Rough Giraffe wrote:
Can you tell me how many individual two-page cards were submitted?
The article I linked wrote:The 2012 Presidential Ballot in Florida consisted of two pages. Both pages were two sided giving voters the opportunity to vote for candidates for public office on page 1 and 11 Constitutional ballot initiatives on page 2. The issue being correctly discussed is: Does each ballot consist of two cards? If yes, then there would be two times the number of cards as votes cast or in the case of St. Lucie County 175,554 times 2 there would be an expected 351,108 cards (two page ballots) cast.
Check out the Summary Report
. There were 123,301 votes in the presidential election out of 175,554 registered voters. There were 123,750 votes on the amendments (though there are somewhat fewer for the last amendments - perhaps some people didn't fill out both sides). Since the presidential ballots counted are more like 70% of registered voters instead of 140%, do you concede that your linked article is much ado about nothing?
Rough Giraffe wrote:But is that really official if they're set to do a recount on the 14th? Were the results of the Bush/Gore election in Florida in 2000 considered official before the recounts?
The presidential results are now in with a completed count (a difference of more than .5% avoids a mandatory recount, and Romney isn't contesting). There won't be a recount for the presidential election, so that's it. The recount (if we're thinking of the same one) is for Representative West, whose race is rather close and who does not want to concede without a recount.
Rough Giraffe wrote:I dunno, it could be taken as an allegory for Obama. See? I can do it too.
Actually, it was indeed a surrogate for Obama in an earlier episode, while it first appeared in a different episode as a character in a movie trailer. It seems to represent different things in different situations, so birdofterror has some justification in his objection to my call on the bet of whether or not the South Park episode would feature Romney. I'm wondering if others agree or not, because if there's strong agreement that the duck represented Romney, I'll count the duck as a Romney appearance.
Rough Giraffe wrote:I can't exactly be happy about that. And no, Obama is not incredibly conservative. No Conservative would ever agree that's true, even if you rattled off every single one of Obama's policies one after another. He's in favor of gun control, higher taxes for the wealthy and larger government, among other things. He is decidedly Left-leaning.
It seems you haven't read this
post of mine. There's a whole big section on right/left and conservative/lberal there, which includes this
British assessment that Obama would be a Tory (a member of the UK Conservative Party). To the actual
liberals in the world, most of Obama's policies as implemented are indeed very conservative. For example, Obama didn't even propose single-payer health insurance as a negotiating position, while Obamacare as implemented is a huge expansion of private insurance.
Rough Giraffe wrote:
I think what it comes down to is a definition of Conservatism. We seem to be using different definitions. It's not really a string of policies as it is a mindset. Perhaps you should read up on what it means to be a Conservative
, since I'm not sure it's really all that clear to you.
And that's a terrible definition (not that it actually defines what Conservatism is). Conservatives don't want to pay for things they already bought (i.e. raise the debt ceiling or taxes), and they reject the notion of compromise out of hand? "...the core principles of a small government and fiscal responsibility..."? Without an actual explanation of the invoked ideology, there's nothing to distinguish "Conservatism" from Anarchism, Marxism, or even the Democratic party platform. I think that DaCrum was using something more like the dictionary definition: "1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
" Please read that big post of mine
. it really is terribly relevant.
DaCrum wrote:WHEN HAS HE EVER INDICATED THAT HE WANTS FEDERAL GUN CONTROL?!? I swear to God, half of conservatives tell me Obama wants to take away their guns when he's given literally NO indication, thought or action on the subject of gun control.
He's said a few times, mostly in his career as a Senator, that he would like the assault weapons ban
reinstated. He just didn't campaign on it outside of a single line in the last debate. If past performance is any indication, he will do nothing at all on gun control.
@RD: He's been President for almost four years now. If he really wanted to restrict gun rights, why wouldn't he do it in his first term rather than waiting for and gambling on the availability of a second term?