Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Gared

Gared

blotsfan said:
We need UN intervention in our elections.

Click to expand...
Yes we do. I'd also love to know who that "boutique" real estate and "Bird Law" firm is that locked up a polling place in Chandler last night and then refused to let the sheriff's office in to retrieve the ballots and voting equipment, and what the hell they think they're doing interfering with a federal election.

Edit: I should mention, of course, that the polling place in question has since been re-opened, but that the voters turned away from that location were sent to another and then "contributed to the chaos," at that location when there weren't enough ballots.
 
Last edited:
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
I feel the need to mention that woman-on-man rape really is a thing, too - even from an attractive woman. It's not because she's cute or hot that she can do what she wants with a guy.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And in case anyone wasn't aware, in some areas of the US, historically a man could not be the victim of rape, in the legal sense. Laws may have changed, but in some jurisdictions rape was specifically a crime against women. In other areas, rape is only when the victim is penetrated; so those "forced to penetrate" don't get counted as rape victims when reporting crimes. This wildly skews statistics when it comes estimating how many men have been a victim of rape. Counting "forced to penetrate" as the rape it is shows that men are victims of rape at much higher rate than was previously believed.

Other shocking things about rape statistics:
- For children under the age of 12, males are more likely to be victimized than females.
- Men have a higher likelihood of retroactively labeling their experience as consensual (which may further skew statistics).
- In some juridictions only men can be the perpetrator of rape. The crime is specifically worded such that it is solely men acting on women and/or men, and women are not included as possible perpetrators.
 
Last edited:
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
Lolz
Click to expand...
You'll be especially amused to know that the Libertarian signs were at the back/side entrance instead of prominently displayed on the main street entrance (where all the democrat and republican candidate signs were arrayed as thick as flies on cow pies).
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
You'll be especially amused to know that the Libertarian signs were at the back/side entrance instead of prominently displayed on the main street entrance (where all the democrat and republican candidate signs were arrayed as thick as flies on cow pies).
Click to expand...
I thought it was more about “Enough is enough” but there were 3 signs when 2 would have been enough.

—Patrick
 
Last edited:
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
PatrThom said:
I thought it was more about “Enouh is enough” but there were 3 signs when 2 would have been enough.

—Patrick
Click to expand...
There were only two, the sideways one is a different candidate's sign. But there were at least 5 signs for every major candidate along the sidewalk of the heavy traffic side.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I had met only one candidate. She was running to be on a local power board (Omaha Public Power District - OPPD) and we stood and talked for a while. I asked her her views on fines for home solar, renewables, etc. and she was right in line with what I wanted. The guy walking around with her was from the Sierra Club so I knew they were serious about renewables and putting more in the grid.

I go to vote today and apparently I'm not in her voting district because she wasn't on my ballot. D'oh!
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
You'll be especially amused to know that the Libertarian signs were at the back/side entrance instead of prominently displayed on the main street entrance (where all the democrat and republican candidate signs were arrayed as thick as flies on cow pies).
Click to expand...
I don't care about there being libertarian signs. I just think that the idea that voting libertarian is a way to actually effect the current situation is humorous.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Dave said:
I had met only one candidate. She was running to be on a local power board (Omaha Public Power District - OPPD) and we stood and talked for a while. I asked her her views on fines for home solar, renewables, etc. and she was right in line with what I wanted. The guy walking around with her was from the Sierra Club so I knew they were serious about renewables and putting more in the grid.

I go to vote today and apparently I'm not in her voting district because she wasn't on my ballot. D'oh!
Click to expand...
That's a new twist on voter suppression!

I feel bad for her, though, because if she spent time earning your vote, she likely lost more time talking to others who couldn't vote for her.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Dei said:
Hey, if they are voting libertarian, it means they aren't giving votes to the GOP. :awesome:
Click to expand...
Yeah true. Its just frustrating since it makes 0 impact. Especially in a state where there is actually an important senate race. But hey. Who wants to make a stance against the facism of the republicans when the democrats might make you pay an extra $20 a week?
 
Null

Null

To be fair, I don't find it hard to believe that Libertarians could gain 3 to 5 % of the vote in Texas this time around, which is good, because that means it's 3 to 5% less for Cruz.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
Yeah true. Its just frustrating since it makes 0 impact. Especially in a state where there is actually an important senate race. But hey. Who wants to make a stance against the facism of the republicans when the democrats might make you pay an extra $20 a week?
Click to expand...
Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, think I'd be voting for a socialist? It's not just "an extra $20 a week," though a $1000+ tax increase would be enough for most people to tell you to fuck off in and of itself.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

I guess I don't know how much you make, but I know it wouldn't be sending you to the poorhouse. For the benefit of helping others.

But I get it. You're a profoundly selfish person.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
I guess I don't know how much you make, but I know it wouldn't be sending you to the poorhouse. For the benefit of helping others.

But I get it. You're a profoundly selfish person.
Click to expand...
Charity at gunpoint isn't charity. And telling me I'm being selfish while you cock the hammer is just fascism with a smiley emoticon.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, think I'd be voting for a socialist? It's not just "an extra $20 a week," though a $1000+ tax increase would be enough for most people to tell you to fuck off in and of itself.
Click to expand...
That's because people are short-sighted idiots. They hear "MORE TAX BAD" but never look at what the taxes GET you. An extra $20 a week gets you an extra $20 a week while it gives the ultra-rich an additional $2 million a week. Yet that $1000+ tax increase might give you infrastructure or free medical/dental care or college.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Dave said:
That's because people are short-sighted idiots. They hear "MORE TAX BAD" but never look at what the taxes GET you. An extra $20 a week gets you an extra $20 a week while it gives the ultra-rich an additional $2 million a week. Yet that $1000+ tax increase might give you infrastructure or free medical/dental care or college.
Click to expand...
People never understand that economies of scale work for government programs too.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
The biggest issue with democrats is that while their ideas are (for the most part) better than those of the republicans, they are absolutely shit at selling those ideas. I mean, eventually progressives win almost every time, but it's a matter of the old resistant to change dying and the younger getting the job done than it is people buying in to the ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top