Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 8 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   701. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4254556)
To the extent that the story is "biased", it's biased in favor of an individual caught in the jaws of a bureaucracy for a crime that took place twelve years ago. It takes a certain kind of mentality to convert that into a "sob story," but then nothing about your twisted slant on life should surprise anyone here by now.
Shorter Andy: Yes, it's biased, but it's good bias, so it doesn't count.
   702. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4254557)
Of course, the question is whose side Biden is on; the other day he explained that the middle class has been "buried" the past four years. Apparently he forgot who was president in that time.

In classic Biden fashion, he admitted today that Obama/Biden does want to raise taxes "by a trillion dollars." It's bizarre how Obama didn't want to raise taxes in 2010 because the economy was bad, but now, with the economy growing even more slowly than it was two years ago, he wants to let the tax cuts expire. If there's a policy or principle in there, it's unclear what it is.

Which doesn't really matter. It's like Red Sox fans whining about the Red Sox. At the end of the day they are still Red Sox fans. What matters is the undecideds and this year there are not a whole bunch of them left.

No, but there doesn't need to be. Taking the RCP at face value, the current spread is only 3 points. If even one point defects from Obama to Romney, that makes it a 1-point game, with 5 percent still undecided. Since undecideds are overwhelmingly white, are mostly men, and a solid majority are married, it's highly unlikely that this will be a repeat of 2004, when undecideds were split down the middle.

Even if the debate doesn't move people from Obama to Romney, if even 1 or 2 percent of soft Obama supporters stay home, that would be another net gain for Romney.

It's a binary reaction. The more you think Romney did a good job presenting himself in the debate the less well you think Obama did. It isn't really possible for one to think Romney did a great job and so did Obama.

Unfortunately for Obama, elections mostly work the same way. With only a 3-point spread in a zero-sum game, a 1-point shift makes the race a toss-up.

I don't get this. The next two debates have a foreign policy component that is surely one of the President's strong suits and the weakest of his opponent.

After the Libya debacle, I wouldn't say foreign policy is an Obama strong suit. Romney can pound Obama on the nonsensical lies his administration peddled after four Americans were killed in what was plainly a terrorist attack.
   703. JL Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4254562)
So if she was deported 12 years ago, you wouldn't have had any problem with it, but now, because she was essentially gifted with an additional 12 years in the U.S. by an incompetent bureaucracy, she's entitled to stay forever?


So an article about how crappy the government works and how arbitrary it can be is now a liberal bias?

If the IRS tried to revisit someone's taxes from 12 years ago to force them to pay more money and an article like this was written, would it be "liberal bias"?
   704. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4254568)
So an article about how crappy the government works and how arbitrary it can be is now a liberal bias?

If the IRS tried to revisit someone's taxes from 12 years ago to force them to pay more money and an article like this was written, would it be "liberal bias"?

Apples and oranges. This woman isn't being prosecuted well after the statute of limitations expired. She was prosecuted at the time, and then enjoyed 12 years in the U.S. that she wasn't supposed to enjoy. To the extent there were any mistakes or delays, she's not suffering because of them; she has benefitted from them.
   705. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4254572)
You're blaming the left for no one on the right having the brains to find a video?

Why should "the right" (or any other interested party) have had to find a major speech by a presidential candidate? There were multiple reporters in the room during that speech. The whole thing should have been online the same day, with an accurate transcript. Instead, a bunch of lapdog "reporters" posted the prepared remarks online and claimed it was the transcript. Pathetic.

***
Andrew Sullivan printed the transcript of that speech, in full, the day it was delivered.

You lie. Sullivan printed the prepared remarks and called it a transcript, despite Obama making major deviations from his prepared remarks.

Here's your stupid. No one has tried to "suppress" a speech where Obama is basically channeling Bill Cosby's "take care of you kids and be more responsible" schtick.

Of course, you haven't actually read or watched the speech, have you?

Actually, I have. And if that's your objective summary, I have to question whether you actually watched or read it. (The actual speech, that is; not the much more innocuous prepared remarks that were presented as the transcript by the "non-partisan," "unbiased" reporters who were in attendance.)
   706. JL Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4254575)
Apples and oranges. This woman isn't being prosecuted well after the statute of limitations expired. She was prosecuted at the time, and then enjoyed 12 years in the U.S. that she wasn't supposed to enjoy. To the extent there were any mistakes or delays, she's not suffering because of them; she has benefitted from them.


So if the IRS did the same thing by taking action to institute, letting things slide and languish because they were clueless and inept, then finally getting its act together and going after the money, potentially bankrupting the taxpayer, you would complain about the liberal bias if this type of story was written?
   707. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4254581)
No, but there doesn't need to be.

Well, yeah there does. If 1% of all voters changed their mind and voted for Romney instead of Obama then that means that 2% of all people who were going to vote for Obama would have to change their votes and that doesn't even factor in the few people that have changed their mind the other way. At this late in the game that doesn't seem likely to happen because of one debate a month before the election. How often does something like that happen this late in the game with voters that have already declared for a candidate?

What Romney needs to do is basically get all of the undecideds to come over to his side at this point in time which is why there being so few hurts him. If he was trailing by 3 points and 20% of the voters were undecided a good debate could mean a lot more but with such a small amount of undecideds left he basically has to capture them all to have a shot at winning.
   708. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4254584)
So if the IRS did the same thing by taking action to institute, letting things slide and languish because they were clueless and inept, then finally getting its act together and going after the money, potentially bankrupting the taxpayer, you would complain about the liberal bias if this type of story was written?

Did the taxpayer owe the money or not? If you owe someone money but they let you play around with it for three years before reminding you to pay up, does the delay forgive the debt?

This doesn't even sound like a story of government incompetence. Mostly, it seems like a situation where the woman gamed the system by not seeking the travel papers she needed to leave the country. Are we really supposed to believe it takes eight years for Cambodia to issue a passport requested by a citizen? Why would Cambodia have an embassy in D.C. and a consulate in Washington State if not to fulfill such basic requests?
   709. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4254588)
Well, yeah there does. If 1% of all voters changed their mind and voted for Romney instead of Obama then that means that 2% of all people who were going to vote for Obama would have to change their votes and that doesn't even factor in the few people that have changed their mind the other way. At this late in the game that doesn't seem likely to happen because of one debate a month before the election. How often does something like that happen this late in the game with voters that have already declared for a candidate?

