This forum has always been able to "agree to disagree" in such a respectful manner, intervention was never necessary.
I don't like, what appear to be, the personal attacks on some member's political views, so, I have decided to hold our own "forum election."
Hopefully this will put to rest a subject that seems to have taken over our "rail" forum.
Rules are simple:
-Ballots will be accepted by "Private message" to the moderator.
-Only the two major party candidates will be on the ballot. Obama - Romney.
-One vote per member (I will be watching carefully)
-Voting will be limited to standing registrants as of Sept. 12, 2012
-Early voting opens Sept. 13th and closes on Sept. 25th.
-Polls will be open on Wed. Sept. 26th and close on Thursday, Oct. 25th.
-Results will be posted after the polls close.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Great idea. Will be interesting to see the outcome.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Bless you, Moderator.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
My vote is in!
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
I also think it's a great idea. But I'd also like to tip my hat to the moderator for allowing us to stray from strictly Amtrak. It allow us to be more of a family. (I'm not expressing it well, but it's a bonding experience).
Bless you!
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I'm in! I'm very curious as to what the outcome will be. And then after the November election, compare our numbers to America.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
I'm a senile citizen in Florida, but I waded through the "hanging chads" and voted early. Hope Mr. Moderator will hold my ballot until 9/26, or else I'll have to vote again (another Florida tradition - voting 2 different times in 2 states!).
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
How about the Chicago tradition . . . voting early and often?
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Back in the paper ballot days, it was not unheard of in my home county for ballot boxes to be 'cast' into the French Broad River.
They would turn up uncounted weeks later downstream somewhere in Tennessee.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
I neglected to include "early voting"
A member has PM'd to say he would be away for all but the last day of the vote and was afraid the polls would be closed before he had a chance to vote. I guess I'm not the only one without a laptop
Situation corrected, my mistake.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
Polls are now open.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
TODAY THE POLLS ARE OPEN!!!! Here we go....
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Hey, we posted the same thing at the same time. Great minds!!!
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I voted and included my estimate of the electoral votes he will receive.
(Currently enjoying a wonderful vacation in the Great Smoky Mountains, this week)
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I voted and included my estimate of the electoral votes he will receive.
(Currently enjoying a wonderful vacation in the Great Smoky Mountains, this week)
Must be beautiful up there right now up there; are the colors in yet?
P.S. Assuming your "he" is Mr. Romney, can I have the "under" on that electoral total?
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
After all these years, I finally try to send a private message and I don't know how! I clicked on your homepage and got sent back to the forum home page! Please help me out here!
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Jerome--
Scroll up to the top of this page, and look at the original post made by "Moderator". If you click on the bold/black name of "Moderator", it will take you to Moderator's page. Once there, just click on the upper-right portion of the page where it says, "Send New Private Message".
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike:
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I voted and included my estimate of the electoral votes he will receive.
(Currently enjoying a wonderful vacation in the Great Smoky Mountains, this week)
Must be beautiful up there right now up there; are the colors in yet?
P.S. Assuming your "he" is Mr. Romney, can I have the "under" on that electoral total?
The Smokies are changing DAILY. There is more color in each vista we have visited each day. We got some great shots of a mama black bear and her two cubs yesterday. We are going back today to get more shots, then we go home tomorrow. At the risk of scaring you with my facebook page, I do have a few pictures on it: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1071296749
And my electoral total is the same one I posted in the Poofed thread, so you can safely choose the same as you did in that thread. My opinion has not changed.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
Jerome
Smitty's explanation is one way to send a private message, or, you can simply click on the little icon depicting an envelope with two little people at the top of this post, to the right of the (in red print) date and time of this post.
I wasn't thinking when I sent you a PM earlier this morning..... Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Good time of year to be in the Smokies...... I wish it were not such a busy time for me.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Marriott Key Center Cleveland (in the middle of a swing state)--
If this message has too many political overtones, I implore Ms. Moderatrix to kill it.
Not only does this thought relate to our election here, but also and more importantly to the real deal five weeks away.
There are still three debates to go in which the two major party's candidates will be presented to be "cross examined" by one another. We have not had that so far in this election cycle, for "stumps" and the "infomericals" the Conventions have come to represent, are by nature one sided (hey, our $$$$ our message). With those debates, any voter who WANTS to decide (and let's be honest, there are a lot of voters who simply vote by rote), will have his/her chance to do so. That is why I can say I'm "undecided", and independent - my all time presidential voting record of 6R 5D and 1I should bear that out. The "I" will never happen again; my vote is all I got and it is too precious to throw away on some kind of lost cause.
So to close on what I hope have proven to be non-partisan thoughts on this subject, I'm reminded how two Sundays ago, I was flying KRIC-KORD and was seated with this guy from Dayron (yup so much for point to point service on airlines; KRIC-KORD-KDAY is a bit "curcuituous"). He thinks it real sport to write in the likes of "Mickey Mouse" and "Daffy Duck" and wish there was a "none of the above" option on a ballott. I said to him "my friend, you are from a swing state and your very vote could decide the election; I think anyone voting in a swing state (unlike myself and Mr. Kisor, where our votes are merely symbolic) has a duty to "bone up" on the issues and decide which major party candidate is best qualified to hold the office."
We parted ways at O'Hare with a handshake and I like to think friends.
Vote; here and at the real deal.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
This period of our history will be looked upon with great confusion. How did we put a Barack Obama in the White House? No qualifications---none. A shady past, that is locked tight and sealed by lawyers. Of the past that we do know about it, it is ALL 100% anti-American. Anyone who openly claims that they want to "fundamentally transform" America is saying to you, "I hate the Constitution, and I loathe the founding of this country". Yet people still vote for the guy? I don't get it---I honestly don't. I've tried six ways from Sunday to attempt to understand how a seemingly intelligent and educated individual can put their support behind the Marxist in the White House, and I can't understand it. If you pay attention to Obama's ads on radio and TV, have any of you supporters out there noticed that there is one glaring thing missing from all of them? The past four years!! He does not talk about the last four years---just more lies and platitudes about how he needs "more time" (even though he said it would be fixed in three years, or he should be voted out). He has lied about everything he said he would do. Okay, not "everything"--I have to remember there are nitpickers who will remind me that he promised to install a swing set in the yard of the White House, and he did accomplish that.
Honestly, I don't get it. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face---it makes no sense. I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone watching a bunch of drones support a guy who has done NOTHING to cause support.
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
i have a lot i can say to rebut the previous post, but all i will say is: "sigh".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim: i have a lot i can say to rebut the previous post, but all i will say is: "sigh".
Please have at it. Unfortunately for a lot that consider Obama's qualifications questionable it seems about all that comes back in rebuttal is very similar to what you just said, "How could you possibly feel that way? I can rebut you but I won't bother."
