in the bubbles, put it in the fancy machine, and get a sticker that says you voted.

Before I was old enough to vote, I remember they had the large machines with the pull-crank, but showing up and ID'ing yourself has been the same procedure since before I was born.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: riccostar on 14 Nov 2012, 19:25
Concerning IDing for voting, I've heard that often times people don't have their identity checked when picking up an absentee ballot. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 14 Nov 2012, 19:41
Ohh...yeah, I have no idea. Absentee ballots I have never had to deal with. It wouldn't surprise me though.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 15 Nov 2012, 04:29
I have a question!

After Obama's victory a lot of people got stupid on twitter, informing the world that they did not like a african-american in office. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing. Now, some of these people who got stupid were college kids, on scholarships ... and they got outed to their schools.

Linkie. (http://jezebel.com/5958490/twitter-racists-react-to-that-nigger-getting-reelected/)

How do we feel about outing these people?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: pwhodges on 15 Nov 2012, 04:41
In the UK since 1976 incitement to hatred has been a criminal offence, and many of those tweets would count, I imagine.  Freedom of speech is all very fine, but it's sad when it gets used to defend that sort of thing.  However, the trouble is that any drawing of a line will be controversial to some extent or other.  I see no reason why people like that shouldn't get called out on it, though.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: VonKleist on 15 Nov 2012, 05:08
Hm hmm. I doubt it´ll do any good calling them out because these kind of people are usually too stupid to grasp what they did wrong. They´ll blame someone else, even if they have to face trial etc.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 15 Nov 2012, 05:34
I think calling them out is the only way to alert them to the stupidity of their comments...and people willing to make this kind of comment on a not-so-anonymous website are those who inwardly think it 24/7.

Also, they're morons for not realizing we've had an african-american in the white house for 4 years already...why start now? Are they trying to be Donald Trump?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Rockman on 15 Nov 2012, 05:45
I'm not really sure how I feel about this...  It's hard.  I'm not about to jump up and protect these kids from the consequences of their hateful, stupid and very public words, but I'm not about to high-five Jezebel for calling teenagers' principals to alert them to their online behavior.  Am I alone here, or does that make sense to anyone else?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: VonKleist on 15 Nov 2012, 05:59
Yes.
Because I often feel like the people who indulge in this kind of e-shaming/vigilantism are just as bad as the folks they´re going after.
I mean, it´s good to get involved! No denying that someone should call people out on spouting this kind of racist bullshit, but I´d respect it more if their respective social environment could do that. And if they live in an environment where it´s A-ok to call someone a racial slur then it´s probably too late and no amount of internet-hate will right this.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Redball on 15 Nov 2012, 06:08
Doesn't seem out of line for a school or uni administration/faculty to call them out for that kind of post. Punishment? Not at all. Perhaps sentence them to a consciousness-raising workshop/seminar, taught by an African-American.
I went through some consciousness-raising all at once in my sophomore year: Took an intro sociology course which seemed aimed at exploding and demolishing all kinds of preconceptions about class and race. But I was already curious; my roommate was a black kid I'd asked for, sight-unseen, the previous spring.
How many of these racist twerps grow up in a lily-white world of fellow believers and never work, learn or play with someone of another race?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 15 Nov 2012, 06:14
I'm not really sure how I feel about this...  It's hard.  I'm not about to jump up and protect these kids from the consequences of their hateful, stupid and very public words, but I'm not about to high-five Jezebel for calling teenagers' principals to alert them to their online behavior.  Am I alone here, or does that make sense to anyone else?
Nope. I'm not sure either. That's why I wanted some input. On the one hand I don't want to protect idiots from the consequences of their free speech. On the other hand; stupid kids need education not punishment.

Can't figure it out.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Method of Madness on 15 Nov 2012, 06:33
Is it the school's place or right to punish students for actions taken out of school? Mayhaps we need a thread for that question.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 15 Nov 2012, 08:14

I mean, it´s good to get involved! No denying that someone should call people out on spouting this kind of racist bullshit, but I´d respect it more if their respective social environment could do that. And if they live in an environment where it´s A-ok to call someone a racial slur then it´s probably too late and no amount of internet-hate will right this.

