Is....Is it safe - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Aquaticedge · #1 11-07-2012, 01:01 PM

????

Fulcrum525 · #2 11-07-2012, 01:04 PM

?

Is it safe? - YouTube

elchivito · #3 11-07-2012, 01:05 PM

Sure, we're all here celebrating. No hard feelings. C'mon in and have a little drinky.

SwampYankee · #4 11-07-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquaticedge

????

Not quite yet.

Aquaticedge · #5 11-07-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Sure, we're all here celebrating. No hard feelings. C'mon in and have a little drinky.

This tells me Swamp is right.... back to hiding I go.

iwrock · #6 11-07-2012, 01:44 PM

^^how i feel

Stretch · #7 11-07-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquaticedge

????

Nope not yet

Benz Fan · #8 11-07-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army

Nope not yet

What is the local perspective about the outcome of the election?

spdrun · #9 11-07-2012, 03:50 PM

Planning to run a Marathon?

Stretch · #10 11-08-2012, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Fan

What is the local perspective about the outcome of the election?

It probably won't be very popular with everyone to say this but I think most people seem to be relieved - a bit kind of like better the devil you know...

There's a general feeling that too much money is spent on people getting elected in the US. And at first 6 billion USD seems like a whole load of cash that could have been used to solve some problems (even if it was just used to help out the victims of the most recent US natural disaster - not that most people who donated the cash would want to spend it on that) but if you work it out it comes in at about 20 USD per person who is officially meant to be in the US. The US military spent half that amount on armed forces housing in 2010 apparently (all of this found looking on wikipedia - accuracy unknown!?)...

...still 6 billion USD does seem excessive to people who come from smaller countries - the numbers that get used when talking about the US always seem huge and almost unbelievable to most of us lot over here.

t walgamuth · #11 11-08-2012, 06:17 AM

It's unbelievable to us too.

We really need to figure out a better way to run our elections.

Botnst · #12 11-08-2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fulcrum525

?

Is it safe? - YouTube

Nice! That's what I thought of, too.

JB3 · #13 11-08-2012, 08:32 AM

I don't see how we can really amend how elections are run in present day without restricting free speech though.

Its a double edge sword, on one hand, Im not happy about money being able to flood media with ads, but on the other, I don't see how we can avoid that without affecting our core strengths.

Special interested groups of all kinds can take out any kind of advertisements they want with enough money. Locally, as a RI resident, I had the displeasure of being witness to the violent character assassination campaigns of the MA congressional battle between Warren and Brown, without being able to vote in it, which was annoying beyond belief since I had no closure and no stake, but was neck deep just like every other bordering state resident. I feel like thats how foreigners might feel.

Part of me wants to at least make rules for a minimum and maximum war chest for each candidate, and formalize advertising, IE, a public access channel where each presidential candidate gets equal air time regardless of party or size of party, and thats their restricted media outlet, while in person campaigning can continue as it always has without restriction, though as a luddite who loves old stuff, id love to make it go back to the candidates travel the nation by train and make speeches from the back of a pullman sleeper car.

It would be interesting if you had to demonstrate a certain amount of money for your campaign, but could not spend beyond a certain reasonable amount, and every presidential candidate was required to debate with every other presidential candidate regardless of party. I though I was keeping decently informed, but there were at least two names on the ballot that I was totally unfamiliar with for president.

I would love to see the major part people have to debate the minor party people and that be required every presidential election. Going back to Ross Perot as an example, nothing like another fresh perspective to really get a feel for how things should move forward, I find things are much too entrenched with just a realistic chance from only two candidates, and part of that is the money brought to the table by only two parties

SwampYankee · #14 11-08-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

I don't see how we can really amend how elections are run in present day without restricting free speech though.

Its a double edge sword, on one hand, Im not happy about money being able to flood media with ads, but on the other, I don't see how we can avoid that without affecting our core strengths.

Special interested groups of all kinds can take out any kind of advertisements they want with enough money. Locally, as a RI resident, I had the displeasure of being witness to the violent character assassination campaigns of the MA congressional battle between Warren and Brown, without being able to vote in it, which was annoying beyond belief since I had no closure and no stake, but was neck deep just like every other bordering state resident. I feel like thats how foreigners might feel.

Part of me wants to at least make rules for a minimum and maximum war chest for each candidate, and formalize advertising, IE, a public access channel where each presidential candidate gets equal air time regardless of party or size of party, and thats their restricted media outlet, while in person campaigning can continue as it always has without restriction, though as a luddite who loves old stuff, id love to make it go back to the candidates travel the nation by train and make speeches from the back of a pullman sleeper car.

It would be interesting if you had to demonstrate a certain amount of money for your campaign, but could not spend beyond a certain reasonable amount, and every presidential candidate was required to debate with every other presidential candidate regardless of party. I though I was keeping decently informed, but there were at least two names on the ballot that I was totally unfamiliar with for president.

I would love to see the major part people have to debate the minor party people and that be required every presidential election. Going back to Ross Perot as an example, nothing like another fresh perspective to really get a feel for how things should move forward, I find things are much too entrenched with just a realistic chance from only two candidates, and part of that is the money brought to the table by only two parties

I'm with you, drop'.

My only concern with campaign spending limits, or public-only funding, is that it heavily favors the incumbent. Not that I don't like the concept or theory behind it, just that I don't know how you level the field when a sitting candidate has a leg up on their opponent.

tjts1 · #15 11-08-2012, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army

...still 6 billion USD does seem excessive to people who come from smaller countries - the numbers that get used when talking about the US always seem huge and almost unbelievable to most of us lot over here.

On the bright side, the party that spent the most money on this election actually lost which is a first for American politics. Karl Rove wasted at least $1 billion of other people's money on this election while promising a sure win for Romney. The Koch brothers spent $100 million just to get Ryan on the ticket. I doubt they'll be making this kind of extravagant donation to Republicans again. Not a bad outcome after the insane "money = speech therefore no limit to campaign finance" ruling from Supreme Court.
From what I've seen thus far, the Republicans are mostly angry and in shock that they lost by such a huge margin. No real talk of reforming the party yet, kicking out the religious zealots or ending the war on women. Lets not even get into their obsession with tea bagging. They'll only win elections again when they decide to grow up and represent America as it exists today rather than the 1950s. Good luck with that.