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Exactly. The big "sigh" is the country saying, "No more!".
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Probably should start a separate political thread for this...
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
How about a political forum, there are plenty out there.
No need to remind you that this is a Rail forum where members share their rail experiences, questions, rants, travelogues, breaking news and horror stories.
I truly believe our members are already well informed individuals who will decide for themselves this coming November.
Our Railforum isn't the place to try and win converts.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
I have often wondered if the Rail Forum would benefit from an "open topic" section to the forum. In other words, threads which do not pertain to Amtrak, trains, or railroads. Maybe it could be called "The Lounge Car". A place for politics, jokes, any topics of general interest.
On second thought, maybe this would not be necessary. As our discussions tend, often, to go off the beaten path (I enjoy strays) anyway, off-topic comments seem to be permissible. Also, seperate "cracker barrel" categories seem to work best with larger forums with many members. So, keep things as they are?
Richard
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
This subject has been brought up before on the forum, and I always passed on the suggestion, but it was felt that an "open topic" might get out of hand.
I, too, enjoy off-topic discussions and find someone always brings it around to have a bit of rail content.
I will ask again, maybe third time is the charm.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
A good name for a purely political forum would be "Inside the Bubble."
Maybe it would be good to discuss lighter subjects such as collecting old radio drama MP3's, cereal box-top premiums, or starting up a new US Confederacy which could print its own, non-fiat, gold backed currency.
Richard
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
What if someone pops the bubble?
In 38 days, I go silent on politics. I probably go overboard sometimes, however, I have tried to be a "Paul Revere" for the last year. Things are bad, and many people are completely unaware of what is truly going on. I know what an Obama second term means--I know *precisely* what it means, and I want to stop it. If everyone knew the truth, they would want to stop it as well. If you would like to get a feel for what I'm talking about, simply go here and listen for free (commercials are edited out also, so it goes fast):
Click on 9-24-2012 and listen to the monologue.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
The polls will stay open a little longer, closing instead on Thursday Oct. 25th
This will allow the upcoming three debates to be heard and taken into consideration before casting a vote.
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
Thanks Mods- just mailed my vote off to you. The outcome of the debates won't have much of an effect on my choice; I'm not one of those vaunted "independents" that do exist out there, I'm sure. Are there still some of us, agonizing over which choice to make? Gotta be kind of a razor thin cross section, IMHO. Great day, everyone!
RR Bob
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The key to making the decision is or certainly should be that which is good for the country as a whole long term. It would be nice to get what you want short term and your special interests if possible. But, that should take a back seat to the first point.
Making a decision on one or a few points only can be dangerous. It is also worth remembering that the best thing to do when dealing with politicians is turn off the sound and watch the action. Look at the qualities and quality of the person as well.
A comment: No person or nation ever spent themselves out of debt or into prosperity.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
I just saw the message regarding Open Discussion, so I deleted a previous comment, and hope that maybe that's where these threads can go!
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I just spent 3 nights and 2 days on the train talking to everyone, and never heard a mention of anything political (or saw a commercial). It was a pleasant experience and I needed a break.
Things have become so polarized and so many people feel they are aware of the truth and those who oppose them are not. It is good to step back for a moment and put it all in perspective. A train ride across America is the perfect way to do that. I have yet to see a Romney sign in our city, and yet I traveled through areas where there are nothing but Republican signs. No matter where I was, people were a pleasure to meet and they were hopeful.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Nothing but Romney/Ryan lawn signs where we live (rural, mostly white, horse farms of 3 acres or more in N. Central FL). Guess the Romney's dressage horse did the trick here. We don't go in for lawn signs or bumper stickers, but our horses, dogs, and cats are definitely "takers" not "makers", so we will vote their interests.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
That's interesting, Mike (about the political signs on lawns). The reason I say that's interesting is because in my area (SF Bay Area), it's very strange---I have not seen ONE political sign on anyone's lawn. Not for Obama, and not for Romney---there simply aren't the signs like I saw leading up to the 2008 election. And my area is heavily liberal and I know the vote will go to Obama in my state, yet in 2008 I saw plenty of Obama stickers and Romney stickers on cars. I can count on one hand how many stickers I've seen for either candidate. I guess that could be because I have seen several news stories locally where someone who has a (fill in the blank) bumper sticker had their car vandalized. I think people are too afraid to show their support for either side because of how divided we are right now (courtesy of you-know-who). But it's a very interesting observation to see the huge difference between then and now.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Yes, my very liberal area also has somewhat fewer signs than 4 years ago. In 2008, Obama headquarters was 3 blocks from my house. All the windows in it were broken by vandals. I suppose they moved to a location this year with less windows.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
After tonight's debate, I expect to see lots more Romney/Ryan signs. That was a piss-poor showing by Obama, who let Romney take control of the proceedings. Never saw such long faces at MSNBC in my life!
Biden will have to pull a Tebow next week to even this thing up!
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
What you saw was exactly why I'm anti-Obama. You saw Obama in his true fashion tonight. That's why our country is in so much turmoil right now.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: That's interesting, Mike (about the political signs on lawns). The reason I say that's interesting is because in my area (SF Bay Area), it's very strange---I have not seen ONE political sign on anyone's lawn. Not for Obama, and not for Romney---there simply aren't the signs like I saw leading up to the 2008 election. And my area is heavily liberal and I know the vote will go to Obama in my state, yet in 2008 I saw plenty of Obama stickers and Romney stickers on cars. I can count on one hand how many stickers I've seen for either candidate. I guess that could be because I have seen several news stories locally where someone who has a (fill in the blank) bumper sticker had their car vandalized. I think people are too afraid to show their support for either side because of how divided we are right now.
As another but highly temporary resident of the bay area, I had not paid attention to this point until you brought it us, but yes that is right. There does seem to be quite a bit of fear of revealing your political opinions here, particularly if they are anti-Obamba.
I would also comment that someone I know well here, but will in no way identify circumstances (i.e. work, business contact, church, neighbor) for the sake of their anonymity has said that Obamba scares them, but they are afraid to say anything about their concerns because they are afraid of the possible consequences. Incidentially this person fits a demographic that the Obamba follwers consider theirs.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Wonder why I watch these events on C-SPAN - no talking heads to tell me what to think. As soon as the debate was over, I turned it off and went to bed (an hour past my bed hour as was). My "sleep time radio" was not the usual WBBM 780/105.9, but rather the San Francisco Symphony being aired by WFMT 98.7.
I knew Romney won.
Enough to change the course of the election? Tune in 33 days from now.
Here in town, there is one Obama supporter (as near as I can tell, the only such) that displays Obama signage in his yard (the guy is a gadfly; he doesn't have too many friends down at Village Hall either). The signage has been vandalized now at least two times. Now he has another sign "touch my signs and I call the cops".