If you use Twitter, and these people have publically tweeted terrible things, then you *are* a part of their social community. 

There has been a big push online lately to whine, very loudly, about people's freedom of speech. 
Post suggestive pictures of underage girls online? Freeeeedom of speeeech!
Post terribly racist things about the president?  Freeeeedom of speeeech!
Hound an online female persona with rape threats?  Freeeeedom of speeeech!

These are all things which most people find to be objectionable behavior, and the way to address it is not by ignoring it.  These people do have freedom of speech, (unless they are spouting specific and credible threats).  But freedom of speech means the government can not, and should not, get involved.  It does not mean that others in their community should not.  Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of your speech.  In fact, if your speech was free from consequences it would likely not legally be "speech" anyways.  Freedom of speech is meant to protect language based communication, so that public debate and discussion can take place without the government's interference.  As much as someone has the freedom to tweet racist things about the president, someone else has the freedom to call them out on it, and should. 

If you grew up in a sheltered and racist place, you may have grown up thinking that this sort of racism is normal and acceptable.  But, you have the power as a rational person to assess you understanding, and to change it.  They only way these people will realize that this is not ok is if people speak up, and speak up in numbers great enough that it becomes clear that most of us do not think this is ok.  Will these people immediately understand why what they said was wrong and have a change of heart?  Not unless we woke up in a lifetime movie this morning.  But they will realize that what they said is not sanctioned by the majority.  Many of them already knew what they said was wrong, since instead of defending it a number of them responded "oh no, I was hacked!!" Over time exposure to other people reinforcing that this is wrong might make some of them change their minds, but for the others it will make them shut up.  And the less racist bullshit flying around public spaces the better.  First, because it makes the environment safer and more welcoming for everyone and second, because the less there is the less normal it seems, weakening the chances that incoming members (the very young) will see the behavior and adopt it. 

As far as calling people's schools, I have no problem with them calling, but the school taking disciplinary action would probably not be appropriate in most cases.  There were some students who, as a condition of being on a team or something, had agreed to be a public representative of the school, and in that case they have violated that agreement.  Otherwise, if they are in public schools, I think freedom of speech does apply.  Calling their schools is, regardless of the disciplinary outcome, an excellent way to drive home the point to these students that if you publicly make statements, people can and will find out who you are and hold you accountable for them.  You shouldn't make statements your aren't prepared to stand by. The online environment won't improve as long as people think that they cannot or will not be held accountable for what they do and say.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Nov 2012, 08:23
Not punishment per se, but public shaming is more than appropriate. 

I've been saying all along that this presidential race was about race.  Romney was a punch line until every other republican candidate imploded in the primaries.  There was so much "I don't really like him, but I'm voting for him anyway" in the GOP that it was clearly an "Anyone But Obama" campaign.  There was so much coded racist speech in the ads (well, the local ones that were not paid for by the campaigns) that it was disturbing to see/hear/read. 

Diversity training is worth it, even if it only reaches a fraction of these people.  Many of these kids won't shake these attitudes in their lifetime, though.  Then they'll raise their own children with the same bullshit.  Let's hope those children are reached with the message earlier than their fuckwit parents were.  Otherwise, the dream ends. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 15 Nov 2012, 08:53
That's the thing.  You can grow up and know your parents are terrible racists, and not become one.  It is clearly possible, or how have we gotten here today?

My father told me a story when I was 13 or so, about when he lived in Georgia.  The line at the 'white' water fountain was pretty long, and there was no line at the 'colored' one.  His father looked at him and his brother and said "Why are you waiting in this line? Go use that one."  While other people in the line were horrified, my grandfather's point was that there is no reason the water fountains should be separate anyways, and if you are standing in the long line to not use the 'colored' one, then you are reinforcing that they should be separate.  What stuck me the most when I heard that story?

Oh my god... segregation was so recent that my father remembers it! 

Of course I had read about segregation in textbooks, and I knew the dates, but it seemed like so long ago... The footage was in black and white, everyone was dressed so old-fashioned... It wasn't until I realized that I was one generation from segregation that it really hit home how much change we have made in such a short time. 

