Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
DAS

2012 American Presidential Election

Cast your vote  

84 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you for?

    • Obama (US Citizen)
      25
    • Romney (US Citizen)
      25
    • Other Candidate (US Citizen)
      8
    • Not Voting (US Citizen)
      5
    • Obama (Non-US Citizen)
      15
    • Romney (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Other Candidate (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Don't Care (Non-US Citizen)
      4


Recommended Posts

Perceived media bias or not, the press at large has paid a price. The major news organizations have suffered a huge drop in credibility over the last decade. Just before the conventions, the Pew Research Center reported, "since 2002, every news outlet's believability rating has suffered a double-digit drop, except for local daily newspapers and local TV news." Thirteen national news organizations, including Fox News, the networks, NPR and national newspapers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today, have suffered huge credibility losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney has spent the last 5 years trying to convince America to elect him and he hasn't gotten the job done. No "boogie man" theory, such as media bias, can overcome that fact.

He did a good job. You just cant beat the vote of illegal immigrants that want their food stamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida has apparently located enough abacus's to tabulate Tuesday's vote. At 3PM eastern time today, they announced the final results.

What is it with Florida and vote counting? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did a good job. You just cant beat the vote of illegal immigrants that want their food stamps.

How exactly does an illegal immigrant get to vote? Have you ever worked a polling station? Members of both the Dems and GOP are there and can challenge any voter's credentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does an illegal immigrant get to vote? Have you ever worked a polling station? Members of both the Dems and GOP are there and can challenge any voter's credentials.

Nobody was asked for an ID here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida has apparently located enough abacus's to tabulate Tuesday's vote. At 3PM eastern time today, they announced the final results.

What is it with Florida and vote counting? ;-)

Most of the men can't count above 21 and that's only with their shoes off and pants down! ;)

Women, only 20! :lol:

BTW, I live in Florida - there are more embarrassing things that go on down here than I even care to share! :bagoverhead:

electoral college final count: 332-206....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the men can't count above 21 and that's only with their shoes off and pants down! ;)

Women, only 20! :lol:

BTW, I live in Florida - there are more embarrassing things that go on down here than I even care to share! :bagoverhead:

electoral college final count: 332-206....

What was the popular while you are at it? Florida and Ohio deciding the fate of America every four years. Pathetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody was asked for an ID here

I don't believe that! Fact - my mother lives about 200 miles away from you in NY state and was required to show photo ID in order to vote.

Down here, we had to show ID, had our signature checked and had to orally identify our address.

Step away from the pill bottle.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that! Fact - my mother lives about 200 miles away from you in NY state and was required to show photo ID in order to vote.

Down here, we had to show ID, had our signature checked and had to orally identify our address.

Step away from the pill bottle.....

Now comments like that are close to reportable Walter. Any meds I take are for good fucking reason and they are not mind altering. I am not lying. They did not ask anyone near me or my friend at his fire station for a fucking ID.

By the way, who told you I am on meds? Your buddy MM, or Stinkerbelle who is now melba toast?

Edited by LedZeppfan77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the popular while you are at it? Florida and Ohio deciding the fate of America every four years. Pathetic

Subtract those two states and he STILL wins. He won what, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts (Gov. Romney's state), Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, District of Columbia, Ohio, Michigan(Gov. Romney's home state), Illinois, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's state), Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii.

Popular vote for the nation was about 3,000,000 more votes for Obama. You can look up the actual count easily.

What's pathetic is this discussion....out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now comments like that are close to reportable Walter. Any meds I take are for good fucking reason and they are not mind altering. I am not lying. They did not ask anyone near me or my friend at his fire station for a fucking ID.By the way, who told you I am on meds? Your buddy MM, or Stinkerbelle who is now melba toast?

Reportable? It was a joke. The fact your still on here, with your current name, after all you've said over the past week is the greatest mystery. MM was YOUR buddy and pen pail. See you don't even remember that you have repeatedly told us about your pills - that's why I have had enough for today.