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I hope John Kerry helps Obama with his next two debates. He did a great job this time!
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
I too have not seen any Obama or Romney signs around here, but there are plenty of signs for local and State candidates. I live in a small town in a rural area, which is largely State/National Forest.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Wonder why I watch these events on C-SPAN - no talking heads to tell me what to think. As soon as the debate was over, I turned it off and went to bed
Exactly my reponse!! Regardless of where I see/hear it. Likewise for anything I see "live". Consider that if these people were not being paid to talk they would be descirbed as gossips.
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
CSPAN was my main source also. The split screen was far superior to Fox and some of the others, who went to full screen for whomever was responding. It really was helpful to see the "body English" of candidates, while the opponent was speaking.
After the debate, I flipped over to the talking heads for awhile, until I couldn't take any more. I did find James Carville's commentary pretty entertaining; about Romney and his "chainsaw."
In my right-leaning neighborhood, there are no Romney yard signs that I've seen, and only one Obama/Biden sign displayed by a highly activist household that had their whole house covered with Obama posters in 2008. Everyone else seems to be playing it pretty close to the vest.
And there's my 500th post <--- Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Romney may have won the debate, but he messed with Big Bird. Big Bird has friends. Powerful friends. This ain't over.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I like the Tweet that someone put out this morning about this:
"Hey Big Bird - talk to Dora the Explorer. She is able to make it without funding from PBS."
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I hope John Kerry helps Obama with his next two debates. He did a great job this time!
Good one! Maybe he should get Bill Clinton to coach him on the next debates! BTW, I heard the debate on the radio, so I couldn't catch any body language. But even I knew Romney was walking all over Obama, who just wouldn't defend himself. No excuses. Forget altitude, Libya, whatever. It was Obama who lost that night.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike: After tonight's debate, I expect to see lots more Romney/Ryan signs. That was a piss-poor showing by Obama, who let Romney take control of the proceedings. Never saw such long faces at MSNBC in my life!
Biden will have to pull a Tebow next week to even this thing up!
While riding a city bus yesterday here in San Fran, I heard what the person making the excuse considered the primary reason behind his poor perfomance. His handlers had not realized that he needed to get to Denver about two days early to become acclimated to the altitude. In other words, he performed poorly because his brain was oxyoge-deprived. I refrain from comment.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
I'm not a sports fan, but I wonder how visiting teams do against the Rockies, Broncos and Nuggets. Do they get a couple of days to breathe the Denver air before the game?
Or do they suck as badly as the President did?
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
It happened to me once. My kids and I hopped off the Zephyr and zipped up to Loveland Ski Area (at the I-70 tunnel). We felt ok but realized we could not walk straight. We bailed out on skiing that day. By the next morning we were fine at 10,000 ft.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Similar Denver experience in 1984 when I first went to Denver to march with the DCI drum and bugle corps there. It took me a couple of days before I could zip up a flight of stairs without nearly passing out.
Might have taken longer had I flown but I did take the train out. Went Greenville, SC - New Orleans - San Antonio - Chicago - Denver.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike:
Biden will have to pull a Tebow next week to even this thing up!
Not exactly a Tebow, but at least a draw tonight. Did Ryan actually think that there were Marines at Benghazi, a consulate not an embassy? Didn't like Joe's breaking out in giggles every time he thought Ryan was lying, though. Joe might have saved Obama's *** tonight; certainly didn't do it any harm.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
My feeling about tonight's debate, I hate to say, is "eh". I can't say that either of them "won". I think Biden came across most of the time as smug and arrogant, and at other times he came across very confident---like he always has. Ryan, on the other hand, really disappointed me. I was expecting some slam-dunks and I wish he wouldn't have allowed the moderator to shut him up so much (I did NOT care for this moderator. Where did they find her???).
I heard one talking head describe tonight's debate perfectly. "If you listened to the debate on the radio, Ryan won. If you watched the debate on TV, Biden won". That about sums it up for me, which is that there was no clear winner. At one point during the debate I almost fell asleep on my couch because things seemed so dry and boring.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: My feeling about tonight's debate, I hate to say, is "eh". I can't say that either of them "won". I think Biden came across most of the time as smug and arrogant, and at other times he came across very confident---like he always has. Ryan, on the other hand, really disappointed me. I was expecting some slam-dunks and I wish he wouldn't have allowed the moderator to shut him up so much (I did NOT care for this moderator. Where did they find her???).
I heard one talking head describe tonight's debate perfectly. "If you listened to the debate on the radio, Ryan won. If you watched the debate on TV, Biden won". That about sums it up for me, which is that there was no clear winner. At one point during the debate I almost fell asleep on my couch because things seemed so dry and boring.
Glad I'm not the only one! I DID fall asleep two - thirds of the way through!
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: [QB]
I heard one talking head describe tonight's debate perfectly. "If you listened to the debate on the radio, Ryan won. If you watched the debate on TV, Biden won". {QB]
Intersting; exactly what they said about the JFK/Nixon debate in 1960, and you know how that election turned out. Not surprised that you didn't care for the moderator, as she didn't let your boy run roughshod over the format as Lehrer did with Mitt.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Mike: In a time period of just under 40 minutes, Ryan was interrupted 116 times. 34 by the moderator, and 82 times by Biden. It's not that she didn't let "my boy" run roughshod, it's that she was clearly biased.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
This is your last day to vote. The results will be posted tomorrow
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Getting close now---getting close!!!
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
Results are:
Obama -14
Romney - 9
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Thanks for holding the election! The results are right around where I thought they would be. Now what is going to be really interesting is comparing these results of random people with a common interest to those of the general population of the country. I predict the results to be the other way around, which will shock many people (but not me!). Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While likely this comment should be made over at the Open Discussion Forum, it certainly appears that the "momentum" has shifted to Gov. Romney. Whether "the power of the incumbency" (somehow a "The President's private 747" eclipses the "other guy's chartered 737" at an airport campaign rally) will be enough to slow this momentum, we will (hopefully, but not assuredly) know in less than two weeks.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
What amazes me is that there were so few votes. I wonder what percentage that is of the total registered members and how that will compare to the general election.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
GBN: Romney's aircraft is an MD-80, not a 737.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Good point Mr. Smith; and I will stand corrected.
I had noted from what is shown of it in news clips that Romney's aircraft has retractable stairs. Many of the "DC-9 varietals" are so equipped; and would have presumed some 737's were likewise.
I knew Romney was not flying about in the likes of an A-320 as that sircraft has "distinctive" winglets - also I guess that would be like any candidate showing up in a Mercedes limo.
Of course, should Romney be elected, here will be Limo One.
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
quote:Originally posted by palmland: What amazes me is that there were so few votes. I wonder what percentage that is of the total registered members and how that will compare to the general election.