I specifically said "if one point defects from Obama to Romney," not 1 percent of the electorate as a whole. Regardless, it seems hard to believe that a one-point shift is outlandish to suggest, or that it's outlandish to suggest 1 or 2 percent of soft Obama supporters might stay home or not bother with sending away for an absentee ballot.
   710. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4254598)
I specifically said "if one point defects from Obama to Romney,"

Okay, what does one point mean? If 1% of Obama voters switch to Romney's side that narrows the gap by roughly 1%. A 1% switch is not a 2 point swing. The only way you get a 2 point swing is if 1% of all voters who have declared switch from Obama to Romney which means roughly 2% of Obama's voters would have to jump ship.

or that it's outlandish to suggest 1 or 2 percent of soft Obama supporters might stay home or not bother with sending away for an absentee ballot.

It isn't outlandish to suggest that but to make it more reasonable you also need to suggest that it is likely that 1 to 2 percent of soft Romney supporters will stay home or not bother with sending away for an absentee ballot.
   711. spike Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4254601)
If 1% of all voters changed their mind and voted for Romney instead of Obama then that means that 2% of all people who were going to vote for Obama would have to change their votes and that doesn't even factor in the few people that have changed their mind the other way. At this late in the game that doesn't seem likely to happen because of one debate a month before the election.

And further, they would have to change in such a way geographically to sway the electoral college, although to be fair, if such a thing happened it probably would.
   712. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4254608)
Twenty-seven percent of those surveyed said the debate had prompted them to see Romney in a more positive light, while 19 percent said it caused them to view him more negatively and 40 percent said it did not change their opinion.
Obama did not appear to suffer any damage. Fifty-four percent said the debate did not change their opinion of the president, while 16 percent said their opinion had improved and 18 percent said they viewed him more negatively.
Obama's favorability ratings remained unchanged, as 56 percent said they viewed him favorably and 44 percent said they viewed him unfavorably. His standing improved among independents by 8 percentage points.
Romney appears to have made his greatest strides among his fellow Republicans
link
   713. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4254622)
Okay, what does one point mean? If 1% of Obama voters switch to Romney's side that narrows the gap by roughly 1%. A 1% switch is not a 2 point swing.

How is a one-point defection from Obama to Romney not a two-point swing?

If there are 100 voters, and 49 are on the Obama side and 46 on the Romney side (with 5 undecided), and one defects from the Obama side to the Romney side, that's a two-point swing (from 49-46 to 48-47).

It isn't outlandish to suggest that but to make it more reasonable you also need to suggest that it is likely that 1 to 2 percent of soft Romney supporters will stay home or not bother with sending away for an absentee ballot.

I thought this was implicit but maybe not. My assumption is that, on the whole, Romney supporters will be more enthusiastic than Obama supporters. I suppose Obama could match his record 2008 enthusiasm/turnout, but it seems unlikely. He's been underperforming the party ID splits in almost every poll that's been released in recent months.
   714. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4254626)
How is a one-point defection from Obama to Romney not a two-point swing?

And what is 1 of 49? Is it one percent or is it almost two percent?
   715. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4254633)
And what is 1 of 49? Is it one percent or is it almost two percent?

I said it was a two-point swing in #702, you said it wasn't a two-point swing in #710, and now apparently you're conceding it's a two-point swing.

(I never said anything about "1 percent"; I've consistently said "one point.")
   716. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4254635)
I'm happy to go all in on this. The characterization was and is accurate. So it couldn't possibly be dishonest. However, there could be dishonesty on the part of the person denying the obvious... More likely, though, it is just an incredible lack of self awareness on your part. You don't even understand your own positions.
I'm not going to go back through the archives to educate you on what your beliefs are. Your posts have made clear that you are for majority rule as long as the majority agrees with you, and if the majority doesn't you start complaining about rights. We can see this with your nyah nyah'ing on various issues that go your way.

Agreed. Either Bitter Mouse doesn't understand his own positions or he needs to present them more clearly, but Good Face's description was accurate. Bitter Mouse defers to "democracy" when it yields the results he likes, and then he invokes "rights" when democracy either isn't doing what he wants or isn't doing so quickly enough.

***
And, of course, as the time Mitt Romney said he wanted to kill Big Bird. I'd put money to odds that history will remember that bit longer than they remember the debate winner or loser.

After last night's debacle, for Obama to even mention Big Bird today was silly. Regardless, Romney didn't say he wants to "kill Big Bird"; he said he wants the government to stop subsidizing the channel that airs Big Bird. As with all of the other "necessities" liberals love so much, if there's real demand for Big Bird, then the people who watch it can send in $10 per year instead of demanding others pay for it. (Better yet, they can send in $20 so Big Bird can get a raise and better working conditions.)
   717. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4254639)
And I consistently have said one point is in reality two percent of either side's voters.
   718. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4254654)
What Romney needs to do is basically get all of the undecideds to come over to his side at this point in time which is why there being so few hurts him. If he was trailing by 3 points and 20% of the voters were undecided a good debate could mean a lot more but with such a small amount of undecideds left he basically has to capture them all to have a shot at winning.

Well, undecideds often tend to move predominantly in one direction, frequently against the incumbent, rather than splitting down the middle. If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case. Plenty of others with his approval rate (below 50%) have lost re-election.
   719. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4254658)
After last night's debacle, for Obama to even mention Big Bird today was silly.


Yeah, that was odd. The headline I saw was "Obama mocks Romney over Big Bird comment" or something. You would think he'd be a little more humble after getting schooled in the debate, but of course people who make it to the presidency are far from humble.

   720. GregD Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4254659)
Well, undecideds often tend to move predominantly in one direction, frequently against the incumbent, rather than splitting down the middle. If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case. Plenty of others with his approval rate (below 50%) have lost re-election.
Nate Silver and others have pretty well debunked the idea that undecideds break against incumbents. article
   721. Tripon Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4254661)

Well, undecideds often tend to move predominantly in one direction, frequently against the incumbent, rather than splitting down the middle. If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case. Plenty of others with his approval rate (below 50%) have lost re-election.