You should report your "fire station" voting precinct for not checking ID's.

Edited by Walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reportable? It was a joke. The fact your still on here, with your current name, after all you've said over the past week is the greatest mystery. MM was YOUR buddy and pen pail. See you don't even remember that you have repeatedly told us about your pills - that's why I have had enough for today.

You should report your "fire station" voting precinct for not checking ID's.

Dont piss down my back and tell me its raining Walter. It was no joke. It was an attack. Labeling me a drug addict. You do not have any facts. MM fooled me like he did many others. He is very good at what he does. Pen pal? Ha. Ok. You have had enough and so have I of your spinning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the illegal immigrants can vote theory.

Here we have an electoral roll where only people of voting age, 18 and citizens only, are required to register.

Whenever there are elections (and we have them for local, state and federal), the federal government sends out a form to be updated with any details that may have changed or for first time voters, since the last one was held.

It's a simple process, when you go the polling booths there are queues in alphabetical order and they ask you who you are and mark your name off the roll.

Unless you are a registered voter you can't proceed to post a vote and fake id won't help.

Do you not have a similar system over there?

If anyone can vote in the US without registering to vote by providing their social security number and other forms of Id beforehand, then you really do have problems.

It constantly amazes me that a considerably high number of Americans would rather exercise their right NOT to vote and then complain ad nauseam about the result, than doing what I consider a privelege to contribute to the outcome and possible betterment of my country.

Btw, We don't use electronic voting yet (and I hope we never do), just good old ballot papers where you can actually make your mark.

Edited by Reggie29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the illegal immigrants can vote theory.

Here we have an electoral roll where only people of voting age, 18 and citizens only, are required to register.

Whenever there are elections (and we have them for local, state and federal), the federal government sends out a form to be updated with any details that may have changed or for first time voters, since the last one was held.

It's a simple process, when you go the polling booths there are queues in alphabetical order and they ask you who you are and mark your name off the roll.

Unless you are a registered voter you can't proceed to post a vote and fake id won't help.

Do you not have a similar system over there?

If anyone can vote in the US without registering to vote by providing their social security number and other forms of Id beforehand, then you really do have problems.

It constantly amazes me that a considerably high number of Americans would rather exercise their right NOT to vote and then complain ad nauseam about the result, than doing what I consider a privelege to contribute to the outcome and possible betterment of my country.

Btw, We don't use electronic voting yet (and I hope we never do), just good old ballot papers where you can actually make yoyr mark.

Its documented that alot of illegal shit went on and the voting system here is still not fool proof. Mass numbers and mass confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does an illegal immigrant get to vote? Have you ever worked a polling station? Members of both the Dems and GOP are there and can challenge any voter's credentials.

Try it in Philadelphia.

If you dare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its documented that alot of illegal shit went on and the voting system here is still not fool proof. Mass numbers and mass confusion.

How did Bush win in Florida, fair and square I guess then eh?

Poor losers blame everyone else but their own party who couldn't oust a weakened president. That blame lies with Romney. Your party is not inclusive it seems to me and doesn't seem to want to be. So you exclude a growing non white population. So how will you win in 4 years time? I guess just have the Republican held House of representatives block any move Obama makes and then blame him for policies failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Bush win in Florida, fair and square I guess then eh?

Poor losers blame everyone else but their own party who couldn't oust a weakened president. That blame lies with Romney. Your party is not inclusive it seems to me and doesn't seem to want to be. So you exclude a growing non white population. So how will you win in 4 years time? I guess just have the Republican held House of representatives block any move Obama makes and then blame him for policies failing.

I am a registered Democrat fella. So stick your party shit where the sun dont shine. I vote for the man not the party. I am going to change to independant because there are major flaws in both parties. i am not saying I will vote for the Republican nominee in 2016 automatically. I wanted Hillary to win before. I cant stand this bastard and his Muslim support and his middle finger in the air to Isreal who was a friend of ours. I do not like what he represents, or his record and he has divided the Democratic party in half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, LZFan77, I don't know where you get this stuff from, lol!