I guess the small number might represent our "core" membership (those that post regularly.) We probably have low profile members who just enjoy reading the posts, but rarely post much themselves.
I'd agree with the esteemed GBN that no matter the result of the election, the country would be really stressed by a "cliff hanger" result; ie. Bush v. Gore.
Possibly even cause some civil unrest, which certainly no one wants...
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
As the proud former owner of 2 used Ramblers, I appreciate the Limo One photo. Great car for low-budget traveling in the '60s, and I think the only American car with fold-down seats for sleeping. I most certainly would have voted for George Romney back then, a very principled and honest man. I can't say the same for Mitt.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
We had what I guess was the precursor to the AMC Rambler, the Nash Rambler, 1950 vintage. A convertible no less, but certainly bit strange looking.
My parents had just gone through WWII and were concerned the Korean war woul lead to more gas rationing.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
When I was a teenager we had a Rambler wagon, the simple possession of which was enough for my girl friends' parents to (almost) forbid them to go out with me. (Former teenagers of a certain age may remember the vulgar term for the vehicle.)
Then my brother had a Nash Metropolitan, a mini-two-seater that was a maintenance nightmare. Driving that on winter ice was like steering bumper cars.
Both automobiles of course, helped steer me to railroad travel. (wink)
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
My pop, a toolmaker at Consolidated Vultee, rode a Rambler "American" back and forth to work for many years. It was the "kitchen" yellow color with a 3 spd manual on-the-stalk. I got the hang of shifting gears on that old car. He eventually traded it in for a very early Toyota Corona, and ran the heck out of that one, too.
Henry- one of my first girlfriends had a Nash Metropolitan; even on "dry pavement" it was a bumper car for her. We were tinkering with it constantly to keep it running. Very iconic little rig in "aqua and cream" color!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Back in my "car on the cheap" days, which be it assured are behind me, I had a 1971 AMC Hornet:
Even if the name came from a Hudson, it was a Nash; built in Kenosha. I know when I signed the title over on that one, all I could think was "good riddance". Somehow any of the thirteen other experiences of doing such have been a little more "emotional".
Posted by ColdRain&Snow (Member # 15381) on :
Howabout a little love for the AMC Gremlin?
She sure was a handsome little number...
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The Gremlin: We had one of those. 1975 version. Put over 100,000 miles on it before I got broadsided on the left side at a stop sign. It would still run despite the insurance company calling it totaled, but without the left side door. Of course, by the time it was wrecked the cost of knocking out a bent fender would probably have exceeded its value. We were happy with it, and went pretty much everywhere in it.
My parents had a 68 Ambassador. Nice riding car. Another vehicle that got past 100,000.
Not that we had AMC stock or any such, it was just the vehicles that seemed right at the time.
This was probably the last time I took much of any stock in what Consumer Reports had to say. They recommended strongly against AMC anything, but we were happy with them, and some friends that got the CR recommended vehicle, whatever it was I have forgotten, were anything but happy with it.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: As the proud former owner of 2 used Ramblers, I appreciate the Limo One photo. Great car for low-budget traveling in the '60s, and I think the only American car with fold-down seats for sleeping. I most certainly would have voted for George Romney back then, a very principled and honest man. I can't say the same for Mitt.
************************
I remember my 8th grade teacher had a Nash Rambler, TwinStar. I may be wrong, but wasn't the Rambler one of the first American cars with push-button windows? I should qualify that, maybe the first non-luxury car with push button windows? In the late 50's, my uncle bought a high-end Olds which was the first car, he had, with push button windows. He thought it was a waste of money, when you could just "turn the crank handle" to make the window come down.
Richard
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A Gremlin? Wow! If I recall correctly, that is also the "Wayne and Garth" mobile (Wayne's World).
Or wait...was it a Pacer?
Posted by ColdRain&Snow (Member # 15381) on :
Pacer X ... The Ultimate Driving Machine.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Wayne and Garth did indeed drive a Pacer. Billed in ads as "America's first wide small car", the Pacer designers flirted with innovative ideas such as front wheel drive and a rotary engine. There was even an electric version. Ahead of its time with rack and pinion steering and aerodynamic design, AMC simply did not have the resources to build the car it was conceived to be. It still has a devoted following in Europe. "We are not worthy."
Love the Wiki page! Those pictures are awesome; especially the one that is yellow with the wood paneling!
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
Lots of memories in those pictures. My grandparents always had Nashes. I think the only times the seats were ever reclined fully was when my Grandfather was showing off the feature. He always said they would be great for "camping". My grandmother had other ideas -- like a nice hotel.
We both voted tonight. If you have the opportunity to do so early, get to it!
Frank in dark and cool after another warm day SBA
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
When I met Sandy (my bride) in 1965, she was driving a green 1964 Nash Rambler American with a stick shift. She loved that car, and drove it around like Danica Patrick, and I basically learned how to drive a stick shift on it.
Now we've come full circle; I drive a stick shift pick-up truck, and she can't (or won't) ever drive a manual transmission vehicle again.
P.S. Yes, she's getting a lot of grief over her namesake, Hurricane Sandy.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
All I know it was happy day when that "thing" - 1971 Green AMC Hornet - was gone and someone else's problem.
I think its L-Head in line six was developed by Nash along with drivetrain. The thing just had cheapness written all over it; and is the only auto I've ever owned that needed front suspension links replaced (to my knowledge, only people that insist on keeping autos into the 200K range have to worry about parts such as ball joints and "CV" boxes - I know I don't).
Haven't got a fond memory of any kind about that pile of junk. July 1973 is when I got a mid-sized Chevy (Chevelle IIRC).
If how his Father made autos is any indication of how Willard is going to run things from 1600, better let the other guy have a new lease there.
OK I'll interject my short Gremlin story, since that's our present thread "morph"--odd looking, early 70s cars.
It was a "driveaway" car- remember those? You would sign on to move a generally repo'ed vehicle from Pt. A to Pt. B. I moved a grape-purple 4 spd on the floor with skull shift knob Gremlin from New Orleans to San Jose, CA. Think I was about 20 years old.
The whole trip was quite the adventure; I slept in the car and ran into a massive snow storm somewhere in New Mexico that had the Gremlin skittering all over the place. But what I REALLY remember was this beehive-haired "cougar lady" I encountered in a nightclub dive in Amarillo, TX. That's the end of my "Gremlin" story--.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
"Driveaway" cars got me across the country dozens of times. My first in the '60s was a brand new GTO convertible MN to LA (via Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Vegas and finally cruisin' on Sunset Strip). It was a father's gift to his daughter for starting college.
Another round trip (MN-LA and SLC-MN) got me a ride on the Desert Wind in between (finally train-related).