Really? Wouldn't 2004 be a better indicator? Bush was just as 'disliked' as Obama is purported to be, and he won with more than 50% of the vote.
   722. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4254663)
I don't understand Axelrod's comment here that "It wasn't a calculated decision" for Obama not to mention the 47% last night. Does that mean that the calculated decision was to mention it and Obama didn't, or that they just didn't calculate whether he should mention it or not?

President Obama’s advisors scrambled Thursday to explain why the incumbent never invoked the game-changing “47%” video during his first debate with Mitt Romney.

...

“It wasn’t a calculated decision,” claimed Obama senior strategist David Axelrod on Thursday. “I think the President’s belief is that that’s something that’s been very much part of the fabric of the discussion.”

Though Axelrod claimed that “a lot of these issues are well known to the public,” he later acknowledged that many feel Obama made a mistake.

“I understand that our strong supporters feel very, very strongly that ... we should have plowed in on the 47 percent, on his tax returns, on Bain, and so on,” Axelrod said on MSNBC.

Axelrod pledged the campaign would “make some adjustments” before the next debate - but did not say whether that would include ripping Romney’s remarks.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/failure-mention-47-video-debate-a-calculated-decision-article-1.1175146#ixzz28NeeIVqg

   723. spike Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4254666)
If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case.

Don't you doubt that this is the case in any event, as the polls are misrepresenting the data and your man is actually far ahead right now?
   724. bigglou115 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4254667)
I don't understand Axelrod's comment here that "It wasn't a calculated decision" for Obama not to mention the 47% last night. Does that mean that the calculated decision was to mention it and Obama didn't, or that they just didn't calculate whether he should mention it or not?


My impression is that they didn't think they'd have to. I think a lot of the pre-debate strategy surrounded the idea that Romney would be the guy he has been for the whole election. Instead, he came out much more moderate. That probably wouldn't have thrown them so bad, but looking at Romney's past it seems like he's been uncomfortable being as conservative in policy as he's been through the election, and they were completely unprepared for what he would be able to do when he was more comfortable with the words coming out of his own mouth.
   725. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4254669)
The debates for the most part are for the candidates to look presidential and to get their talking points out to the public. They aren't about attacking or destroying your opponent personally. The 47% comment is a known strike against Romney. People who are voting know he has said it and having Obama bring it up can only do harm to Obama.
   726. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4254671)
Well, undecideds often tend to move predominantly in one direction, frequently against the incumbent, rather than splitting down the middle. If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case. Plenty of others with his approval rate (below 50%) have lost re-election.

I would add that undecideds tend to be a larger bunch and if they are undecided about an incumbent and are a large bunch that is troubling for an incumbent. But that isn't what is going to happen in this election. There are not a whole lot of undecideds left and Romney doesn't just need a large amount of them moving in his direction. He basically needs all of them voting for him and that isn't really going to happen.
   727. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4254672)
By the way, Expendables 2 is really hard to get through.
   728. bigglou115 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4254673)
The debates for the most part are for the candidates to look presidential and to get their talking points out to the public. They aren't about attacking or destroying your opponent personally. The 47% comment is a known strike against Romney. People who are voting know he has said it and having Obama bring it up can only do harm to Obama.


Especially sense the more people talk about it the more chances there are to say that in-context the statement was far from inflammatory and you run the risk people will look it up and agree. Honestly, I'm glad he didn't bring it up, the last thing the debate needed was to devolve into another "47%" vs. "you didn't build your business" out of context contest.
   729. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4254676)
Well, that and makes the candidate look petty and unpresidential.

These are the same reasons why Biden didn't go after Palin in the VP debate. Well, that and the reason I mentioned before which is that the winning side isn't going to risk losing by kicking a dog even more.
   730. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4254678)
Really? Wouldn't 2004 be a better indicator? Bush was just as 'disliked' as Obama is purported to be, and he won with more than 50% of the vote.

Bush did a little better than Obama on the Approve/Disapprove rating in the year before his re-election bid. But, yeah it remains to be seen how the election will play out. Two more presidential debates, and to a lesser extent the VP debate, as well as two more Jobs Reports, have the potential to move the needle, as do any number of things.
   731. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4254684)
And I consistently have said one point is in reality two percent of either side's voters.

A distinction that doesn't impact or refute the points I made in #702 in the least.

***
Nate Silver and others have pretty well debunked the idea that undecideds break against incumbents. article

That article seems like one of the examples of Nate's analysis not exactly matching up with the numbers presented. In the "true incumbents" chart, the challenger gains by 3:1 in October and then 2:1 in November. If that's not "breaking for the challenger," I don't know what would be.

Regardless, Nate himself doesn't seem to consider the theory to be "debunked." He put it a lot more mildly than that:

"But in my view the empirical evidence — although it is somewhat ambiguous — mostly argues against this idea.

... and included all sorts of other qualifiers deeper in the article.

***
Really? Wouldn't 2004 be a better indicator? Bush was just as 'disliked' as Obama is purported to be, and he won with more than 50% of the vote.

As of a week or two ago, Obama was still underperforming Bush's approval rating by 2-3 points compared to the same point in 2004. It's a small sample size, but no incumbent has ever won reelection when his approval was underwater as late into a reelection campaign as has occurred with Obama's.
   732. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:14 PM (#4254685)
If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case.

Don't you doubt that this is the case in any event, as the polls are misrepresenting the data and your man is actually far ahead right now?

I doubt that the 2012 turnout will be more Democratic than the Democratic banner year of 2008. So, I have considerable doubt about any poll reflecting a D+9 sample, either for the entire country or traditionally close swing states like Florida & Ohio. Romney could be ahead if the turnout is a more traditional D+3, but I don't believe I ever expressed any certainty about that. IMHO, the election is still winnable by either candidate, and the Obama partisans who have repeatedly said "IT'S OVER", could be as far off as Ray was last year when he insisted the Red Sox could not lose a playoff spot.
   733. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4254690)
A distinction that doesn't impact or refute the points I made in #702 in the least.