My father remembers when black americans fought to attend the same schools at whites, and the first black president.  That is a lot of change in one generation, and it is the sort of change that make me hopeful.  If that many people could change their minds in one lifetime, then think of where we will be in one more. 

But that change will only take place if we are publicly holding people accountable for what they say, and declaring that we disagree. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Nov 2012, 09:18
Calling attention to them is one end of the spectrum, hate speech laws are another end of the spectrum, and forwarding their racist messages to someone with authority over them is in between.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 15 Nov 2012, 10:53
I don't think it's in between at all, since it's basically being concerned that the person who stood on the steps in a public place to declare his racist comment got tattled on.

This wasn't even a private Facebook feed, it was a public Twitter.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 15 Nov 2012, 10:55
That's the thing.  You can grow up and know your parents are terrible racists, and not become one.  It is clearly possible, or how have we gotten here today?

It's not about how far we've come or how things have changed since our parents were children, it's about how much farther we have to go. (And sometimes, kids don't realize that their parents are racist and then they act in the same way as their parents, not really knowing why what they're doing is wrong.) Yes, we have a Black president and this is an amazing thing, but only half the country seems to realize this. The other half keeps making racist comments. Yes, enforced segregation is over, but I wouldn't say segregation is gone. It's just not obvious. People are still separated because too many people still have that "us vs. them" mentality.

As for dealing with those students... If they were at a university, I would fully support the school kicking them out, but that is because universities are institutions that can choose whether or not they want to be affiliated with you. High schools, however, don't have that luxury unless they're private. Do those students deserve to be punished because of what they said? Yes. But in an educational way. Make them attend a seminar about diversity and racism. Make them do community service in predominantly non-white areas. Make them learn about why racism is wrong and how they should not spread hate.

Also maybe bash it into their skulls to make sure it sticks. :-P

Also also, if anything, this will teach those kids that they can be held accountable for what they say on the internet, which at the least will teach them to think before you type. It may not cure the racism, but it may teach them to shut up about it.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 15 Nov 2012, 11:34
Hmmm.  I grew up in a horribly racist place, with a split of some horribly racist family members, and some not racist at all.  My mother and stepfather were two of the racist ones.

I myself, have never felt what I can only imagine they feel when looking at someone that they consider different from themselves.  I cannot fathom the thought processes they go through, though I know well enough that they were/are wrong.  In essence, I learned from their mistakes.

Not everyone does the same.  And many of those people believe it perfectly justifiable to voice their racist opinions whenever they feel like it, based on the idea of free speech.

I have something of an issue with this, especially considering that I am a veteran and one of the reasons that I joined the military in the first place was to ensure basic freedoms.  I have always felt that people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong I might consider them to be.  That said, if see someone being blatantly racist, you can bet your ass that I'll be the one to call them on shit, publicly without so much as a thought.  There needs to be a way to make people realize that while they have the freedom of speech, a person should be responsible for their bullshit as well.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 15 Nov 2012, 14:33
There was an earlier story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/denise-helms-california-woman-hopes-obama-is-assassinated_n_2104184.html) about a silly woman who'd posted on Facebook: "Another 4 years of this nigger. Maybe he will get assassinated this term." When interviewed, she seemed honestly puzzled about why this was a big deal. Like some of the posters in that list of Twitter feeds, she seemed to think you could go around calling a black man a nigger, and yet not be a racist. Her line is "It made me sound like a racist, but I'm not!".

I'm not sure that we can achieve much progress, when people simply redefine racist as "something hypothetically bad that I am not", and their apologists trot out excuses such as "You don't know that they're racist, they might just be ignorant!"
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: pwhodges on 15 Nov 2012, 14:50
My mind is blown by the suggestion that she can hope for Obama to be assassinated, but it's OK because she's not racist (even though she is) and it's "only" her opinion.  It's nearly my bedtime, but I doubt that sleeping on it will help.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Nov 2012, 15:37
This is reminding me of some of the anecdotes in the abortion thread about the people who define themselves as pro life (because they think they're anti-abortion) without realizing that this means they want the option to be taken away. 

It would be nice if, before taking a position on an issue, people would actually look into what those positions mean. 



