electoral college, call it

dingus · Post by **dingus** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:59 pm

Oops 271-267 Kenyan.....but who knows an extra two may show up if he needs them.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:52 pm

The Des Moines Register poll that came out this morning has Obama with a 5 point lead and I would expect him to carry Iowa.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:46 pm

Mace wrote:The Des Moines Register poll that came out this morning has Obama with a 5 point lead and I would expect him to carry Iowa.

Ponderous. The Star has him buried here between 7 and 13 points, depending on which poll you believe. Wouldn't think that we'd be all the different, Mace. Same values, same crops, same can-do, hard-working attitude. Guess the state line makes all the difference, but I can't see it...

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:51 pm

Truman wrote:
Mace wrote:The Des Moines Register poll that came out this morning has Obama with a 5 point lead and I would expect him to carry Iowa.
Ponderous. The Star has him buried here between 7 and 13 points, depending on which poll you believe. Wouldn't think that we'd be all the different, Mace. Same values, same crops, same can-do, hard-working attitude. Guess the state line makes all the difference, but I can't see it...

The population centers in Iowa are liberal bastions. Romney will carry all of the rural counties. On top of that, The Register gave Romney their endorsement....first time they've endorsed a Republican in 50 years.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:58 pm

Kansas City and St. Louis ain't exactly bastions of conservatism. Guess we've got MORE rural folk to skew the polls Romney's way than you all do. I dunno. I suppose I could see where those wind-farmers of yours might be a bit concerned by a change in political direction - we don't grow bird Cuisinarts down here.

*Edit* Speaking of endorsements: The only Republican the Star endorsed was Kansas's Kevin Yoder - and only because he is running unopposed. The Star went to great pains to chide the Dems for not fielding a candidate...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:07 am

Mace wrote:The Des Moines Register poll that came out this morning has Obama with a 5 point lead and I would expect him to carry Iowa.

lotta' retired teachers in Iowa addicted to the Federal teat, apparently.

You should be embarrassed by that, but I know you aren't.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:40 am

War Wagon wrote:
Mace wrote:The Des Moines Register poll that came out this morning has Obama with a 5 point lead and I would expect him to carry Iowa.
lotta' retired teachers in Iowa addicted to the Federal teat, apparently.

You should be embarrassed by that, but I know you aren't.

Why would that embarrass me, Wags? First of all, I'm not a retired teacher and, secondly, how would a retired teacher be addicted to the Federal teat.....aside from getting a Social Security check that non-teacher retirees also receive? Do you have a problem with retired folks?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:09 pm

I'm happy to wait for your answers, Wags. I'm sure they'll be enlightening.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:22 pm

what he is refering to is the public sector retirement scam which is backeed by the democratic party. The public sector unions negotiate retirement deals which can't possibly be funded by their contributions to these programs. But, they don't give a fukk. Just jack the taxes up on "the rich" Ofcourse they will start giving a fukk when their pension checks bounce when the taxpayers are completely bled dry.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:26 pm

smackaholic wrote:what he is refering to is the public sector retirement scam which is backeed by the democratic party. The public sector unions negotiate retirement deals which can't possibly be funded by their contributions to these programs. But, they don't give a fukk. Just jack the taxes up on "the rich" Ofcourse they will start giving a fukk when their pension checks bounce when the taxpayers are completely bled dry.

Then he, like you, don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it refers to Iowa.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:29 pm

When did the Federal Gov't start paying teachers' retirement benefits (besides Social Security)?

I think the only thing Wags (addicted to the dumbfuck teat) has a real problem with is functioning brain cells.

BTW...around here (ie in the great golden state of CA) teachers are not eligible for SS.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:43 pm

Mace wrote:
smackaholic wrote:what he is refering to is the public sector retirement scam which is backeed by the democratic party. The public sector unions negotiate retirement deals which can't possibly be funded by their contributions to these programs. But, they don't give a fukk. Just jack the taxes up on "the rich" Ofcourse they will start giving a fukk when their pension checks bounce when the taxpayers are completely bled dry.
Then he, like you, don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it refers to Iowa.

I understand that your state has a much better handle on the public sector pension dealio than mine does or any of the left coasters, but, it has become so fukking widespread that gubmint employees in general seem to line up this way.