Except that my point was that asking for 2% of Obama voters to switch to Romney's side this late in the game is asking a lot.
   734. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4254692)
Except that my point was that asking for 2% of Obama voters to switch to Romney's side this late in the game is asking a lot.

Again, they don't need to vote for Romney; they just need to not vote for Obama. A big part of Obama's win in 2008 was due to people voting who had never voted before. It seems like a big reach to expect that all of those voters will trek to the polls again, despite their prior disinterest in voting and the lack of "Hope and Change!" euphoria in 2012.

We're already seeing the difference in enthusiasm in places like Ohio, where more Republicans have already requested an absentee ballot than in the last election, while requests among Dems are down by ~40 percent.
   735. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4254695)
Bitter Mouse defers to "democracy" when it yields the results he likes, and then he invokes "rights" when democracy either isn't doing what he wants or isn't doing so quickly enough.


Got any evidence for that big guy? Plenty of posts to look through, show us all where I did this, or are you all in like Ray?
   736. Lassus Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4254696)
Random political note - driving by a largish, empty field today I saw 10-15 housing units or whatever they are called for honeybees. They were spaced close but not super-close, and in the middle of this collection of bees, in this otherwise empty field, there was one ROMNEY/RYAN lawn sign.
   737. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4254697)
Again, they don't need to vote for Romney; they just need to not vote for Obama

And now you're changing the argument. We were discussing 2% of Obama's voters defecting to Romney.

If 2% of the likely Obama voters don't vote that isn't a two point swing. That's a 1 point swing since Romney doesn't pick them up.
   738. GregD Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4254698)
This in poor taste but still I laughed:
Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A ##### During Debate

   739. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4254700)
Was the link in #738 censored already?
   740. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:41 PM (#4254702)
Link in #738 goes nowhere.
   741. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4254703)
Got any evidence for that big guy? Plenty of posts to look through, show us all where I did this, or are you all in like Ray?

Among other examples, you gloated about Obamacare being upheld because it was the result of "democracy," but you've also claimed people would have a "right" to healthcare even if Obamacare hadn't been upheld. There was a long exchange on this in the July thread, right around the time Andy got suspended.
   742. Tilden Katz Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4254705)
We're already seeing the difference in enthusiasm in places like Ohio, where more Republicans have already requested an absentee ballot than in the last election, while requests among Dems are down by ~40 percent.


I've seen this number bandied about in a few other places, so I'm sure you're not making it up. I am generally curious where it comes from, though. The government doesn't ask for your party affiliation when you request an absentee ballot (or at least my state didn't when I got one in '04).
   743. bigglou115 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4254708)
I've seen this number bandied about in a few other places, so I'm sure you're not making it up. I am generally curious where it comes from, though. The government doesn't ask for your party affiliation when you request an absentee ballot (or at least my state didn't when I got one in '04).


Well, if you were already registered as a democrat or a republican wouldn't it be fairly easy for them to see if you'd requested an absentee ballot?
   744. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4254710)
The government doesn't ask for your party affiliation when you request an absentee ballot (or at least my state didn't when I got one in '04)

Apparently the board of elections identify a D or an R based on the last primary the absentee ballot requester voted in.
   745. Tilden Katz Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4254712)
Ah interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
   746. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4254714)
And now you're changing the argument. We were discussing 2% of Obama's voters defecting to Romney.

If 2% of the likely Obama voters don't vote that isn't a two point swing. That's a 1 point swing since Romney doesn't pick them up.

I haven't changed anything. #702 and all subsequent comments have made the same consistent point.
   747. GregD Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4254715)
Here's the Onion link from above. link
   748. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4254717)
By the way the big whopping 40% decrease for the Dems in Ohio means that 30% of all absentee ballots requested by people are from Democrats instead of 2008's 33% while the Repubs have 24% of the absentee ballot requests instead of 2008's 20%.

I have no idea if requests are down 40% by Dems. It sure doesn't look like that huge of a difference.
   749. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4254720)
I've seen this number bandied about in a few other places, so I'm sure you're not making it up. I am generally curious where it comes from, though. The government doesn't ask for your party affiliation when you request an absentee ballot (or at least my state didn't when I got one in '04).

Some of those same stories have said voter registration is down by over 400,000 in Ohio, primarily in urban areas. I assume that's a straight numerical count and not based on the rate of new voter registration from prior years. Either way, that seems like a big drop-off.
   750. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4254725)
I haven't changed anything. #702 and all subsequent comments have made the same consistent point.

Uh, sure they have.

You stated that 1 points worth of Obama voters could switch to Romney because of the debates and because of that there doesn't need to have a lot of undecideds vote for Romney. You also stated how a 1 point switch is a two point turnabout. Yes, you did also mention briefly in a follow up post that some voters could also decide to stay home but again, that is a different topic then voters changing their vote.

If one point of Obama voters stay home that isn't a two point swing so if your point was that 1 point of Obama voters could stay home and that will result in a two point swing you are wrong. But that wasn't your point. Your point was that it is possible that 2% of Obama might switch their vote to Romney and also it is possible that some Obama voters might stay home.

My point is that it is unlikely that Obama voters this late in the game are going to switch their vote to Romney and it certainly won't be 2% of Obama voters. I'll restate what I said to someone else probably 100 or posts before which is in a hotly contested election we aren't likely to see a great amount of people staying home. Are we likely to get the same level of turnout as we did in 2008? I don't know but the trend has been for awhile now for people to turn out to vote.
   751. Lassus Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4254727)
I would like to make it very clear that I object very strenuously to the shitawful editing of Beethoven's Ninth in the new teaser trailer for A Good Day to Die Hard. I felt like I was being repeatedly punched in the face by a musical void.
   752. Tilden Katz Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4254730)
Meanwhile in Iowa, a state where Dems and the GOP are about even in party strength, the former has had 119,000 of 184,000 absentee ballot requests. I'm not sure what, if anything, this says...just thought it was interesting.
   753. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4254732)
By the way the big whopping 40% decrease for the Dems in Ohio means that 30% of all absentee ballots requested by people are from Democrats instead of 2008's 33% while the Repubs have 24% of the absentee ballot requests instead of 2008's 20%.

