Romney vs. Obama

[A.Nonymous]

They haven't had a brokered convention in decades if my memory serves me correctly. In any case, those were races where there was no clear frontrunner and the nomination was undecided going into the convention. This year it's different as Romney is the clear front runner and Paul has not won the popular vote in a single primary.

 

[FJR1300]

Interestingly, Ted Kennedy did the same thing to Carter in 1980 and didn't drop out until the first round of votes at the convention. Carter went on to get trounced by Reagan, probably due more to the way the public saw Carter as weak against Iran than the refusal of Kennedy to drop out when he was well beaten in the primaries.

I will say that after looking into some of the past conventions that I can see where the delegate rules can come in handy in a close race, but I still don't understand why delegates are allowed to remain uncommitted when the voters asked them to support their candidate of choice.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how it all goes down.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Kennedy was a little different as he did win several primaries. He was more like Santorum to Carter's Romney. Kennedy won several primaries, but not enough to give him enough delegates to win. Plus, his family still had a lot of pull in the party. Paul hasn't won a single primary. Nor has he really even come close. He doesn't have much, if any pull, in the party.

Paul has been rejected by voters at the polls over and over again. It's almost as it he's trying to win through political maneuvering a victory that the voters have overwhelmingly denied him. The people have made it very clear that they don't want Paul as the candidate. Paul is basically saying that doesn't matter because he knows what's best for them.

I'm sure the delegate rules are the way they are for historical and traditional reasons more than anything. Same reason the electoral college is still there. I'm also sure it's so they can buy votes in a close election. It's not there so a guy can go to the polls get rejected over and over again and still get nominated.

 

[TxGoat]

some say that the politicians are what is wrong with current politics.

i say it's the voters that are the problem. idiots should be allowed to vote.

The only problem is how does one define what is considered "idiotic"? Is it anyone that sees things form a different point of view?

As I stated, what happened in the past, happened in the past. What I found more indicative about him as a person is his response. I personally would've like to have seen more of a, "Well, none of us have a 100% clean record in our past. I know I did some things that in hindsight weren't the best ideas, and for anyone that I did hurt in the process, I am truly sorry." As I posted earlier, his response sounded like, "I don't recall, I'm sorry, vote for me!"

 

[batgeek]

i define what is idiotic.

one can have their own point of view, but stupid is just plain stupid...and it's not that hard to figure out if someone is stupid or an idiot.

 

[A.Nonymous]

i define what is idiotic.

one can have their own point of view, but stupid is just plain stupid...and it's not that hard to figure out if someone is stupid or an idiot.

I dunno. I've crossed paths with people who defined stupid as anyone who disagreed with them.

 

[ylexot]

I've seen people on other forums suggest a requirement to pass a test to be allowed to vote. The problem there is that a person has to make the test and can skew it to give an advantage to one group/candidate. I'd love to be able to say that we could come up with a simple, fair test that everyone could agree on (i.e. what is the capital of the US, what are the three branches of government, etc), but I doubt it.

Personally, I'd be happy if we could just remove the D/R/I/G/whatever after the candidate's name and randomize the name order on the ballots. Then you have to know who you want to vote for, choose randomly (in which case, randoms votes would theoretically cancel each other out), or skip that office. But it seems that people are against that too.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I've seen people on other forums suggest a requirement to pass a test to be allowed to vote. The problem there is that a person has to make the test and can skew it to give an advantage to one group/candidate. I'd love to be able to say that we could come up with a simple, fair test that everyone could agree on (i.e. what is the capital of the US, what are the three branches of government, etc), but I doubt it.

Personally, I'd be happy if we could just remove the D/R/I/G/whatever after the candidate's name and randomize the name order on the ballots. Then you have to know who you want to vote for, choose randomly (in which case, randoms votes would theoretically cancel each other out), or skip that office. But it seems that people are against that too.

The founding fathers idea to address the former concern was the electoral college. The theory was that you'd elect people you trusted to elect national leaders. Of course that mutated into the indirect system we have today.

I would love to remove the party designator from the candidates name and just list them in alphabetical order. That way there'd be no question as to showing favoritism. I suspect both parties would be extremely opposed to this though ad well as the majority of the populace who enjoys voting based on party. I suspect we'd end up with a lot of elected officials who's names started with A's and B's though.

 

[ylexot]

I suspect we'd end up with a lot of elected officials who's names started with A's and B's though.

Yeah, that's the problem with listing alphabetically and the reason I'd like to randomize the names. It would be really easy to do on the electronic voting machines where the machine could randomize the ballot for each voter. Paper ballots could be done, but it is more difficult.

 

[ylexot]

BTW, the Founding Fathers were also proponents of an informed electorate...something we aren't even close to having any more.

 

[A.Nonymous]

BTW, the Founding Fathers were also proponents of an informed electorate...something we aren't even close to having any more.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. It's shame really when you consider that we are living in an age when the entire knowledge of humanity is literally right at your fingertips when you're in front of a computer.

 

[FJR1300]

I've seen people on other forums suggest a requirement to pass a test to be allowed to vote. The problem there is that a person has to make the test and can skew it to give an advantage to one group/candidate. I'd love to be able to say that we could come up with a simple, fair test that everyone could agree on (i.e. what is the capital of the US, what are the three branches of government, etc), but I doubt it.

