Jump to content

undecided?


lummox

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bone has a point since in Oregon and Washington our individual votes are pretty insignificant as the state's electoral votes will be going to Obama regardless.

 

not quite, they don't go to Obama "regardless" -- they only go to obama if everyone you assume is going to vote for him actually does so. "Likely" and "regardless" are not the same thing.

 

 

True enough. But, let's face it, Washington and Oregon's votes will go to Obama. I guess my comment was more of a dig on the electoral college system in general.

 

I suppose popular vote matters, but only as a reason for the losing party to bitch about the result afterwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bone has a point since in Oregon and Washington our individual votes are pretty insignificant as the state's electoral votes will be going to Obama regardless.

 

not quite, they don't go to Obama "regardless" -- they only go to obama if everyone you assume is going to vote for him actually does so. "Likely" and "regardless" are not the same thing.

 

 

True enough. But, let's face it, Washington and Oregon's votes will go to Obama. I guess my comment was more of a dig on the electoral college system in general.

 

I suppose popular vote matters, but only as a reason for the losing party to bitch about the result afterwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the key word here is "irregardless". Anyway, Pete, you are pretty fashionable...which means you are probably gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'Binders' meme is far from a distraction. It's pretty central to the campaign for two reasons:

 

1) Mitt's heartwarming debate story was a lie. a women's PAC presented him with a list of women qualified for jobs in his administration when he was elected governor. He did not 'recognize the problem and seek them out'.

 

2) It highlights Mitt's proposed policies regarding women, so many of which he correctly states are in poverty right now. Why is that? The number one predictor of life long poverty for women is childbirth before finishing their education. Mitt, of course, proposes to force women to have unwanted children, as well as make education, at all levels, even less accessible than it already is.

 

This isn't to say that Mitt opposed hiring women into his MA administration. When it comes to wealthy, powerful people, he's there for them.

 

When it comes to women who are not part of the elite - particularly immigrants and those who cannot afford to bring their pregnancies to term, or who simply don't wish to, that's another matter.

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...