The Glade 4.0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... p-reports/

Good to know someone has some sense

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Cantor won't.

Now he does not have to

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Cantor outspent Brat by 40 to 1 from what I just heard.

Kinda puts reality at odds with all those who claim that money can win elections. I've never believed that someone could buy my vote, and felt that the majority of my fellow voters had that same sort of integrity.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No one is claiming that money is all that determines elections. It is a decisive factor in many of them. Cantor's district was highly conservative, and apparently immigration policy was a hot button issue; something Cantor was, in the view of local voters, inconsistent on.
It hardly means that money doesn't have a major impact on elections. It isn't about the integrity of the voter, but it is about name recognition, getting your message out, drowning out your opponent's message. There are hundreds of factors, but money is still among the largest of them.

In many cases, it is about getting your message out and name recognition, all of which money helps with. In some cases though, the voters just get tired of your shenanigans.

Cantor was primaried, and evidently did not have enough reps to hold up under the barrage. He called for a triage carrier from his bank account, but it still wasn't enough with his resists weakened and he melted under Tea Party railgun fire.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And this is why we think you don't understand science. 1 Data point does not confirm or deny anything. Even if that 1 data point was radically outside the norm, it could be errors in data collection or some other circumstance outside your control. Repeated experimentation and/or observation still leads to the overwhelming conclusion that money absolutely can help win an election.

You fail to mention that guy who spent the most money in an American presidential election ever ... twice ... as the opposing data point.

_________________

I call 'em like I see 'em. This is exactly what it is, no more, no less.

You refuse to see 'em. You throw out data that conflicts with your belief system. You make excuses for it instead of incorporating it into your analysis.

Or, perhaps your political position CAN be bought and since you're so easily swayed you think others can be too.

After thinking about this for a bit, it occurs to me that there's possibly a clue in Khross's post. Perhaps weak minded folks can be bought. What's your going price, TheRiov?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Spoken like someone who has no self awareness of how deeply they're being manipulated by their environment.

This isn't an insult. EVERYONE is manipulated by their environment. Your degree of awareness of it does dilute its effect. The fact that you are unaware of it, may mean you're actually more manipulated than most.


Is it the ONLY thing that affects your decision? Of course not. But your reality is determined by your perceptions, and perceptions can be manipulated.

Your vote, probably not. as long as you remain an educated and aware voter your vote is your own.

Over 300.00 votes were cast for Leland Yee, a candidate who had dropped out of the race for California's Secretary of State after being accused of conspiracy to run guns and political corruption.

Not every vote is cast by an educated voter. A lot are cast by people who want the I Voted sticker to show their friends.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

We really need to fix that.

_________________

Literacy tests were tried, but since their real purpose was to disenfranchise African American voters, and the process was declared unconstitutional.

You can be "literate" and stupid or "illiterate" and smart. How about some simple questions related to the ballot?

What is issue X? If you can answer it you vote, if you can't you wont.

_________________

You can also be literate, smart, AND African American.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Yeah.. and who decides what "Issue X" is? Don't give the "approved" answer and you can't vote.. regardless if its because you just don't know, or because your viewpoint doesn't line up with those who designed the questions.

For that matter, who decides what the issues are that warrant a question?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The same people that do the Gerrymandering of course.

It's amazing how easy it is to throw this sort of argument at anyone disagreeing with you. Oh, you don't see it my way? You're just unable to recognize how "manipulated" you are! People who are aware agree with ME!

People of comparable levels of education and overall experience and knowledge tend to have comparable awareness of the effects of environment on their viewpoints. There isn't a significant difference amongst most posters here because when you aggregate overall knowledge, education, and experience, we're fairly comparable, and the older we all get the more true this gets.

It sounds to me like Taskiss just misspoke: He said "kinda puts reality at odds with all those who claim that money can win elections." Clearly, it can; what he probably should have said (and may have meant to) is "kinda puts reality at odds with all those who claim that money always wins elections." It doesn't always win elections, and this is a case where it didn't. "Awarness of being manipulated by one's environment" has nothing to do with it; it's a simple case of taking a reasonable claim and misstating it as a wild exaggeration.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Awesome. So instead of literacy tests to disenfranchise black voters, we can have "issues" test to disenfranchise white voters, or at least those that don't see them in the proper context.

For the record, I am not crazy about the literacy test just because even if its intent in the present day wouldn't be to disenfranchise blacks - that would probably be its effect at least to some degree, and it would certainly be SEEN that way.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It'd be the first issue on the ballot. Sometimes it is 1, sometimes 2, etc. And the answer is... OMG What's on the ballot?

Example from my last election:
http://www.voterfind.com/lakeoh/data/20 ... 0248070301

Question: What is issue 1?
Answer: Proposed Constitutional Amendment TO FUND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BY PERMITTING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

(Caps-lock on them, not me) We aren't talking partisan bullshit or trick questions to guage your political bent.

_________________

Ok.. but national elections never (that I can think of ) include issues; just candidates. For that matter, why should you have every local issue memorized by number to pass a test before going to the polling places? I never pay attention to which issue is which number; the description of the issue is ON THE BALLOT when you go in.

I'm not quite sure what problem this solves exactly.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

constitutional amendments might qualify DE.

Including "kinda" mitigated any absolutes ... except for those who want there to be absolutes. This election result absolutely is a threat to those folks claiming money buys elections in any way whatsoever.

You know, like people who see what they want to see and ignore anything that threatens their world view.

Listening to this elections analysis on the news convinces me that few believe that voters has clue. It's about immigration, or this or that, and a resounding silence on the possibility that folks have had it with "progressive" bullshit and won't tolerate it if they have an alternative.

People are smart, they just have to have voting choices that don't put them between a rock and a hard place.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yes. Of course that's what you meant. And when I pointed out that it was a single data point you went on to defend your absolute. You didn't misspeak, DE just gave you an out and you jumped at it. The fact is you were blatantly wrong.

Constitutional amendments are proposed either by Congress or, (in theory) a Constitutional Convention. They are then submitted to the state legislatures for approval. There is never a national election to ratify Constitutional amendments, and even if that were part of the process, the vast majority of Federal ballots wouldn't have one.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."