Personally, I'd be happy if we could just remove the D/R/I/G/whatever after the candidate's name and randomize the name order on the ballots. Then you have to know who you want to vote for, choose randomly (in which case, randoms votes would theoretically cancel each other out), or skip that office. But it seems that people are against that too.

Talk of bringing back the old literacy test eh? I'd like for the voters to be educated about how the government works, what their rights are and what the government can and cannot do. But as you pointed out, there is not likely to be a fair way to implement such an idea, well meaning though it is. Requiring an intelligence test to vote is to deny one's right, an ironic way to demonstrate government and the 15th amendment.

Might be easier to attack the problem from the other end; require all candidates to tell the truth when campaigning, under penalty of disqualification for failure to do so. That would help put a stop to confusing some voters.

 

[ylexot]

Talk of bringing back the old literacy test eh? I'd like for the voters to be educated about how the government works, what their rights are and what the government can and cannot do. But as you pointed out, there is not likely to be a fair way to implement such an idea, well meaning though it is. Requiring an intelligence test to vote is to deny one's right, an ironic way to demonstrate government and the 15th amendment.

Might be easier to attack the problem from the other end; require all candidates to tell the truth when campaigning, under penalty of disqualification for failure to do so. That would help put a stop to confusing some voters.

They're mostly lawyers...they think the truth is subjective.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Requiring an intelligence test to vote is to deny one's right, an ironic way to demonstrate government and the 15th amendment.

That statement, which I don't disagree with one bit, just makes me extremely sad.

Might be easier to attack the problem from the other end; require all candidates to tell the truth when campaigning, under penalty of disqualification for failure to do so. That would help put a stop to confusing some voters.

Problem with that is that truth is subjective. Sadly.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Paul has announced he's going to stop actively campaigning. At least for voters anyway. He's going to continue trying to get delegates.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I had believed the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force would drive the hedge fund, bankers, etc toward the Romney camp, but it appears the Task Force concentrates on petty fraud, no investigations on the crimes committed prior, during, and after the financial meltdown.


"This prosecution is part of efforts under way by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes."

USDOJ: Principal of Offshore Brokerage Firm Sentenced in Miami to 20 Years in Prison for $7 Million Stock Manipulation Scam

 

[OutofDate1980]

What benefits do the people at the top reap from the government that the people on the bottom don't?

Better tax breaks ? Bain Gave Staff Way to Swell IRAs by Investing in Deals - WSJ.com

"Bain added a couple of unusual twists that made co-investing even more rewarding. It allowed employees to co-invest via tax-deferred retirement accounts, and to do so by buying a special share class that cost little but yielded much larger gains than other shares when deals proved successful, according to former employees and internal Bain documents analyzed by The Wall Street Journal."

 

[copestag]

thats a fairly poor example..... considering all it proves is that people at the bottom were given a chance at very rewarding investments......... not to mention it has nothing to do with government benefits other than the fact they were investing their 401Ks

 

[gamblor01]

BTW, the Founding Fathers were also proponents of an informed electorate...something we aren't even close to having any more.

I was listening to NPR after a GOP debate in Alabama. This was a few months ago when Gingrich and Santorum were still in it. They interviewed a guy who said Obama couldn't even be president because the constitution says that both of your parents must be natural born citizens.

It's terrifying to think that there are so many people out there helping to decide how to run this country, when they don't even know the first thing about how we run this country.

 

[OutofDate1980]

thats a fairly poor example..... considering all it proves is that people at the bottom were given a chance at very rewarding investments......... not to mention it has nothing to do with government benefits other than the fact they were investing their 401Ks

"Mr. Romney's IRA: between $20.7 million and $101.6 million, according to his finance disclosures."

At the time SEP-IRA contribution limit was $30,000. Mr. Romney was one of the two executives that oversaw these IRA investment vehicles, i.e. set the price for the class L shares that Romney invested in.

Note: This is an IRA, not a 401k, which doesn't need to be available to all workers, i.e. "people at the bottom".

 

[A.Nonymous]

Correct me if I"m wrong, but doesn't the article say this IRA WAS available to all employees? It let employees co-invest via a tax deferred vehicle. I'll sign up for that any day. I don't see how that is bad at all. I must be missing something here.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Correct me if I"m wrong, but doesn't the article say this IRA WAS available to all employees? ...

Read it again, doesn't say such thing. This is a self-directed IRA, there is no requirement for a firm to offer this investment to all employees.

 

[copestag]

you should read it again yourself......... while it doesnt specifically say ALL employees..... it also doesnt say limited or specific employees.........

it goes on to talk about jr employees who borrowed money from friends and family or ran up their credit cards to invest........ this doesnt sound like the 'top' to me....... sounds like the 'bottom'

and of course as I already stated........ this is in no way an example of a government benefit that anyone is reaping...... top or bottom

 

[A.Nonymous]

Read it again, doesn't say such thing. This is a self-directed IRA, there is no requirement for a firm to offer this investment to all employees.

But from what I read it was open to employees. Again, if I'm on the job market and I see a company that offers this, I'm extremely intrigued. I fail to see the wrong doing here. What am I missing?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Also, even if this was limited to the top of the company, where is the crime in it? It's still a good deal for the employee and completely legal.