U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016

[AES]

What the hell happened to cheesehead? I miss the political commentary, commentary, and commentary.

[science_man_88]

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-family-...003209723.html

Numerous media sources, including Truthout, are reporting that Solamere Capital—the investment firm run by Mitt Romney’s son, Tagg, and the home of money put into the closely held firm by Tagg’s uncle Scott, mother Anne and, of course, the dad who might just be the next President of the United States—depending upon how the vote count turns out, in our little tale, in the State of Ohio—have shared business interests with H.I.G. either directly or via Solamere Advisors which is owned, in part, by Solamere Capital, including a reported investment in H.I.G. by either Solamere Capital or Solamere Advisors.

romney-> romney's son -> solamere capital -> solamere advisors -> HIG -> investors in romeny's campaign, not too surprising.

We learn that one of the companies whose machines had failed was none other than Hart Intercivic.
With television time to fill and no ability to declare a winner so that the long night’s broadcast can be brought to a close, the staffs keep digging for relevant information to keep the attention of their viewers—and that is when it gets very real.
It turns out that Hart Intercivic is owned, in large part, by H.I.G. Capital

this was earlier in the article interesting link between a potential president and a rigged voting machine company.

[cheesehead]

"A Romney-Biden Administration? It Could Happen"

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-biden-a...-politics.html

... it is possible that this election could result in a President Romney and a Vice President Biden.

Let me explain.

If there is a tie in the electoral college (and, as I explain below, there could be), it will be up to the newly elected House of Representatives to elect a President and the newly elected Senate to elect the Vice President.

The rules are all outlined in the 12 th Amendment to Constitution. Here's how it would work:

1) In the House vote for President, each state delegation gets a single vote. So California, with 53 Representatives (majority of them Democrats), would likely cast its single vote for Obama. South Dakota with just one Representative (Republican), would get equal weight and likely cast its vote for Romney, and so on.

All told, in the current House, Republicans have majority control of 33 state delegations; Democrats control 14 and 3 are evenly divided. Even if the Democrats win control of the House, the Republicans would almost certainly still control a majority of the state delegations. Bottom line: Romney wins.

2) In the Senate vote for Vice President, each Senator gets a single vote. If Democrats keep control of the Senate, Biden would likely win (unless somebody crosses party lines).

If the new Senate is divided 50-50 (a plausible outcome), the sitting Vice President would cast the tie-breaking vote. That sitting vice President: Joe Biden. Yes, Joe Biden would be the deciding vote in re-electing Vice President Joe Biden. Bottom line: If Democrats keep control of the Senate, Biden likely wins.

Voila! You have a Romney-Biden Administration, the greatest political odd couple since the Adams-Jefferson Administration (now those two had real political differences).

Is this all just crazy talk? No.

There are a number of plausible scenarios which could result in a 269-269 electoral tie.

Here's just one: Obama wins OH, WI, NH. Romney wins FL, VA, NC, IA, CO, NV (and all other states go as expected).

Result: a 269-269 tie.

I am not saying this is likely to happen. But it is far from impossible.

. . .

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"A Romney-Biden Administration? It Could Happen"

Fascinating! Maybe this ultimate gridlock would force them all to actually compromise and work together...

Norm

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

Fascinating! Maybe this ultimate gridlock would force them all to actually compromise and work together...

I'm trying this in Bim. Perhaps you can try it in the "Great" US of A.

Hand your candidate a contract, and say you'll vote for them if they honor the conditions on the contract. Then put everything you care about on that piece of paper.

Then get their signature.

If they sign, vote for them. And hold them to it.

If they don't sign, vote against them.

[Xyzzy]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-can...-politics.html

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-can...-politics.html

I disagree with Mourdock's views regarding what God does and does not intend to happen. Fortunately, so does Romney. Romney's position is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is in peril, etc...

The Republican party's position is more hardline. So is the Democratic party's position, from the other side. And so is Obama's position (his words to the contrary of his actions in some cases). I cannot imagine how one could view legalizing late-term abortions as an okay thing to do.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I cannot imagine how one could view legalizing late-term abortions as an okay thing to do.

When did a woman's rights become conditional or subjective? No one
but she should have any say on whether to terminate her pregnancy.
Or when. The zygote/embryo/fetus/viable's so-called rights do not
exist until the entity is born and becomes a human being. Before that
clearly defined occurrence, only the woman counts.

[Zeta-Flux]

When did a woman's rights become conditional or subjective?

When the (what you call) "entity" survived until it was a thinking, feeling being. Pretty obvious.

No one but she should have any say on whether to terminate her pregnancy. Or when. The zygote/embryo/fetus/viable's so-called rights do not exist until the entity is born and becomes a human being.

Those "so-called rights" do exist if we as a society decide they are worthwhile. And for a significant portion of the populace they do, because we recognize the worth of life which is thinking, feeling, and in all fundamental aspects, already fully human.

Before that clearly defined occurrence, only the woman counts.

That qualification seems ad hoc, seems to ignore the science, and most fundamentally seems to ignore the fact that the "viable" could be removed from the woman with no more physical/emotional side-effects (and in many cases, less side-effects) than via abortion.

Are you really arguing that as long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the infant is not an infant but merely a viable, and could rightly be killed? Quite frankly, that is disgusting.

[Zeta-Flux]

Anyway, back on topic: The Decency of Mitt

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

No one but she should have any say on whether to terminate her pregnancy.

If the father has no say in the matter before birth, why should he have any rights and responsibilities afterwards?