Out of curiosity, are the Iowa state employees pension plans all fully funded? They are so not funded here that it is ridiculous. I suspect within the next decade or so, you will see the shit hit the fan in this area. Pensions will be seriously clipped. And it doesn't fukking matter what they were promised. If it ain't there, it ain't there.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:44 pm

Mace wrote:
smackaholic wrote:what he is refering to is the public sector retirement scam which is backeed by the democratic party. The public sector unions negotiate retirement deals which can't possibly be funded by their contributions to these programs. But, they don't give a fukk. Just jack the taxes up on "the rich" Ofcourse they will start giving a fukk when their pension checks bounce when the taxpayers are completely bled dry.
Then he, like you, don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it refers to Iowa.

Or Wisconsin.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:47 pm

Mikey wrote:BTW...around here (ie in the great golden state of CA) teachers are not eligible for SS.

Same here, or put more accurately, they aren't forced into that greatest of ponzi schemes. Same goes for a few other occupations, all public sector, of course.

If you were allowed to put every nickle of your SS contributions, including employer match into a 401K, you'd be able to retire tomorrow.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:49 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Mace wrote:
smackaholic wrote:what he is refering to is the public sector retirement scam which is backeed by the democratic party. The public sector unions negotiate retirement deals which can't possibly be funded by their contributions to these programs. But, they don't give a fukk. Just jack the taxes up on "the rich" Ofcourse they will start giving a fukk when their pension checks bounce when the taxpayers are completely bled dry.
Then he, like you, don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it refers to Iowa.
I understand that your state has a much better handle on the public sector pension dealio than mine does or any of the left coasters, but, it has become so fukking widespread that gubmint employees in general seem to line up this way.

Out of curiosity, are the Iowa state employees pension plans all fully funded? They are so not funded here that it is ridiculous. I suspect within the next decade or so, you will see the shit hit the fan in this area. Pensions will be seriously clipped. And it doesn't fukking matter what they were promised. If it ain't there, it ain't there.

Yes, the pension plan is fully funded. It took a hit in 2008, along with everything else, but wise investing has brought the fund back up to pre-2008 levels. I don't have to worry about getting a pension check during my lifetime. It's unbelievable to me that any state would award 90%-100% of someone's salary in retirement benefits and expect the retirement system to remain solvent. Apparently you and others have some real bozos running your public employee retirement systems. Sucks for you.

Edit: If there is ever a financial crisis, as in 2008, they raise the amount paid in by employees each month to keep the pension fully funded in the long term. It's pretty simple math.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:33 pm

Mace wrote: It's unbelievable to me that any state would award 90%-100% of someone's salary in retirement benefits and expect the retirement system to remain solvent.

It's worse than that in California. These maggots retire on 100% pay thanks to pumping up their final year, start drawing their pensions and then go back to work for the state as "consultants."

Apparently you and others have some real bozos running your public employee retirement systems.

Yes, we do: Public employee unions. They're trying to chisel even more money out the taxpayers this year with Prop 30 which will increase sales and income taxes. The income tax portion will also be retroactive to Jan 1, 2012. It is financed almost entirely by union pimps and their Democrat whores in Suckramento.

Naturally, it's "for the children" and that education is "an investment in our future." In reality, it's going to backfill insolvent pension plans.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote: It's unbelievable to me that any state would award 90%-100% of someone's salary in retirement benefits and expect the retirement system to remain solvent.
It's worse than that in California. These maggots retire on 100% pay thanks to pumping up their final year, start drawing their pensions and then go back to work for the state as "consultants."

Apparently you and others have some real bozos running your public employee retirement systems.
Yes, we do: Public employee unions. They're trying to chisel even more money out the taxpayers this year with Prop 30 which will increase sales and income taxes. The income tax portion will also be retroactive to Jan 1, 2012. It is financed almost entirely by union pimps and their Democrat whores in Suckramento.

Naturally, it's "for the children" and that education is "an investment in our future." In reality, it's going to backfill insolvent pension plans.

Last poll I saw showed 46% in favor. I had hoped that more people in this state were smart enough to figure out that the only reason they're billing this as yet another "Save Our Schools" measure is that no one would vote for a tax increase called "Save Our Entitlements and Fat Pensions".

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:34 pm

OCmike wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote: It's unbelievable to me that any state would award 90%-100% of someone's salary in retirement benefits and expect the retirement system to remain solvent.
It's worse than that in California. These maggots retire on 100% pay thanks to pumping up their final year, start drawing their pensions and then go back to work for the state as "consultants."

Apparently you and others have some real bozos running your public employee retirement systems.
Yes, we do: Public employee unions. They're trying to chisel even more money out the taxpayers this year with Prop 30 which will increase sales and income taxes. The income tax portion will also be retroactive to Jan 1, 2012. It is financed almost entirely by union pimps and their Democrat whores in Suckramento.