A '62 Rambler American! My first car! A red convertible. Trouble with the song is that the car topped out at 91 MPH (Don't ask me how I know that). Also, if you look at the youtube video TSR has provided, during the shots of the engine compartment, on the left side hangs a red plastic bag...that's the windshield cleaning solvent holder. You would depress a pedal near the parking brake which would squeeze the bag and clean the windows! Pretty classy.
TB
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
This is not in any way an endorsement or comment on the merits of the two candidates but a prediction on the result of the Electoral College. Let's see which member gets closest!
I'll go with Obama to win 290 - 248
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Mr Williams, if you are anywhere near correct, look for the Republic of Texas to re-form around March 2, 2013.
My prediction remains Romney-322, Lights are on but no one is home-216.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
John McLaughlin (PBS pundit) predicts 281 for Romney/Ryan.
I guess the "conspiratorists" will be saying that this Romney favorable prediction from what is perceived as an Obama-Liberal leaning, publicly funded in part, media outlet is a "in case we win please be nice to us as we were calling the election for you" initiative.
But be that as it may, one has got to see PBS's latest "heart warming" (some may say tear jerking) self promotional spot showing Big Bird ushering a small girl through the historical events (Berlin Wall, 9/11, Obama election, et al) that have occurred since the character was first developed during the '80's.
Finally though, "oh what a relief it is" to reside in a "solid State" and avoid being bombarded with stuff like this that I'm sure anyone, such as Mr. Nicholson, residing in a "swinger" has seen ad nauseaum:
I'm not going to predict anything, but one must consider the possibility of a dead heat whose winner would have to be decided by the House—and we all know who that would be.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Let's just hope it's not a repeat of 2000. If so, there will be lots of contested state votes, particularly in the storm impacted states.
Our son still has no power in northern NJ and not sure when they will get it back. Christie does seem to be making a real effort to enable all to vote but it will be tough. Also in Ohio where I've already heard the word 'fraud' tossed around with irregular early voting.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Mr Norman, if Romney is successful in killing Big Bird's federal funding, Big Bird's annual salary will be reduced from $350,000 to $245,000. I'm thinking he will keep his job.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Nate Silver is calling the Electoral College this way:
Obama 306.9 Romney 231.1
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Henry, with apologies to McLaughlin, on a scale of 0 to 10—with 0 representing zero possibility and 10 representing metaphysical certitude—the chances of a dead heat are about 0.000001.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Here are my opinions:
Odds of a tie: ZERO
Odds of the popular vote NOT winning the electoral vote: ZERO
Election Results:
Romney: 320 Obama: 218
I'm telling you guys and gals, I have studied this thing to death. I'm not guessing the results based upon who I want to win, I am basing my guess upon who I truly think will win because of all of the research I've put together. Part of my process does involve "reading tea leaves" because one can only do so much research before a wild guess has to take place. But I think I've compiled as much data as I humanly can, and what I've done from there is very difficult to explain. But in a nutshell, I took the facts as I know them and then added in what I call the human factor. What I mean by that is that I have "guessed" what will happen at the polls, based upon my extensive studying and reading between the lines of just about everything.
This is the first time I've put this kind of work into an election. I'm either going to come out of this thing a hero, with my predictions being better than most of the experts and polling companies. Or, conversely, I will come out of this thing a zero--and I won't even be close. Should that happen, well, I will be an unhappy camper because that will mean that my methods and calculations have been completely off and I read things the wrong way. But I don't think that will be the case---I'm very confident that Romney will win, and that my numbers will be close.
Here is another prediction I will make right now: All of the cable news outlets have been talking about Tuesday's election all weekend long. They have ALL said that this is going to be an "all nighter", and that we probably won't have any election results until Wednesday morning. I totally disagree. I think we will know who the next president is by midnight PACIFIC time. I will be surprised if it goes beyond that. Why? Simple---I think that Romney's numbers will be so much higher than anyone predicted that it will be a very clear-cut case of who won.
I've been losing sleep over this--literally. I'm looking forward to an outcome the way I want it to be, but I'm also looking forward to this being OVER. I've had politics on my brain 24/7 for the last year. It will be nice to take a breather from all of this. At least for four more years. Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: John McLaughlin (PBS pundit) predicts 281 for Romney/Ryan.
I guess the "conspiratorists" will be saying that this Romney favorable prediction from what is perceived as an Obama-Liberal leaning, publicly funded in part, media outlet is a "in case we win please be nice to us as we were calling the election for you" initiative.
I know all about John McLaughlin, Mr Norman, TMG was one of my favourite programmes for many years, so I don't know what Pat Buchanan or the late Tony Blankley would have to say about being described as being even tentatively linked to Obama-leaning Liberals!
I remember some years back McLaughlin correctly predicted that the Democrats would take both Houses in (would it have been) 2006 or 2008 to the amusement of the panel - even Eleanor Clift thought it wishful thinking.
I really miss TMG on Saturday mornings. That and "Meet the Press" were two of my favouite programmes to keep up with what was happening in the US but one weekend about five years ago TMG disappeared from CNBC Europe with absolutely no notice or explanation (it was still in the programme listings for that day!) and MTP was moved to a midnight UK slot (and it's never been the same since the death of Tim Russert).
The CBS and ABC nightly news shows are shown over here on terrestrial free channels but due to the time difference it is well after midnight. CNBC and CNN are free but only on cable or satellite. Fox News is available 24/7 but only as part of a satellite or cable subscription package. It is interesting that the only foreign channels offering an alternative free news service in English to UK terrestrial viewers are Russia's Overseas Service.......and Al-Jahzeera!
BBC, ITV and Sky (Fox) have all-nighters planned for tomorrow night but given that polling stations on the West Coast won't close until 4am UK time I'll wait until breakfast for the result.
"OUT OF TIME!!......BYE,BYE!!...." Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Williams, I am astounded that American TV news has such a place in the UK. Over here, BBC America does air some of your news analysis shows, and various Public Radio stations do air BBC World Service.
It seemed during the times that I visited my Sister in the UK (resided 1970-89 to the West of London - Barnes was the train station), the "Telly' always seemed to be tuned to British TV shows. But I can recall once in Dublin during 1986, staying at a hotel opposite the train station used by trains from Belfast and that you wouldn't "catch me dead" staying at today, watching the "junkiest of junk" American TV on some 14" B&W set in my room.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I have made one prediction in confidence to a couple of regulars here but would just as soon not make it to the board at large.
I may reveal what my prediction was after the fact.....
The thing is, politics have become particularly divisive in recent years and I do enjoy being able to talk passenger trains past, present, and hopefully future with rail enthusiasts on both sides of the aisle...... and I don't want any political position I have staked out to diminish the railroading relations.
I will venture to say this - I do believe that the final electoral tally will not be as close as the talking heads on our cable channels (left, right, and center) would have us believe. Popular vote may be another matter.
Please note that in saying this I am not neccessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the outcomes predicted by others who have suggested that the race isn't really that close!