His Muslim support? that would be...what...1 or 2 percent in the US I imagine?

Middle finger to Israel? It's a calculated move that lots of Prez's have looked at: put a little daylight between us and Israel. Israel is plenty big and tough, and can handle things all on its own. If attacked, rest assured, our soldiers will be dying over there for wonderful Israel which has done so much for us in the M.E. As one Israeli prime minister said "we will defend the land of Israel until the last American soldier is dead".

Lots of illegal shit went down in this voting? like what? All of the Voter ID laws, aimed at restricting people from voting easily, were GOP created.

He's divided the Dem party in half? I've never seen it more united.

It's the GOP primary process that makes it impossible to put up a moderate. Personally, the whole primary process SUCKS. Iowa and NH go first, each is about 95% white. Immigrant problem? Cmon, neither one of them would know an immigrant if they fell over it, and I live in NH. For the Dems, it makes the party choose a left of center person, because NH is socially liberal. Makes it hard in the rest of the country. For the GOP, you've got to be insanely conservative for South Carolina, and then you're too conservative for huge chunks of the country.

Edited by in_the_evening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, LZFan77, I don't know where you get this stuff from, lol!

His Muslim support? that would be...what...1 or 2 percent in the US I imagine?

Middle finger to Israel? It's a calculated move that lots of Prez's have looked at: put a little daylight between us and Israel. Israel is plenty big and tough, and can handle things all on its own. If attacked, rest assured, our soldiers will be dying over there for wonderful Israel which has done so much for us in the M.E. As one Israeli prime minister said "we will defend the land of Israel until the last American soldier is dead".

Lots of illegal shit went down in this voting? like what? All of the Voter ID laws, aimed at restricting people from voting easily, were GOP created.

He's divided the Dem party in half? I've never seen it more united.

It's the GOP primary process that makes it impossible to put up a moderate. Personally, the whole primary process SUCKS. Iowa and NH go first, each is about 95% white. Immigrant problem? Cmon, neither one of them would know an immigrant if they fell over it, and I live in NH. For the Dems, it makes the party choose a left of center person, because NH is socially liberal. Makes it hard in the rest of the country. For the GOP, you've got to be insanely conservative for South Carolina, and then you're too conservative for huge chunks of the country.

Well then the news reports I saw out of Ohio were all lies I guess? Gee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree.

Big surprise, George, since disproving the notion of media bias seems to be a major component of the book you authored (and hump with every post).

Seriously, it would be simpler to put your book cover - with a direct link to it on Amazon - in your signature block to eliminate attaching the jpg for each post.

Everyone - but everyone - uses the "media bias" argument to complain that their politics haven't been adopted by more people. This premise has never had much credibility in modern western societies, and it's especially anachronistic in the Internet age. Noam Chomsky says the media is biased in favor of the military-industrial complex (that's why we aren't living in an anarchist utopia), and Glenn Beck and the previous couple of posters say the media is biased in favor of liberal collectivists (that's why the Democrats won the election). Clearly, bias is in the eye of the beholder. I could spend twenty minutes online and come up with all kinds of media-bias conspiracy theories "explaining" why one or another cause has been completely marginalized - of course, I'll never find anyone saying that the media is biased in their favor.

To begin with, I'm not claiming it's WHY Democrats won the election, but an alarming factor that directly contributed.

Actually, as many people often do in order to dismiss a particular notion, you are boiling the issue of media bias down to a simple binary, off/on, yes/no quantity.

By doing that, your job of disproving becomes much simpler.

You eliminate all the nuance and gut the gray area, and suddenly the transition from beginning to end is so hard-edged and discordant that you achieve the appearance of epiphany.

"Why didn't we all see how cut and dry this issue is?"

It becomes the equivalent of a comedic punch line.

This is what makes Jon Stewart so successful.

He guts the nuance while maintaining the original shape of an issue, drops a deadpan punchline, and twenty-somethings across the country think they understand some political issue.

This is the very essence of what you're doing with the concept of media bias.

