#Login Register

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average

11-07-2012, 03:23 PM #1
Posts:4,627 Threads:1,046 Joined:Jun 2012

In the 2012 election season, we can all agree that the media had checked out of reporting any other real news and focused its attention squarely on the election. It began as a small trickle and later the campaign seemed like an endless deluge of scandal, accusation, delusion, obfuscation, denial, and in all of the chaos it seemed that both candidates somehow overcame there foibles to wind up in a dead heat in the polls. There was also the silly body language analyst at the debates that would not missed n raised eyebrow or the empty, vampiric smile of Joe Biden.

It was Biden that showed us how a mouth could bare teeth in a grin, and yet the eyes were still cold and bitter, holding back the real dark soul that resides in his shell. The media would champion the idea of the toss up in this election and literally pushing the idea that it could go either way.

If there was any conspiracy to be pinpointed it would that the media was more biased towards its own conclusions about the candidates and while we tend to think of the media as liberal there was no doubt that there was really no true way of sabotaging the idea that Mitt Romney had a chance to topple the Obama ‘hopenosis’ that was part of the original Obama strategy.

In the beginning it was already thought that there could be no Republican challenger that would be able to beat Barack Obama in the race for the presidency.

If you remember the Republican Party rolled out a number of their most crazy conservatives from Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann to Rick Santorum, each proposing so many far right proposals that it painted a nightmarish future in the minds of all Americans. As the election approached, surprisingly the media warmed up to Mitt Romney.

I suppose it got to the point where the media had to somehow create a formidable challenger to Obama or risk the possibility of becoming a banal political commercial for the Democratic Party. Is it any coincidence that the polls reflected what the media was dictating? The polls began to show that the candidates were in a virtual dead heat throughout the final weeks of the campaign.

Of course each poll would show that Romney had a slight lead over Obama and then it was Obama slightly leading Romney.

The magic number was always around 46 percent here 46 percent there. It was a predictable neck and neck exercise in gullibility.

With nearly 2 weeks to go in the election, two television stations – one in Ohio and one in Arizona – aired graphics that indicated that Barack Obama had won the November 6th election.

On October 21st, 2012 for 17 seconds, Phoenix, Arizona CBS News affiliate KPHO ran a lower third graphic that showed that Obama had won the Nov. 6 election over Gov. Mitt Romney with 99% of the precincts reporting. The lower third graphic appeared around 3:30 p.m. on Oct. 19, during an episode of “The People’s Court.” On the same day in the state of Ohio, WCPO out of Cincinnati put out on their website an election result for Nov. 6 where the President won the Ohio vote.

KPHO out of Phoenix made a public comment that this broadcast was a mistake, and simply a testing of the system, but hundreds of viewers had already showed concern through a multitude of messages posted on Facebook.

For website viewers in Ohio, the statistical results were more elaborate, and included third party candidates, as well as Senatorial races. Of course none of this really was reported in the national press. It was just some fluke, some faux pas that did not need to be exploited.

The media served themselves well in this particular election and decided that politics needed to be the bread and butter of their main coverage of news and events. However there were scandals and battle lines that were drawn and issues like what happened in Benghazi that seemed to not have an effect on Barack Obama. Even though it had been brought up many times by the Romney camp, it seemed to be a sore spot that Obama would seethe over and the media glazed over.

Another issue that seemed to not sway any of the election coverage was of course Hurricane Sandy. I had indicated several times that the election should have been postponed because of the storm. Thousands of people were displaced from their homes, and power outages would most definitely have an effect on the election results. There was no way that politicians could aggressively campaign in the regions that were destroyed in the wake of what was called the “Frankenstorm.”

To say that the storm would not have an effect in the outcome of the election is completely baseless. I believe that it will still be a factor in the race and that there will still be that question of just how the election would go in the event that Sandy never happened.

You have to understand that both Romney and Obama had to concede that in the states affected by Sandy that they had no choice but to hope that what they’ve already done in their campaigns is enough to salvage some votes out of the tragedy.

Which bring us back to the idea that the media has been constantly pushing and that is a “dead heat” between the candidates. The notion when first brought up sounds like it could happen — however there is a safeguard known as the Electoral college where the vote again could wind up in a tie, however many say that it is highly unlikely that this would happen.

A tie in the Electoral College is possible because the total number of votes available is an even number. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama could conceivably end up with 269 votes each – ending with a deadlock.