I know, that would require work and thought...
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 15 Nov 2012, 18:19
The problem isn't just that she's racist because she used the N word, she used it and hoped he would be murdered. GRR. YOU ARE A RACIST, YOU ARE JUST ASHAMED THE PUBLIC FOUND OUT.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 15 Nov 2012, 18:40
YOU ARE JUST ASHAMED THE PUBLIC FOUND OUT.

THIS!  YES definitely this!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Nov 2012, 19:33
On the other hand if they're deterred into silence then we don't know how many of them there are or how hard to work to counter them.

Also not convinced that canceling her health insurance is a proportionate response.

Not that I would willingly have her on my payroll.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 15 Nov 2012, 20:04
their apologists trot out excuses such as "You don't know that they're racist, they might just be ignorant!"

That's just terrible...after all, racism is ignorance and hate, all in one.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Method of Madness on 15 Nov 2012, 20:12
As horrible as she is, I hope she's not jailed. Hoping someone gets killed is not a direct threat and treating it as such would create a dangerous precedent.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 15 Nov 2012, 21:14
As far as I can gather, she just got fired from her job. People don't go to jail for saying something like that, because it's still protected speech unless it can clearly be construed as a threat. And you can bet Gloria Allred will jump on that like a hobo on a ham sandwich, if they try to prosecute.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Akima on 15 Nov 2012, 21:35
Also not convinced that canceling her health insurance is a proportionate response.
Connecting health care to employment is just a bad idea all round.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Nov 2012, 22:02
For many reasons.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 15 Nov 2012, 23:40
"If you're not healthy enough to work, why should you get any help to get better so that you can work? What do you think this is, Russia?!"

Aaaand that's why I support socialized healthcare. That, and Social Security is a bunch of asshats. I know firsthand.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 16 Nov 2012, 04:52
Good thing "Obamacare" prevents her next insurer from discriminating against her for gaps in coverage.  And if she just hangs in there another year and a half "Obamacare" will subsidize her health insurance so she can afford it independent of her job. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Lines on 16 Nov 2012, 04:58
Oh no! The socialist commie black man will be interferin' with her health care, whether she likes it or not!
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Nov 2012, 08:52
There's an iconic picture of a Tea Party protester holding a sign warning the government not to get involved with Medicare.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 16 Nov 2012, 11:43
Speaking of Sheriff Joe. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/16/1205501/arpaio-pledges-automatic-weapons-for-all-deputies-because-more-and-more-illegal-aliens-are-attempting-to-escape/?mobile=nc)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Nov 2012, 19:24
That one really bothers me.  His opponent conceded well before all the votes were counted, not realizing how many were unaccounted for.  And now it looks like they're not even going to bother looking at them.  There were so many irregularities and some blatant voter suppression in that county that it's sickening. 

And no one's going to do anything about it now.  I think there may be a lawsuit in the works, but that could take years and most likely won't go anywhere anyway. 
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Nov 2012, 19:27
...What's Arizona's rules for recalling elected officials, I wonder?
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Blyss on 16 Nov 2012, 20:00
We have had it happen before. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/20/recalled-arizona-state-senator-announces-will-run-again/)  The fact is, the same group was looking at recalling the Governor here as well - and I think I may need to talk with some friends, and trying to nudge them into going after Joe.

Something really needs to be done, because this motherfucker has lost his goddamned mind.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Nov 2012, 20:13
The rules for a state office may well be different from whatever the county rules are.  I only hope somebody does something - Sherriff's deputies shouldn't be running around chasing questionable people with automatic weapons. 
Title: 2012 Election
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Nov 2012, 01:18
I looked it up, especially after remembering Meachem. It's pretty straightforward - go to place where you would apply to run for position; get papers promising signatures; go out and get signatures equal to 25% of last election total votes cast. After that, a recall election is called.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Papersatan on 17 Nov 2012, 12:38
That's the thing.  You can grow up and know your parents are terrible racists, and not become one.  It is clearly possible, or how have we gotten here today?

It's not about how far we've come or how things have changed since our parents were children, it's about how much farther we have to go. (And sometimes, kids don't realize that their parents are racist and then they act in the same way as their parents, not really knowing why what they're doing is wrong.)