Right, which means that Dems, thus far, have gone from a D+13 advantage in absentee ballots in 2008 to a D+5.5 advantage in 2012 — which is, at this point, a substantial decline in enthusiasm among Dems.

I have no idea if requests are down 40% by Dems. It sure doesn't look like that huge of a difference.

In 2008, 288,270 Dems requested an absentee ballot, compared with 177,155 so far this year.
In 2008, 144,300 Republicans requested an absentee ballot, compared to 145,560 so far this year.

The Dems are off by 40 percent, while the GOP has already overperformed 2008.
   754. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:14 PM (#4254734)
Bitter Mouse defers to "democracy" when it yields the results he likes, and then he invokes "rights" when democracy either isn't doing what he wants or isn't doing so quickly enough.


Among other examples, you gloated about Obamacare being upheld because it was the result of "democracy," but you've also claimed people would have a "right" to healthcare even if Obamacare hadn't been upheld.


This is awesome because just a page or so ago I was called a monster for suggesting that the US government pre-Civil War was legitimate. I can find the exact quote where I was called a monster for deferring too much to Democracy if you want. So now I am horrible because I only support the process when I like the result? You folks need to make up your mind why I am a monster. We in the Socialistic Hive at least have our story straight.

Yes I celebrate the Obama decision. Because I believe that everyone should have the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy, because I (and millions of others - because that's how Democracy works) got together and all of us helped change the nation so that it became legal. I never said that prior to ObamaCare being enacted that Democracy was wrong or illegitimate. Feel free to look.

Working to change the system is not "squealing about rights", it is acting based on ones beliefs. Just like everyone in a Democracy should do. The fact that you think otherwise is really truly bizarre.

If this is your gotcha then yes, it is true. I believe people should have rights (note: those rights are not natural rights, thought we can revisit that discussion as well), and among them the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy. And yes, I celebrate that ObamaCare passed and is constitutional. You got me.

EDIT: However, thanks for replying to me and actually providing something. One reason I appreciate you is you do in fact engage in conversation and don't just toss bombs.
   755. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:17 PM (#4254735)
Right, which means that Dems, thus far, have gone from a D+13 advantage in 2008 to a D+5.5 advantage in 2012 — which is, at this point, a substantial decline in enthusiasm among Dems.

I'm not sure how you can translate that into "enthusiasm". 30% of all ballot requests are by people who voted in a Democratic primary as compared to 33% in 2008.

By the way the current numbers as provided by the guy who is tracking all of this is that 248,000 Dems have requested ballots to 213,000 Reps.

The Dems are off by 40 percent, while the GOP has already overperformed 2008.

Again, as per the guy actually tracking this the numbers of absentee ballots is a lot higher than the numbers you have stated. The Republicans haven't surpassed their 2008 numbers yet either. I'm sure the Dems probably won't reach their 2008 numbers but the final tally won't come even close to being off by 40%. Probably something like 10%.
   756. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4254737)
From Dr. Michael McDonald of the Early Voting Project.

"If you are not aware, Ohio does not truly have party registration, it is simply a record of the last party primary a voter participated in. For a number of reasons then, a comparison of 2008 and 2012 ""party"" is not particularly informative. Another important change is that all registered voters have been mailed an absentee ballot request form - something I applaud SoS Husted for doing since the larger Democratic counties were the ones that tended to do this in 2010. As a result of that change from 2008, I expect mail ballot requests to increase. Finally, Ohio considered in-person early voting to be a form of mail balloting in their reported statistics.The numbers are going to change considerably once in-person early voting starts, particularly closer to Election Day when more people (particularly Democrats) tend to vote in-person early.

For these reasons, I do not think the absentee ballot stats are particularly informative at this early stage as to what will happen in Ohio, much like I do not think the wildly pro-Democratic Iowa statistics are informative as to what will happen in that state. I suppose if you want to do a better apples to apples comparison for Ohio, you might run the 2008 numbers for the same point in time prior to the 2008 election. That might give us some sense of the overall level of early voting to be expected in the state. But I would again caution about drawing inferences about ""party"" as I have seen some do with your numbers. I do not think these numbers tell us the Ohio polling is incorrect. We need more information before we can draw that conclusion."
   757. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4254738)
I can find the exact quote where I was called a monster for deferring too much to Democracy if you want. So now I am horrible because I only support the process when I like the result? You folks need to make up your mind why I am a monster.

I've never called you a "monster" or "horrible." I believe some of your political positions are horrible, but not you personally. I try hard to follow Scalia's edict about attacking ideas rather than people.

If this is your gotcha then yes, it is true. I believe people should have rights (note: those rights are not natural rights, thought we can revisit that discussion as well), and among them the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy. And yes, I celebrate that ObamaCare passed and is constitutional. You got me.

There are all sorts of contradictions in there. Almost by definition, if not exactly by definition, rights can't be subject to the whims of democracy.
   758. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:33 PM (#4254740)
and the Obama partisans who have repeatedly said "IT'S OVER", could be as far off as Ray was last year when he insisted the Red Sox could not lose a playoff spot.


Of course, I was not far off at all, and every assessment I made was reasonable when I made it.
   759. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4254742)
One last note to tie it all up. Ohio in 2008 counted early in person voting within the same category of absentee votes. Thus the 2008 numbers that are being used for comparison are inflated by a chunk of data that has not happened yet and the stat guys say that the majority of in person voters are democrats. This all looks like another magic bullet type message that does nothing and means nothing.
   760. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4254747)
The Dems in Ohio had a Dem+14 advantage in absentee/early voting in 2008 and that number is now Dem+5.6. No matter how you slice it, empirical evidence suggests a decline in voter enthusiasm among Dems in Ohio compared to 2008, especially since everyone was mailed an absentee-ballot request form this year rather than needing to request one.

If Dems are late voters or something, they could catch up and this could be meaningless. But at a glance, it suggests Dems aren't as anxious to vote in 2012 as they were in 2008.
   761. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4254749)
You stated that 1 points worth of Obama voters could switch to Romney because of the debates and because of that there doesn't need to have a lot of undecideds vote for Romney. You also stated how a 1 point switch is a two point turnabout. Yes, you did also mention briefly in a follow up post that some voters could also decide to stay home but again, that is a different topic then voters changing their vote.