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
To keep it in perspective, most Brits would be unaware of what is available in terms of overseas programmes. I've visited the US on twelve occasions and have so far visited 25 of the 50 states plus DC (even if, in the case of Idaho, it was only passing through on the EB in the middle of the night!) so I've actively sought out these things.
None of this would have been available in the 1970s when we only had three channels and closedown usually before midnight. We didn't get a fourth channel until 1982 and 24-hour broadcasting from 1988. It was only with the coming of 24-hour multi-channel satellite/cable in the mid-1990s and the need to fill up late night slots that we started getting more international offerings.
I remember in the 1970s the only coverage of American Football in the UK was 20 minutes of highlights of the Superbowl on the BBC's sports programme on the following Saturday afternoon.
Now there is a live double-header every Sunday evening from 6.00pm - midnight (albeit subscription only) with the Sunday Night and Monday Night games being live on free terrestrial channels, but rarely watched as they don't finish until around 4.30am!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: I've been losing sleep over this--literally. I'm looking forward to an outcome the way I want it to be, but I'm also looking forward to this being OVER. I've had politics on my brain 24/7 for the last year. It will be nice to take a breather from all of this. At least for four more years.
I can understand why, Mr. Smith.
It is not so much who you have clearly stated you want to win, but rather that you believe you have placed more effort into your research than have many professional pollsters, and especially the one The New York Times places much faith with - namely Nate Silver and his "538" opinions.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Hard to beat those psephologists. (Yes, I had to look it up, too.)
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Hard to beat those psephologists. (Yes, I had to look it up, too.)
It sounds like something you take for a bad case of indigestion.....oh wait a minute....
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Smitty, to quote one of our politicians - I feel your pain over the election. It seems there are no ambivalent feelings over the candidates this year. Passion is good and let's hope our next president and the congress feel some of that and actually start fixing our many systemic problems.
One good thing about feeling strongly about your choice and his chances to be elected which may be contrary to predictions by the 'experts' - victory would be that much sweeter.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by notelvis:
I may reveal what my prediction was after the fact.....
In horseracing, that is called "redboarding." Redboarders are treated like the worst kind of pariahs on the planet. I'm thinking you're in the Obama camp, but don't want to let on. It's all right, David; come in from the cold.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: Here are my opinions:
Odds of a tie: ZERO
Odds of the popular vote NOT winning the electoral vote: ZERO
Let me fix this for you:
Your opinions are that there will NOT be a tie, and there will NOT be a popular vote winner different from the electoral vote winner.
The ODDS, however, could never be ZERO on any events that are POSSIBLE to happen. Your research into the election should have included some delving into probability and statistics, not to mention quantum theory.
To put it another way, OPINIONS are necessarily subjective while ODDS are mathematical constructs. I know that the odds are extremely slim for an actual electoral tie, but there are many possibilities for such. The odds for the popular/electoral discrepancy are much less slim; no, I can't calculate them, but neither is ZERO.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Psephologist Nate Silver provides these odds. As of today: Odds of an electoral tie 0.3% Odds of Obama winning popular but not electoral 0.7% Odds of Romney winning popular but not electoral 6.9% Odds any of us knew what a psephologist was before today - very near zero. Thanks Henry.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Stolen from the Beachwood Reporter's Quick Takes column:
"Presidential race too close to call." A call was placed. "This is the residence of Irene Hughes." QT wishes to speak to Irene Hughes, the noted psychic. A moment was waited. "Hello?" The polls say the presidential race is close. Do you have any sense of who is going to win? "Romney is going to win." Really. "Romney will win by a substantial margin." Thank you. "You're welcome." QT called four more psychics. The final survey results: + Mitt Romney: 2 + President Obama: 2 + No Prediction: 1 The trend is apparent. One day to go.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Tomorrow, I may stay up as late as 10PM rather than my usual 9 as there could be some projections from the Western States reported.
All that would establish is to what extent is Obama holding his base.
I'll go to bed with the radio on; maybe something really exciting occurs, I'll wake up.
Others hold to the contrary with views I respect, but with which I find it difficult to agree; all that will be known at 7AM CT Nov 7 is how many challenges are out there.
"May the best man win."
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
The Redskins (NFL team) apparently figure in to a weird statistic; regarding their game before a Presidential election, if they lose their game before the Big Election, the party not in power wins. Has proved true 19 times out of 20.
They lost their game to the Carolina team, I believe. So this is supposed to indicate a Romney win, but it may be more along the lines of a "Punxsatawney Phil" sort of a prognostication. Phil's record (longer winter due to seeing/not seeing his shadow) is only so-so accurate. Guess we all have to wait for Tuesday and not rely on groundhogs or football results-
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I normally go to bed around 8-9. I plan on doing the same, tomorrow. Do not expect any "crowing" from me until early Wednesday. I usually get up around 4am.
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
In the UK we have off-course betting, and there's a "bookies", as they are called, in every high street. They offer odds on just about everything and we allowed to bet on the US elections.
Tonight, in the UK, Obama is odds-on. He is best priced at 1/3 and as short as 2/11 (that's 1.33 and 1.18 for those who only understand tote odds).
Romney is between 11/4 and best priced 7/2 (3.75 and 4.5)
An Electoral College tie is being offered at around 33 to 1.
Some of them are already offering odds on the 2016 election!!
Romney and Hillary Clinton are the favourites, with Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio close behind.
If you fancy an unlikely outsider Donald Trump is 100/1, Michelle Obama and George Clooney 200/1 and 500/1 for Clint Eastwood!!!!!!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well, I guess Ladbrokes is making a killing off our election, Mr. Williams.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I'm not sure that I would bet on anything involving the Carolina Panthers.
And Ocala Mike - no..... no..... I like shivering. I've become accustomed to being in the cold because only once in my adult lifetime has my presidential vote contributed anything at all to the electoral tally!
I'm also the only person in my neighborhood who supports a collegiate athletic team not in the Atlantic Coast Conference...... but this is another story.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
No "crowing" or "crying" from me either way on Wednesday. My advice to anyone actually upset by the way the election turns out is the standard "double the usual dosage of whatever adult beverage/painkiller/pharmacological product you take and call your doctor in the morning."
Right now, I am dealing with a lot of harassment at my workplace, a small pharmacy that I deliver for, since I am the only Obama supporter there. I have been threatened with the loss of my job, either through layoff or the place going out of business, and not such veiled threats either.
I'm not sure, but I think it's part of the Republican playbook to encourage business owners to threaten their employees with loss of their jobs if a certain candidate is re-elected. Wouldn't have believed it, but I see it possibly happening to me. If it does, I will head straight to the Unemployment Office. One thing I have learned though: the old saw about never discussing politics, religion, or *** with anyone outside your trusted inner circle applies.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
That's s-e-x, of course, for anyone that couldn't figure it out.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
Mike--
I'm sorry to hear about your experience but I can relate to it.