My point was not that we don't have a long way to go, but that is is clearly possible for change to happen and for people to have beliefs that differ from those of their parents.  And that the way we as a society drive that change in opinions is by publicly and vocally calling people out for their bullshit.

I am absolutely fine with these kids having the spotlight shined on them and having to defend their opinions.  If you make a public statement, you are accepting public discourse on your statement.  If in fact these kids were raised to be racist and are unaware that there is something wrong with that, well they are going to find out most of us think there is something wrong with it.  These are not 8 year olds who are using a slur that their dad uses because they don't really understand what it means. These are teenagers who are about to enter society as adults.  These are people who feel qualified to enter the public debate about politics.  They have had plenty of exposure to other opinions, and are old enough to know that parents are fallible and that they need to develop their own opinions.  I doubt any 17 year old shares all the beliefs of their parents, because they are old enough to make their own choices. 

Like I said, I think in most cases the school is not in a position to do anything about the tweets.  Students do have freedom of speech, and as agents of the state public schools have no business telling them what they can and cannot say outside of school.  Forced diversity training is unlikely to have much of an effect, because you would have to want to change your mind to not approach it as some stupid 'PC' thing you were forced to do because you are so persecuted in modern America for being white, bloo bloo...

But one thing that makes a lot of people change their behavior is understanding that most of your peers don't think your behavior is ok.  Many people who live in racist communities and say racist things do so because it is popular to do so.  It is normal in some places and so there is little social risk in doing so.  The point of these shaming campaigns is to make there be a high social risk of doing so online.  If we can change the perception of the social space of Twitter, for example, to be one in which it is not popular to be racist, and posting racist tweets violates the social norm of the community, then people who are live in places where it is the norm, will be forced to think about their behavior in both situations.  It is not about preventing people from stating their opinions, people can still choose to violate the no racism norm, but if they want to do so they will have to be prepared for social sanctions.

On a related note, a Tumblr has appeared:
http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/

Edit:
Also as a note for people concerned that these teens won't be able to get into college or find a job after this exposure, anyone with half a brain, who actually realized they were wrong could write their admission essay about this experience and how they hadn't thought about their actions, but that the exposure made them re-assess their opinions and now they now realize both the impact fo their words and all the things they can gain by participating in a divers society.  That shit writes its self. 
Ditto for a "tell me about a mistake you have made" question at an interview.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Nov 2012, 04:26
I think the schools can do something about the tweets, indirectly. Rather than any stupid forced political correctness course, which as Kat points out would not be useful at all and probably would reinforce the racist beliefs, schools could respond by tackling the issue of critical thought and developing one's own opinions on something. It doesn't have to be a controversial topic - in fact, for learning how to think it's probably better to choose something that people aren't already strongly leaning in one direction or the other over - but helping people reason logically and showing them how to assess their own conclusions is an important first step in bringing them to realise their mistakes. It's basic teaching philosophy, right? Don't just tell them the answer, help them to figure out how to find it themselves.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 18 Nov 2012, 08:39
<mod>The post this refers to is now in the Teaching Critical Thinking thread</mod>

The GOP is pretty much a comic book villain organization, no joke. They are House Harkonen.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 18 Nov 2012, 09:57
The GOP nomination is pretty much a comic book villain organization, no joke. They are House Harkonen.
Mitt = Vladimir?
Ryan = ... Feyd Rautha??
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: ackblom12 on 18 Nov 2012, 10:05
Nooooooo now I'm imagining Ryan in this:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vY8I5HvOvk8/Sl5lIeXxxDI/AAAAAAAAH1Y/JzkZytvj3F4/s400/codpiece.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Nov 2012, 20:25
Is...is that Sting?

Oh My God it is...I totally forgot he was in Dune....that just made my day. XD
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: J on 20 Nov 2012, 03:10
and ruined mine. DX
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: henri bemis on 20 Nov 2012, 03:27
Given the context, I now cannot look at that photo without seeing the most uncomfortable patriotic underpants ever.  It looks like a bald eagle accidentally ran into Sting's boy bits.  Like birds who fly into glass doors.
Title: Re: 2012 Election
Post by: BeoPuppy on 20 Nov 2012, 03:30
What do you think will break first?

Pay attention: what you answer might get you deported.