No, I made that point in the very same comment (#702). Why you keep ignoring that is unclear.
   762. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4254751)
Um, no. For some oddball reason you wish to ignore the fact that the FINAL 2008 NUMBERS you are using to compare the current 2012 numbers included early walk in ballots. You're comparing apples to oranges at this point.
   763. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4254754)
and the Obama partisans who have repeatedly said "IT'S OVER", could be as far off as Ray was last year when he insisted the Red Sox could not lose a playoff spot.

Of course, I was not far off at all, and every assessment I made was reasonable when I made it.

Obama may be in more trouble than I thought.
   764. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4254759)
No, I made that point in the very same comment (#702). Why you keep ignoring that is unclear.

In one of your follow ups you asked why does it matter that it is 2% and I responded as to why it matters at which point you dropped the potential 2% swing and then focused on people staying home. You were, I believe, trying to make numerous points about several different scenarios. I responded by disagreeing with one of your scenarios. I'm not sure why I have to discuss all of your scenarios to make my points against one of your points/scenarios valid.

But for the record I disagree with any kind of scenario in which 2% of Obama's voters desert him and vote for Romney without something really really major happening and that major event is not looking warm and fuzzy in a debate. I also disagree with a viewpoint that the debates are going to keep large amounts of Dem voters home.
   765. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4254763)
I've never called you a "monster" or "horrible." I believe some of your political positions are horrible, but not you personally. I try hard to follow Scalia's edict about attacking ideas rather than people.


It wasn't you who called me a monster for deferring to the "whims of the majority." I didn't mean to imply it was, others did though. Sorry for the confusion.

There are all sorts of contradictions in there. Almost by definition, if not exactly by definition, rights can't be subject to the whims of democracy.


Back to the natural rights discussion then I guess. I don't think rights are immutable divine things. Maybe we need a different word, because it clearly means different things to different people.
   766. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4254764)
Yes I celebrate the Obama decision. Because I believe that everyone should have the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy, because I (and millions of others - because that's how Democracy works) got together and all of us helped change the nation so that it became legal. I never said that prior to ObamaCare being enacted that Democracy was wrong or illegitimate. Feel free to look.

Working to change the system is not "squealing about rights", it is acting based on ones beliefs. Just like everyone in a Democracy should do. The fact that you think otherwise is really truly bizarre.

If this is your gotcha then yes, it is true. I believe people should have rights (note: those rights are not natural rights, thought we can revisit that discussion as well), and among them the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy. And yes, I celebrate that ObamaCare passed and is constitutional. You got me.


This is hilarious. It is a gotcha, and it fits Good Face's initial observation in post 603 exactly, which was:

"BM doesn't really believe that. Like most of the BBTF lefties, he's all for majority rule when the majority is on his side. When it's not, he starts squealing about "rights"."

You say just above in relation to Obamacare passing: "I defer to Democracy." But when there was no Obamacare, you didn't "defer to Democracy," you whined about 'rights' and "got together" to change it.

So what are you disputing, exactly? The characterization was and remains 100% accurate. *Per your post just above.* But it's interesting that you have to be introduced by others to your own beliefs.
   767. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4254769)
Outside of maybe 17 Libertarians scattered throughout the world who isn't all for majority rule when it is on their side and when it isn't they starting talking about fairness/rights? This isn't something unique to BTF lefties it is something that applies to all humans throughout human history.
   768. Morty Causa Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4254771)
We are all for democracy when it gives what we want; when it looks like it won't, we all suddenly want it to be about higher principles of right and wrong.
   769. Morty Causa Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4254772)
   770. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4254774)
You say just above in relation to Obamacare passing: "I defer to Democracy." But when there was no Obamacare, you didn't "defer to Democracy," you whined about 'rights' and "got together" to change it.

So what are you disputing, exactly? The characterization was and remains 100% accurate. But it's interesting that you have to be introduced by others to your own beliefs.


Ray, you can't be this dense can you? Really?

In a Democracy the citizens are supposed to participate. I respect the result of Democracy AND continue to work to change. For some reason you seem to think defer to Democracy means not voting, not donating time or money, not working to change anything. By stating I defer to Democracy that means I surrender all opportunity to continue to participate in it? You can't seriously think that is what that means do you?

No Ray I don't think the US is a final product perfect in all its ways. I reserve the right to participate in it. And I believe in rights (still need a better term that is not so loaded to some folks here).

The assertion was that I defer to Democracy only when the result appeals to me - that is incorrect. When it does not appeal to me I continue participating in Democracy, but I still believe in the process and think it is the best option available. The assertion was I whine about rights when I have decided Democracy doesn't work for me anymore - this is also incorrect.

I dispute these incorrect assertions.
   771. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4254778)
We are all for democracy when it gives what we want; when it looks like it won't, we all suddenly want it to be about higher principles of right and wrong.


And then we try to leverage those higher principles of right and wrong and the fact it is a Democracy so that the Democracy changes.

But I should stop now. I am off to bed. In the morning I really hope we can find something better to talk about, this is really boring for me and I imagine it is awful for everyone else - so I apologize for it. I should have stopped a while back and not let them bait me.
   772. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4254781)
In one of your follow ups you asked why does it matter that it is 2% and I responded as to why it matters at which point you dropped the potential 2% swing and then focused on people staying home. You were, I believe, trying to make numerous points about several different scenarios. I responded by disagreeing with one of your scenarios. I'm not sure why I have to discuss all of your scenarios to make my points against one of your points/scenarios valid.

You erroneously claimed I was talking about percentages rather than points, then erroneously claimed a one-point swing from Obama to Romney wouldn't be a net two-point swing in the race. Instead of simply acknowledging two trivial and meaningless errors, here we are mired in pedantry yet again. It's boring, and I'm done with it.

***

In other news, unemployment is projected to have increased from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. Actual report is released tomorrow AM.

Also, from Drudge: Was Obama rattled by developing donor scandal story?

President Obama's reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.
   773. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4254785)
Why is it people always claim to be done with something after they given their "last word". Either be done with it or keep talking but don't keep talking while stating you are done talking.