This anomaly can be considered because it has been said that what we may see is a repeat of the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. There was a period of days when America didn’t know who its next president was and, ultimately, courts became involved in the dispute. However, what happened then was not a tie but a popular decision that was challenged by the Electoral college.

If we see a true tie, or dead heat, you will see a lot of people question the viability of their vote and perhaps question why they even bothered to vote. I am sure that there will once again be a discussion on whether or not we should abolish the Electoral college.

The magic number is 270 Electoral college votes to be president. There are now 11 “battleground” states and, statistically, 32 permutations from these up-for-grab states that could produce a 269-vote Electoral College split in the presidential election.

The mathematical probability of a tie increased almost fourfold in recent weeks — from 0.3% to 1.1%. And both political camps concede the race is tightening each day. Is there more gridlock ahead? It’s a small but scary possibility.

So what if one of these 32 combos comes to pass? Unlike Gore vs. Bush in 2000, the issue doesn’t go to the Supreme Court for resolution, at least not right away. We will have to refer to the magic parchment for the solution. The constitution has a two step solution to this problem.

First, the 435 House members convene to elect the president. But only 50 votes are cast, one per state, so the delegates from each state first vote to determine how their state will cast its one vote. The current House GOP majority (240 to 190) has Romney winning the presidency. But that could quickly change because it’s the newly elected House that casts the critical vote.

Next, the 100 senators convene to elect the vice president. The current Senate makeup favors the Democrats 51 to 47, with two independents, so Joe Biden would keep his spot as the Vice president.

Could the universe teach us a lesson and make this happen? They say it is unlikely – but the media has been conditioning us for the dead heat!

You really want to see riotous behavior and bitter conflict? The idea of equalizing the leadership with a Romney/Biden White House would be a weird but very interesting equalizer for the country – but it would be confusing for a country that has been so polarized that there have been threats of harm on Romney and riots if the election does not favor Obama.

A 269-vote tie would be an urgent call to action to amend the Constitution to scrap the archaic procedure and stipulate that a simple majority of the total popular vote takes the prize.

Could electors cast their vote for someone other than the popular vote winner in their state? Twenty-six states have feckless laws prohibiting that, and in most states, it doesn’t usually happen. Yet there are always the “faithless” electors — those who flip their vote.

It has happened 156 times in our history, though about half of those were votes involving candidates who died between the election and the electoral college vote.

But 82 votes did involve a change of allegiance. And it has been reported that three GOP electors who support libertarian Ron Paul are making noise about refusing to vote for Mitt Romney. Remember, it may take only one switch.

Let’s assume the college affirms the 269-tie vote so the gridlocked issue moves to Congress. In the House, what happens if the states deadlock at 25-25? The vice president takes charge as acting president until the House breaks the stalemate. But wait, that’s true only if the he “qualifies,” which Biden wouldn’t until the Senate elects him. So the House speaker currently John A. Boehner, a Republican would serve as acting president.

However, Boehner is required to resign as both speaker and House member to serve in his new role as President, something he may not want to do. If Boehner declines to serve, the job of acting president defaults to none other than the venerable Sen. Daniel K. Inouye a Democrat, the 88-year-old Senate president pro tempore.

In the Senate, the Constitution generally provides that a 50-50 vote allows the vice president in his capacity as president of the Senate to break the stalemate. That means Joe Biden would vote for Joe Biden and, Joe Biden could be president — surely a troublesome result. The better procedure is the one described above for the House: Boehner or Inouye take charge until the Senate gerrymanders 51 votes for a vice president.

A Romney/Biden administration would be what we all deserve, a lesson that we should learn if the powers were as chaotic as they appear. Then in 2016 we could see the return of the messiah Barack Obama.

After all: what is a messiah without a second coming?

11-07-2012, 08:06 PM #2
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,310 Threads:1,477 Joined:Feb 2011
(11-07-2012, 03:23 PM)KILLUMINATI Wrote:  In the beginning it was already thought that there could be no Republican challenger that would be able to beat Barack Obama in the race for the presidency.

Ron Paul was the only candidate that could have beat Obama, strictly on the issues IMO. He was once again rejected by the establishment in favor of a candidate that simply could not win.
All by design.
They know the dollar and the economy is looking to nosedive, the GOP didn't want want of their own at the helm when the ship hits the iceberg.
The markets are not responding well to his election today. There is no rosy outlook on Wall Street and the Euro keeps making gains on the dollar despite having a plethora of their own problems to deal with.
I read earlier the Greek supreme court declared their austerity situation unconstitutional. What the ramifications of that are should unfold in the coming days and weeks.




DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com