I had to "unfriend" someone on Facebook after he continued to post really gross anti-Obama stuff including a badly photoshopped picture of the First Lady.
I explained that I wasn't disagreeing with his right to an opinion but that I just personally found his posts offensive.
He fired off a public denouncement of me, the entire population of California and anyone who didn't believe as he did. He topped it off with a string of racist, sexist and homophobic remarks.
I NEVER saw this side of him before and I miss some of the discussions we had about topics like aviation and travel but I do NOT miss his posts.
Frank in dark and unusually warm SBA.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Mike---I would like to think that your experience is extremely limited to whoever the knucklehead(s) is that is threatening you. I can tell you that in my circle of conservative friends and acquaintances, I have never heard of any such thing. I would not associate with those types, either. I have strong political opinions, but it has never gone THAT far.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
A good friend tells a story illustrating the human tendency to extrapolate from the particular to the general, i.e., to assume that his own little patch of native soil represents the reality of the whole world:
"1984: I had a daughter in the first grade at Francis Parker [an exclusive private school in the staunchly liberal Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago]. A mock election was held in her classroom. The results were 23 votes for Mondale and one for Reagan. The teacher telling us this story then added, 'And the mother of the little boy who voted for Reagan called me the next day and apologized. She said he’d misunderstood the directions.' It was a telling glimpse at how popular sentiment was trending in Lincoln Park, yet Reagan carried 49 states!"
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
This is why I believe Romney gets 322 electoral votes: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/05/cnns-latest-poll-deconstructed-does-it-really-show-a-romney-victory/ (from the article) So, let’s say we had a total of 1,000 voters, 410 Democrats, 290 Independents and 300 Republicans. Voting for President Obama, we would have 381 Democrats (93 percent of 410), 107 Independents (37 percent of 290), and 3 Republicans (1 percent of 300), for a total of 491 votes. Voting for Gov. Romney, we would have 297 Republicans (99 percent of 300), 162 Independents (56 percent of 290), and 21 Democrats (5 percent of 410) for a total of 480 votes. Both candidates’ totals would be around 49 percent as CNN projects.
Of course, this assumes that Democrats vote 11 percent more than Republicans. That’s a bigger advantage than Democrats had in the 2008 in the midst of “ObamaMania”
Rasmussen projects that 39 percent of voters will be Democrats and 37 percent Republicans, leaving 24 percent Independent.
Let’s apply Rasmussen’s voting percentages to CNN’s polling results assuming 1,000 voters made up of 390 Democrats, 240 Independents and 370 Republicans. Voting for President Obama, we would have 363 Democrats (93 percent of 390), 89 Independents (37 percent of 240), and 4 Republicans (1 percent of 370), for a total of 456 votes. Voting for Gov. Romney, we would have 366 Republicans (99 percent of 370), 134 Independents (56 percent of 240), and 20 Democrats (5 percent of 390) for a total of 520 votes. So, President Obama would get 46 percent of the vote and Governor Romney would get 52 percent, again, a huge Romney victory.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike: Right now, I am dealing with a lot of harassment at my workplace, a small pharmacy that I deliver for, since I am the only Obama supporter there.
Yes Mike, you ARE on the wrong side of "the I-4 DMZ".
Must be "sport' should you have to make deliveries down at The Villages.
I am now "decided" and plan to vote at about 10AM; may the best man win.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Gil, we have three drivers and, obviously, three routes. We mostly deliver to nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and group homes within around 60 miles of Ocala. My route is "local" extending from NW of Ocala down to Summerfield. The other two routes go a little further, one down to Citrus County and the other to Lake and Sumter.
Except for a brief period during the summer when we did some compounding work for another pharmacy that closed, we don't actually have any customers in The Villages, per se, but I have a stop at a group home near its northern border.
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
Well, you folks will shortly be waking up to the news although many of you will no doubt have stayed up long enough last night to see the likely outcome.
I know that many of you hold strong opinions on both sides of the divide and some of you will be bitterly disappointed and others quietly pleased. Like you, I have woken up over the years to results that have brought joy and despair in even measures.
I'll leave you with the words of Winston Churchill who famously described democracy as "the worst system known to man"...but added "but they've yet to come up with a better one!"
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I've made my comments down in the basement (open discussion forum).
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I was intriqued by the return coverage last night and could not help 'channel grazing'. Most networks had panels representing various factions.
By about 9:30pm eastern the 'liberal' leaning folks on the panels from ABC and CNN were absolutely giddy at how close the tallies already pouring in from Florida were. Their conservative counterparts were equally glum and talking about how the party had failed to connect with immigrants.
At about this same time MSNBC, which can be counted on to be 'snarky left wing' was, well... snarky left wing.
Over at Fox they were not showing the big electoral maps or talking about returns. Attention was being given, rather, to a bus load of Pentecostals voting illegally in Hamilton County, OH.
I am hopeful that the outcome nationally will mean that a number of projects helpful to passenger train service already underway will not face automatic and immediate cancellation. Specifically I am thinking of the 125 new Viewliner cars abuilding for Amtrak, the infrastructure improvements extending from Chicago to St. Louis and Michigan, and a 'new' Union Station in Raleigh, NC.
Professionally, as I move into the final third of my career, I have grave concerns about how the outcome of the election in North Carolina will impact public education.... though I will continue to be at my post with my toes firmly on the line hoping for a pleasant surprise.
Now - I'm just going to go on a train ride this weekend and enjoy the view.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
I won't venture down into the basement, but here are my takeaways from the election, in no special order:
1. 2010 was an anomaly, not a wave. The Tea Party is not irrelevant, but will have to be "dealt with" by the Republican Party going forward (read, "identity crisis").
2. Republicans should stay away from any use of the word "rape" until they learn what it means. Akin and Mourdock fell out of the nut tree on this, hitting every branch on the way down, and probably impacting the top of the ticket's chances.
3. The October Surprise did turn out to be Hurricane Sandy and its sequel.
4. Romney peaked too soon; 3. above killed his momentum, and the optics of Obama's love affair with Christie helped BO enormously.
5. The legitimate polls were essentially right all along; they weren't badly skewed left as many believed (hoped).
6. Steadily falling gas prices (where you could buy the stuff!) helped Obama; remember when it was all about gas prices? Non-issue at the end.
7. Finally, because I'm getting tired of typing, this observation - ARITHMETIC AND DEMOGRAPHICS CAN TRUMP ENTHUSIASM. Intelligent R's will figure that out.
As far as predicting the final electoral count, it appears that my state is still in play. If it goes to the candidate now leading, Obama winds up, I think, with 332 to Romney's 206.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I think next time I'm going to make some bets based on the 538 Blog projections.