A one point swing involves 2% of the voters to change sides. But that wasn't even the issue and you trying to claim it was so you can back out of the argument is dishonest. The dispute was that I disagreed with the notion that 2% of the people who were going to vote for Obama might very well vote for Romney because of the debate. I've tried to discuss that with you but apparently you'd rather have a boring and pedantic argument about what % of voters make up 1 point.

I guess you are also done talking about comparing apples to oranges because it's boring, right?
   774. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4254790)
I guess you are also done talking about comparing apples to oranges because it's boring, right?

Very boring. Apple = great, everything else = bad.
   775. Lassus Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4254791)
As long as we're talking about rights and whims, and now that I'm finally home, I'd like to once again ask Ray his opinion on something, for the third time now in the past two pages.

Ray, you flat-out state that gay marriage "isn't a right". I know you think I'm probably trying to "get" you or have you labeled as a homophobe or something, which I am not. My purpose in asking if you think that hetero marriage IS a right is simply to try and grasp your philosophy on this. Do you or do you not think that hetero marriage is a right? 'Tis a simple question.
   776. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4254794)
I'd be mildly surprised if Ray doesn't say that the government should just stay out of the marriage business.
   777. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4254797)
I'd be mildly surprised if Ray doesn't say that the government should just stay out of the marriage business.

As well it should.
   778. Morty Causa Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4254798)
And then we try to leverage those higher principles of right and wrong and the fact it is a Democracy so that the Democracy changes.


Not eveyone, not by a long shot. Not the tea-partiers or birthers or many on the right and left, and this includes the Libertarians. They just want their way any old way they can get it.

However, I didn't have you in mind, Bitter Mouse.

Although I have to say, you and others here deserve it for taking Ray and Joe seriously. That's a mug's game. Many people in engaging Joe and Ray seriously have ignored at their peril the wise saying of Mark Twain: Never argue with the truly stupid (and, I would add, thoroughly insincere); they only drag you down to their level, then beat you with their experience. And that's what happened to this thread. I doubt if it can ever be purged of the polluting trollery that has come to inundate it.
   779. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:42 PM (#4254800)
As well it should.

But since it is in the marriage business they should apply their rules equally to all people.
   780. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4254803)
But since it is in the marriage business they should apply their rules equally to all people.

Agreed.
   781. Tilden Katz Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4254819)
Romney now says his 47% comments were completely wrong. It doesn't surprise that Romney has tacked to the center, what's surprising is how sudden and complete the rhetorical shift has been.
   782. SteveF Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:43 AM (#4254821)
I've found Ray's arguments regarding same sex marriage quite subtle and insightful, though I think I come down on Mr. Nieporent's side regarding the union of more than two people. I'm still on the fence about whether people should be permitted to marry pets or inanimate objects.
   783. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4254826)
As long as we're talking about rights and whims, and now that I'm finally home, I'd like to once again ask Ray his opinion on something, for the third time now in the past two pages.

Ray, you flat-out state that gay marriage "isn't a right". I know you think I'm probably trying to "get" you or have you labeled as a homophobe or something, which I am not. My purpose in asking if you think that hetero marriage IS a right is simply to try and grasp your philosophy on this. Do you or do you not think that hetero marriage is a right? 'Tis a simple question.


Sorry; I meant to answer this sooner. I should have initially said "marriage isn't a right" instead of saying "gay marriage isn't a right." I don't think marriage is a right - same-sex or heterosexual. But I do think once the government sticks its nose into marriage, it should do so equally. Thus, the reason I support gay marriage. That said, I do think definitionally "marriage" is "man and woman" and that it's absurd to disagree with this, but I wouldn't deny same-sex marriage because of this. I also think it does harm the institution of marriage, but I wouldn't deny same-sex marriage because of this. If it makes people happy to marry, go ahead.

And all of THAT said, I am persuaded by the argument (made, e.g., by Rick Santorum) that once you can marry a person of the same sex, you can marry five people, you can marry your sister, you can marry your grandmother, you can marry your dog, you can marry your couch. Because once gay marriage is permitted, you have redefined the word out of existence. To deny that is really silly. Like with abortion and people denying that abortions are mostly for convenience, there is a lot of dishonesty on this topic.
   784. Lassus Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4254827)
You really know how to snatch ridiculousness from the jaws of sanity, Ray. But keep comparing sentient beings to animals and inanimate objects if it makes you feel better.
   785. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:10 AM (#4254829)
And that's what happened to this thread. I doubt if it can ever be purged of the polluting trollery that has come to inundate it.


Well, not as long as you're here, anyway.
   786. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4254831)
You really know how to snatch ridiculousness from the jaws of sanity, Ray.


? I come to the same conclusion as you re same-sex marriage. I just have different reasons.

But keep comparing sentient beings to animals and inanimate objects if it makes you feel better.


Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically. Because there is nowhere to draw the line after that. If we've redefined marriage once, why shouldn't we do it again and again? How can I sit here and tell five people they can't marry, or a brother and a sister they can't marry, once I've supported same-sex marriage? What is the argument?
   787. SteveF Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:26 AM (#4254832)
What is the argument?


Social mores. Of course, once I make that admission, the Raytrix has me.
   788. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:41 AM (#4254834)
Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically. Because there is nowhere to draw the line after that. If we've redefined marriage once, why shouldn't we do it again and again? How can I sit here and tell five people they can't marry, or a brother and a sister they can't marry, once I've supported same-sex marriage? What is the argument?


What exactly is there about "man and woman" definition of marriage that stops a brother and sister from getting married?
That's still "man and woman".
Or are there other clauses in the traditional definition that stop it from happening?
If so, why are those clauses perfectly reasonable to have, but replacing "man and woman" with "two people" would destroy this barrier that stops a brother and sister from getting married?
   789. rr Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:15 AM (#4254837)
Consanguinity is to be distinguished from affinity, which is the relation of a person, through marriage, to the consanguineous relatives of a spouse. Marriage between persons in lineal consanguinity (persons in the direct line of descent, such as father and daughter) and between brothers and sisters is void under common law, church law, and statute. Whether or not marriages between persons of collateral consanguinity (those having a common ancestor but not related in direct line of descent) are prohibited as incestuous depends on statutory provision and judicial interpretation. In more than half the states of the United States, marriage between first cousins is prohibited by law, and the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Eastern Church have strict rules on consanguinity as an impediment to marriage. Statutes in the United States discard affinal relationship as an impediment to marriage. Whether incestuous marriages are void or voidable in the United States depends on local statutes and their interpretation.