Naturally, it's "for the children" and that education is "an investment in our future." In reality, it's going to backfill insolvent pension plans.
Last poll I saw showed 46% in favor. I had hoped that more people in this state were smart enough to figure out that the only reason they're billing this as yet another "Save Our Schools" measure is that no one would vote for a tax increase called "Save Our Entitlements and Fat Pensions".

Of course they'll get 46% or better. There is only one way this is going to change. Eventually, the rest of the world will stop loaning them money and their taxpayers will all be broke or moved away. Maybe cali will just come up with their own currency and print the fukk out of it, like uncle sugar does. Of course uncle sugar doesn't like competition in its various rackets and would prolly frown upon it.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:39 pm

Can anyone in California politics do simple math?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:42 pm

Mace wrote:Can anyone in California politics do simple math?

yup.

gov. union hacks + general layabouts = majority

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:45 pm

The math here in Oregon is quite simple, Mace -- around 47% of voters have some sort of vested interest in public unions, through either a government job, a state pension, or a family member involved with one.

When your base voting block is almost a majority, it doesn't take too many lies to sway a few more voters.

Very simple math... and I think California has about the same dealio.

Oh, and the people who negotiate with the public unions over retirement benefits... are recipients of the retirement benefits. If there's any sort of dispute, it goes to court... where every employee, including the judge, is a recipient of the retirement benefits.

Genius system.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:50 pm

Quite the system you got there, Dins. They're clearly capable of counting votes but fall short (should have saved that for the Moving Sale thread) when it comes to figuring out a budget.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:04 pm

Mace wrote:Quite the system you got there, Dins. They're clearly capable of counting votes but fall short (should have saved that for the Moving Sale thread) when it comes to figuring out a budget.

Speaking of counting votes -- in Clackamas County (one of the metro area tri-counties), they just popped an election worker marking ballots that had blanks on them (for their local R candidate).

Should be a fun few days here.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:22 pm

Mace wrote:Quite the system you got there, Dins. They're clearly capable of counting votes but fall short (should have saved that for the Moving Sale thread) when it comes to figuring out a budget.

I wouldn't get too smug if I were you. The same thing can happen in Iowa, too.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:30 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:Quite the system you got there, Dins. They're clearly capable of counting votes but fall short (should have saved that for the Moving Sale thread) when it comes to figuring out a budget.
I wouldn't get too smug if I were you. The same thing can happen in Iowa, too.

Maybe, but highly doubtful.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:49 pm

My prediction is...

...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:53 pm

Mace wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:Quite the system you got there, Dins. They're clearly capable of counting votes but fall short (should have saved that for the Moving Sale thread) when it comes to figuring out a budget.
I wouldn't get too smug if I were you. The same thing can happen in Iowa, too.
Maybe, but highly doubtful.

I would have said the same thing 30 years ago in California.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:44 am

Idiot

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:26 am

mvscal wrote:Idiot

What was your prediction in 08? Oh ja, McPalin. Good call, bro.

I have Obama losing FL, NC, VA, and just for feces and hahas, OH.

Obambar: 272
Mittens: 266

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:00 pm

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:56 pm

M Nubb wrote:
mvscal wrote:Idiot
I have Obama losing FL

So you agree that he's an idiot. Yet here you are humping my leg. You really can't help yourself, can you?

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:56 am

I just made up a best-case scenario for Mittens. That and you're low-hanging fruit.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:57 am

except that Romney is currently leading in Pennsylvania.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:59 am

War Wagon wrote:except that Romney is currently leading in Pennsylvania.

...and losing in Florida.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:06 am

And Obama leading in both Ohio and Wisconsin.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:21 am

Dinsdale wrote: Genius system.

Your state, buddy. Nice shithole you got there.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:38 am

PA, Wisconsin, and NH have gone to Obama and Ohio is leaning that way. The fat lady hasn't started singing but she's pulled into the parking lot and trying to squeeze her fat ass out of the car. I was expecting a late night but it looks like this one will end early.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:39 am

Martyred wrote:
War Wagon wrote:except that Romney is currently leading in Pennsylvania.

...and losing in Florida.

Not anymore, which isn't a shock.

The thing people need to understand while sitting on the edge of their seats, watching the early returns, is that results from the major urban centers come in first. When the results from the rural areas come in, you see what's happening in Florida right now.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:44 am

KC Scott wrote: PA - Not sure what channel Wags watching

CNN, and yes, they are calling it for Obama.

Still comes down to Ohio.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:45 am

CNN is showing Romney leading in Wisconsin.