Whenever someone lays the media bias line on me, I always ask them, "Well, where did you hear this? What's your evidence?" The answer is usually something like, "I saw a show / heard a lecture / checked out a website / read an article / listened to a radio program that convinced me." Uh, aren't all those things the media?

Perhaps you haven't asked enough - or the right - people.

Because if you asked me, I would explain that I get my opinions and views through firsthand observation, not from something I heard about, or read about.

To begin with, do you contend that media bias is a myth, non-existent?

Then how would you explain FOX News?

They are clearly biased towards the conservative spectrum.

Conceding the FOX example, you would be hard-pressed to then deny the blatant liberal bias of MSNBC.

Once having established the parameters/boundaries of the issue - FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left, all the rest of the mainstream outlets are between those - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN are pretty much the rest of what embody what is widely recognized as the Mainstream Media, or MSM.

Imagine a scale of 10, zero in the middle representing relatively unbiased reciting of the days events (the news) un-injected with opinion (or bias).

NPR is as close to this ideal as exists (although personally, I think they are maybe a +1 towards the liberal side).

From there, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and HLN all reside between maybe +2 to +3 towards the liberal side.

I often joke that MSNBC is closer to +11 on this scale of 10, but I will conservatively place them at around +6 towards the liberal side.

The lone occupant of the conservative side of the scale is FOX, and though they are mocked, ridiculed and scorned for being so blatantly right-wing biased, they are truthfully no more that a +2 or +3 towards the conservative side.

What gives FOX the appearance of wildly partisan reporting is not their distance from ZERO, but their distance from the rest of the major reporting organizations.

In fact, it is without FOX that we would be closer to the condition you describe of not being able to perceive media bias.

So we are left with 6 networks firmly on the liberal side of the reporting spectrum, and a sole agency on the right.

Tell me again why there's no such thing as media bias?

The best example I have of this is in one of Ann Coulter's books I was researching (while holding my stomach) a while ago. She wrote, "You simply never hear about anything that doesn't fit the [New York] Time's ideological preconceptions." On the cover of her book was the blurb, "The Instant New York Times bestseller!" "The media" is every embittered pundit's best friend when it can be derided as his or her worst enemy.

This is oversimplification in the extreme, and a poor example.

When media bias is referred to, it is referencing the injection of opinion into reporting of the news, not the comics, daily horoscopes and best-seller lists.

The image you paint is one of state-run media censorship, where the internet, books and broadcast media are censored and information is controlled.

Again, you create an intentionally extreme extrapolation of the actual issue to make your case.

Perhaps your argument is one of semantics.

Instead of media bias maybe we should call it news bias.

You're entitled to your opinions, and it's understandable to be angry when your side loses at the polls, but blaming some monolithic media establishment for manipulating public sentiment and electoral outcomes is just a really flimsy excuse in the age of the 500-channel universe and the World Wide Web.

And you're entitled to your opinions, as well.

And it's understandable that you have those opinions after capitalizing on a hot-button issue by penning a book detailing said opinions on the subject.

But your opinions, in the end, are just that.

An alternative perspective for us to consider.

But your claims, no matter how convincing, do not disprove the existence of media bias.

The YouTube clip I included in the previous post is from a documentary that supports what I had already observed on my own.

The documentary includes interviews with major network reporters and anchors admitting to said bias.

It exists, your personal tome to the contrary notwithstanding, and it is a problem.

Because left unchecked, it could eventually become the media censorship you describe.

The "500 channel universe and the World Wide Web" are indeed resources that can deliver untold amounts of information.

Sadly, the vast majority of people are far more likely to use those resources to get more detailed information on their favorite couple on Dancing With The Stars than they are to investigate the veracity of posts and graphics that are posted on their Facebook wall.

Do you have even a notion how many Twitter trends were the result of "articles" originally posted on The Free Wood Post, a poor-man's The Onion?

The main header boldly reads "News that's ALMOST reliable".

