h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Grover Norquist not sure about the spelling.
Got to go for now.

Yeah, I got to go for now too but, first, swl, you can't just go around saying stuff and not saying where you got it from or whatever is needed to back it up so we can check if it is true for ourselves.

Well, okay, you CAN but it's not exactly an adult conversation about important things then is it. If it were okay to do then I could say "The sky is falling" and everyone would freak out because that is all you need to make something valid enough to be acted upon... just saying it. And this is part of how we have this bizarre situation with the Republicans in America right now where they are saying proven lies to our faces in ads and continuing to do so. Evidently they think (and, sadly, rightly so) that there will be SOME doofusses out there who will not know enough about what is going on to actually believe them and act on it - in other words, vote for the liar, Romney.

Sorry Clare - I was only referring to what's been said in this thread, where it was claimed Obama lied (just the once) and apparently the Democrats reckon Reagan would have been a Democrat now if he wasn't a bit dead.

swl, in your post 47 you said this

"So the US President lied during a tv debate but it's ok cos the other guy lied more? 

And seeking the endorsement of a dead President? 

Don't get me wrong, I think Romney's an arse but Obama isn't exactly knocking his pitches out of the park is he? "

then when called on it, you say in post 63

"Sorry Clare - I was only referring to what's been said in this thread, where it was claimed Obama lied (just the once) and apparently the Democrats reckon Reagan would have been a Democrat now if he wasn't a bit dead."

It was abbinormal who talked about a claim or discussion by the media about a possible lie or misunderstanding by Obama. (i think it probably was the thing about the timing of the declaration of the embassy attack as an act of terrorism*) The thing here is that, just like with Clinton, the republicans are hard put to find something anything to hold against Obama because, like Clinton, he is a Good President.

And as for the thing about Reagan? I believe the discussion (in the world, not just in h2g2) was that Reagan, if alive today, would not count himself in with the GOP Conservatives. (kind of a Reagan turning in his grave thing) And I think the republicans had as much to do with the start of that discussion as the democrats… Jeb Bush for one. So Reagan not being a current day republican is a far cry from Reagan endorsing Obama.


*Obama called the attack on the embassy an act of terrorism hours after it happened. Romney was saying he didn't do this until days later. Then Romney tried to make it look like Obama was lieing about when he said it was terrorism. Then the moderator fact checked by saying that no, Obama isn't lieing, he did say it was terrorism that first day.

- hey, I'm just talking about the discussion here.

Mind you - <>

I seem to recall Clinton was impeached?

thank you clare ,for clearing that up

The so called "lie"
Hard as they tried, Rep could not come up with an example of Obama lying.

Well, yes, Clinton went through the process of impeachment but was not convicted. Something about innocent until proven guilty? I think, rather, they pretty much got it that the grounds for impeachment were pretty petty and pretty much politially motivated.

What is so impressive about Clinton is that he accomplished so much in spite of the harassment, from day one, from the opposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton
Balancing the budget was a big one.
Staying married to his lovely wife was another one

(Word to the wise, if you use these two brackets > and < in reverse order, in Pliny, everything between them will disappear. This can be very humorous sometimes, especially when it is deliberate, but can be a problem when trying to make a serious point)

So < I want to take off all my clothes and run down main street > will not be seen by anyone not logged in to h2g2 (outsiders muahaha) but will be seen by insiders. And not just any insiders, mind you, but only ones not using Pliny, in other words, using brunel, classic, alabaster, or goo.

Ooops, it is seen by logged in Pliny users, my bad

< nongeek >

Okay, sorry, just had to figure that out.

If the > bracket has a space before it or the < bracket has a space after it, and the two brackets are reversed, anything inside is invisible to people who are not logged in (ie: in Pliny) This is based on the smiley machine.

Nooooooooo I totally messed this up, sorry. No space before the > and no space after the <

sorry sorry sorry

Latest polls (30 October) has the race 49% to 49% with an error margin of + / - 3%. Of course the key will be the swing states.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19415745

US America seems pretty well split in the choice of the next chief executive.

Yeah, but Abbi pointed out earlier about all the discrepancies involving polling nowadays: cell phones, caller id, demographics of who picks up an 800 call. It is true that we need to know how polls are conducted now. I recall seeing invitations to answer surveys on the internet and who runs the survey has a lot to do with if i do that or not.

But, personally, knowing what the republican party did to America in the last 12 years, I find those numbers citing a 50/50 race as ludicrous.

What do you think of Nate Silver giving Obama a ~80% chance of re-election and the fallout that followed?
http://www.latimes.com/features/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-nate-silver-versus-the-pundits-20121102,0,1129852.story

>>But, personally, knowing what the republican party did to America in the last 12 years, I find those numbers citing a 50/50 race as ludicrous.<<

Maybe it's because his black. A black president has never won a second term ...

Getting back to the Clintons ... Francois Mitterand the President of France 1981 - 1995 had a mistress and a wife. He had a daughter with his mistress in 1974 while he was making his first attempt at the presidency, and while he was in office and leader of his party. He was aged 58 at the time and his mistress was 31. Mitterand was married of course (his wife was 49/50 at the time) and had already three children. But these things are irrelevant to French politics.

The previous French president Nicolas Sarkozy decided to ditch his second wife before the election and married a fashion model / singer. He had done the same thing with his first wife, ditching her for a younger lady (again a fashion model). He had children with all three ladies.

I find it hard to believe. I think R 46% to 49% Obama is more like it.
More than a few votes are going to 3rd partyy candidates.
The green party will probably get more than usual.
The constitutional party may take votesfrom Romney.

There are more punditry than ever.
I is in their interest to make it close or exciting in some way.

It promotes more voting when it's a close race.

The National polls are usually less correct than state polls.
If you watch them , the national polls never match the state polls.

Telephone polls are less acurate than in person polls.
I do not know how accurate the internet has proven to be.
I would think people are chosey about the polls they answer.

Actually the second wife ditched Sarkozy. The second wife had ditched her husband to marry Sarkozy, after Sarkozy ditched his first wife in 1996. Sarkozy's love life was an entangled web, but these things are not relevant to his work in politics.