I mean, you knew that it was against the law, so I guess that is not really what you are asking, but the answer to the last question is, more or less, consanguinity.
   790. rr Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:22 AM (#4254839)
So, you obviously knew it was against the law, so maybe you are asking a different question, but the answer to the last question is, more or less, the laws against marrying people you are related to by "blood" as they exist in the United States.
   791. Lassus Posted: October 05, 2012 at 07:58 AM (#4254867)
Sorry; I meant to answer this sooner. I should have initially said "marriage isn't a right" instead of saying "gay marriage isn't a right." I don't think marriage is a right - same-sex or heterosexual.

Sanity.


Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically.

Ridiculousness.

Polygamy is its own thing, incest is it own thing, bestiality is its own thing. Your slippery slope is dead flat.
   792. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 08:13 AM (#4254870)
Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically. Because there is nowhere to draw the line after that.


Yes there is, and I'm really suprised at you for saying this. It's simple really. Marriage is a contract, and in order for a contract to be valid, it requires consenting parties. Animals can't consent. Inanimate objects can't consent. Children can't consent. Thus, one cannot logically marry those things, and Rick Santorum and others who believe gay marriage will lead to this are buffoons.

As for polygamy, it's a little less clear. But since government grants fiduciary rights and responsibilities to those in a marriage contract, and multiple partners muddy these waters, it's logical to draw the line at one. Suppose a man has 4 wives, and he suffers a stroke leaving him on life support. he has no living will. 2 of the wives vote to keep him on life support, 2 vote to have him removed. What do you do? And if he dies, are the 4 wives still married? Do his 17 children receive SSI benefits? How is divorce/alimony/child support handled in a situation with multiple partners?
   793. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 08:31 AM (#4254875)
As for polygamy, it's a little less clear. But since government grants fiduciary rights and responsibilities to those in a marriage contract, and multiple partners muddy these waters, it's logical to draw the line at one.


Logical, but it could be possible to extend the benefit to larger groups of consenting adults. Corporations are more complex than partnerships, a marriage could be constructed to handle more than two parties. But yeah it would be much more work. And since there is a pretty clear line at two consenting adults per marriage I would agree.

Although I have to say, you and others here deserve it for taking Ray and Joe seriously. That's a mug's game. Many people in engaging Joe and Ray seriously have ignored at their peril the wise saying of Mark Twain: Never argue with the truly stupid (and, I would add, thoroughly insincere); they only drag you down to their level, then beat you with their experience.


I still think Ray and Joe are on different levels. Joe engages and can have a good (hey its the internet!) discussion far more often. I don't think either is stupid. Now if you want to say I am stupid for engaging in the sub-thread I did I have to plead a bit guilty.
   794. JL Posted: October 05, 2012 at 08:57 AM (#4254888)
This doesn't even sound like a story of government incompetence. Mostly, it seems like a situation where the woman gamed the system by not seeking the travel papers she needed to leave the country. Are we really supposed to believe it takes eight years for Cambodia to issue a passport requested by a citizen? Why would Cambodia have an embassy in D.C. and a consulate in Washington State if not to fulfill such basic requests?

I don’t know about that. I read the article and it is not exactly bathing the agency in glowing reviews:

Quoting from the executive director of the Center of Immigration studies - “The abuse of discretion makes it impossible to give the executive this kind of wiggle room, because they can’t be trusted,” he said.

“Often the deportation proceedings don’t begin until years after they immigrants have served sentences and cleaned up their lives, getting jobs and starting families.”

“Cambodia accepts only a few requests for travel documents each year, however, so she was released from prison and put on an order of suspension, reporting regularly to the ICE office in Fairfax. She did so for the next eight years, …”


So she is gaming the system by actually reporting to ICE for eight years, but that is not agency incompetence? How is it anything but? Again, I think if this stroy is rewritten about the IRS waiting eight years before enforcing something there would be no problem with this article other than it being in the local section as opposed to the front page.
   795. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 05, 2012 at 09:03 AM (#4254891)
So, you obviously knew it was against the law, so maybe you are asking a different question, but the answer to the last question is, more or less, the laws against marrying people you are related to by "blood" as they exist in the United States.


Oh, I see. But according to Ray, the moment you guys switch it up from "man and woman" to "two people" that law seems to fall off the books.
I just wanted to confirm that the US had some other law in place (like most countries) and that it wasn't tied strictly to the "man and woman" marriage set up.
Ray had me confused that things were different down south.

I'll just assume that he was tired when he wrote that and he didn't really mean it.

   796. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 05, 2012 at 09:20 AM (#4254903)
So the unemployment rate is back to what it was the month Obama took office.
   797. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4254919)
So the unemployment rate is back to what it was the month Obama took office.


Cue Joe telling you that the real rate is much higher than that (without making the corresponding adjustment for past numbers of course).
   798. GregD Posted: October 05, 2012 at 09:33 AM (#4254921)
In other news, unemployment is projected to have increased from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. Actual report is released tomorrow AM.
Turns out it actually dropped to 7.8%, lowest of Obama's presidency and 24th month in a row of job growth. TimesI doubt it'll affect the race, except maybe the newspaper coverage, and I think presidents get more credit when things go well than they should and more credit than they should when things go poorly.
   799. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 05, 2012 at 09:41 AM (#4254933)
Also, from Drudge:

Ooh, what is it this time? Also - this appears to actually be from the "Washington Examiner" - why don't we just call up Philip Anschutz and ask him what he thinks?

President Obama's reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

"Could be". I see. I'm going to bet on NewsMax and WorldNetDaily as the magazine and web site, respectively.

That might be a violation of federal election laws.

Might be! Sounds like this is on as solid ground as the Elizabeth Warren law license scandal!
   800. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 05, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4254962)
Unemployment rate truthers! Led by former GE CEO Jack Welch!
Page 8 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Andere Richtingen
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Page rendered in 0.9357 seconds
48 querie(s) executed