Yet direct links to outrageously ridiculous stories like "Romney could relate to black people because his family once owned slaves" were taken as fact among multitudes of Facebook and Twitter users, reposting and re-Tweeting ad nauseum.

This is absolutely tangential to the central issue of media bias, more directed at your reference of vast resources.

But what do we take away from all of that?

The existence of vast resources doesn't correspond to intelligent usage of those resources.

Hence the relatively new classification of the Low-Information Voter.

Give it up already.

No can do, amigo.

Giving up only hastens our demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does an illegal immigrant get to vote? Have you ever worked a polling station? Members of both the Dems and GOP are there and can challenge any voter's credentials.

Have you EVER seen anyone challenged at polling station? Exactly how would you challenge someone suspected of being illegal? It can't be done and nobody but nobody would have the cajones to even ask the question? Btw, what does an illegal alien look like?

I suspect if you even asked the question and got it wrong you could be personally sued in civil court for defamation or something. Currently the only way to challenge a voter would be if you could prove that you observed them enter the country by illegal means (climbing a fence or smuggled in a shipping crate). And then beyond that prove that you saw them go straight to a polling place without first obtaining legal citizenship.

Obviously that part of our system is broken and even Jimmy Carter the great liberal is in favor of some form of voter ID laws in order to maintain some form of confidence in our election process.

I for one don't believe that this last election was decided by illegal votes. However one has to question the real reasons for the opposition to voter ID laws? With states like California now issuing drivers licences to illegal aliens, it will become much more difficult over time to prevent a flood of unauthorized voters in our elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To begin with, do you contend that media bias is a myth, non-existent?

Then how would you explain FOX News?

They are clearly biased towards the conservative spectrum.

Conceding the FOX example, you would be hard-pressed to then deny the blatant liberal bias of MSNBC.

Once having established the parameters/boundaries of the issue - FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left, all the rest of the mainstream outlets are between those - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN are pretty much the rest of what embody what is widely recognized as the Mainstream Media, or MSM.

Imagine a scale of 10, zero in the middle representing relatively unbiased reciting of the days events (the news) un-injected with opinion (or bias).

NPR is as close to this ideal as exists (although personally, I think they are maybe a +1 towards the liberal side).

From there, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and HLN all reside between maybe +2 to +3 towards the liberal side.

I often joke that MSNBC is closer to +11 on this scale of 10, but I will conservatively place them at around +6 towards the liberal side.

The lone occupant of the conservative side of the scale is FOX, and though they are mocked, ridiculed and scorned for being so blatantly right-wing biased, they are truthfully no more that a +2 or +3 towards the conservative side.

What gives FOX the appearance of wildly partisan reporting is not their distance from ZERO, but their distance from the rest of the major reporting organizations.

In fact, it is without FOX that we would be closer to the condition you describe of not being able to perceive media bias.

So we are left with 6 networks firmly on the liberal side of the reporting spectrum, and a sole agency on the right.

Tell me again why there's no such thing as media bias?

Type-O,

I hope you don't mind if I print this post and use at as a reference. This is as good of an explanation of media bias as I have ever read.

Good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type-O,

I hope you don't mind if I print this post and use at as a reference. This is as good of an explanation of media bias as I have ever read.

Good job!

Lulz, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that! Fact - my mother lives about 200 miles away from you in NY state and was required to show photo ID in order to vote.

Down here, we had to show ID, had our signature checked and had to orally identify our address.

Step away from the pill bottle.....

No id's required at my precint. Just tel them your name and address. Even my brother, who no longer lives here, came back and voted because he is too lazy to register in his county. I should turn him in. :lol:

Edit: I favor needing an acceptable ID to vote. You need it for just about everything else around here. Maybe if they put the laws into effect now, the people that bitch about it will have enough time to get one before the next election.

P.S. Obummer said "let's fix this" in regards to the polling places and their long lines, etc. Hopefully not another empty promise. I have voted in CA in every state, federal election since 1988. I have never waited more than 1/2 hr at the polling place. Strange that this state seems to do SOMETHING right.

Edited by 3hrsoflunacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×