If Florida does, in fact, go blue, that makes Nate Silver 50 for 50 in 2012 I believe.
Seriously though - I'd buy lottery tickets before I'd bet on an election...... and I gave up on that when I fortunately 'broke even' for a year on the Kentucky lottery twenty years ago when I was still in the Army.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I've made my comments down in the basement (open discussion forum).
Likewise
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by notelvis:
I think next time I'm going to make some bets based on the 538 Blog projections.
If Florida does, in fact, go blue, that makes Nate Silver 50 for 50 in 2012 I believe.
You do realize, of course, that he got his start as a horse racing handicapper? His stock should be way up this morning, that's for sure.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike:
quote:Originally posted by notelvis:
I think next time I'm going to make some bets based on the 538 Blog projections.
If Florida does, in fact, go blue, that makes Nate Silver 50 for 50 in 2012 I believe.
You do realize, of course, that he got his start as a horse racing handicapper? His stock should be way up this morning, that's for sure.
He still handicaps horse races! Just the two-legged kind!
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
So, Moderator, it appears that one of the following will be the official result of our little contest, depending on how Florida turns out:
OBAMA 303 ROMNEY 235
or
OBAMA 332 ROMNEY 203
Can you divulge the "winner" for each of the above scenarios at this time?
I still can't believe that the R's missed a lay-up in Florida. A right-to-work state with a Republican chief executive and a heavily Republican legislature, and looked to be solidly in the bag for Romney up until mid-October. When the early vote came in for Sen. Nelson winning big, I thought BO might have a good chance.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Looks to me like the Tea Partiers are double agents for the Dems - they cost the GOP over two years 5 Senate seats that a mainstream Republican could have easily won. And the Republican's business model is broken. There just aren't enough angry old white men to guarantee a Presidential victory. Obama LOST the white vote both times, and still won. The Big Question wasn't "does Obama deserve a second term?", it was, "Is Romney the one to solve our problems?" And to most people, the answer was "No!" And if you weren't in the basement to read it, I quoted an ABC pundit who said,"The Republicans are a "Mad Men" party in a "Modern Family" world!" That was it in a nutshell!
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Good quote, Jerome. I'm proud to be old, white, male, angry, and a resident of a rural srea in a Southern state who voted for Obama.
Posted by Iron Mountain (Member # 12411) on :
TSR, I too am an AMC fan. We owned a '51 Nash Statesman, '54 Ambassador, several Ramblers, and the final AMC car was my dad's '61 Ambassador. Dad was a tool and die supervisor at the Fischer Body plant in Chicago. He adamantly refused to buy a GM car. He said he knew too much about how they were made.
The Nashes were ahead of their time. First car to have a single piece of glass for a windshield. Their weathereye heating system was the envy of everybody else. When the patent ran out GM and Ford snapped it up. The Nashes had unitized body construction. The seats were foam rubber and coil springs. The cars were streamlined. But innovation, quality, and engineering don't always win the day.
Interestingly, Chevy sold lots of cars because they were pretty. Marketing research discovered that the "lady of the house" usually had the final say on the car that the family purchased.
AMC had a couple of final successes before their demise. The Hornet Wagon, including the 4x4 version (doctors loved it) was a big success as was the AMC Javelin. The Alabama Highway Patrol purchased Javelins. And Javelin was a NASCAR winner.
AS a young adult, I owned nothing but German cars, Beetles,Karmann Ghia, and Audi until I got married and started a family. My first family car was an AMC Ambassador wagon with a 401 V8 fed by a big 4bbl carb. It was a beautiful car.
I had a friend who had a Nash Metropolitan. I believe that they were made in England. Another first for AMC, imports. And the early Ramblers were little cars that retained the Nash "bathtub" look. They were popular with the youth crowd, especially the convertibles.
I know this has nothing to do with Amtrak but it is fun to reminisce.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Iron Mountain: My father-in-law had the Hornet Wagon with 4WD and it lasted forever. A friend bought an early '70s AMC Matador wagon new that spent spent most of it's first year being repaired. I guess that was the beginning of the end, as well as a bad decade for american car reliability in general.
My current preference, Subaru, once had to quit running ads years ago for the Outback Sedan as "America's first AWD Sedan", because it was discovered AMC beat them to that 30 years earlier with the Hornet 4WD Sedan.
Ocala: I am also old, white, male and grew up in a heavily Republican suburb. Now that I am collecting Social Security I guess I am also part of the 47%, and I do really feel guilty about getting money for nothing.
And I am proud I live in Minnesota where we just threw out the Republican state senate and house majorities, as well as voting down two right wing constitutional amendments for voter photo id and against gay marriage. Analysis says the silly amendments motivated enough young people to vote to oust the Republicans who ran the state. Another case of Republicans shooting themselves in the foot. If you might remember, I said here before, Big Bird has powerful friends. Like most people under 30.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
TwinStarRocket, you're not getting anything for nothing, really. You paid Social Security taxes. Same with Medicare taxes.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Yes, Henry, but now I am a taker rather than a maker in the Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan world.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
I too am an angry old white retired male, who is getting social security now and living in a small town in a rural area of an Obama state. I admit I voted for O., even though my county apparently went for Romney, and for a while, I was considering voting for the wealthy former Republican governor and his young Tea Party running mate.
By the way, I too had a Rambler American -- while I was attending grad school at Western Michigan University more than 30 years ago!! It took a heavy beating, I must admit, while it was being owned by me!
To get back to trains -- I'm glad AMTRAK is running into NYP again now.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I have to wonder to what extent the "Three R's" Romney/Ryan/Rand consider a person that obtained marketable skills, held or sought employment throughout an entire 40 year working life, yet now chooses to "do what they want to do when they want to do it" - and part of what makes that possible is publicly administered pension income and health care benefits - both of which was prepaid during one's working life. Is such a person really a taker?
Somehow, I think I just described myself, and likely most anyone else around here as well.
It would appear that the "takers" are those who choose to "slack" around doing nothing they don't have to, relying upon others (public and private sources) for handouts. I think the TV comedy-drama series such as "Girls' portrays such a cult of young, able bodied, college educated (thanks Mom and Dad), people that could easily be described as "takers".
Likewise, "takers" include those who simply choose not to have health insurance knowing that family or the public trough will care for them. This is why I am in favor of PPACA '10 - even though I voted for Romney.
Simply because Willard Romney is a highly motivated and driven personality - Type A if you will - contemplating his next move (New York Times reports today possibly an executive level position with the LDS church) does not mean everybody else fits that model. The great majority are Type B's who know they have an obligation to provide for themselves and any dependents they choose to have. But I think it harsh to think of a Type B as part of that 47%, or otherwise the takers.
GBN - white, male, retired, Type B - and Railroad Retirement annuitant and Medicare beneficiary.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
The three "R"s do not classify SS recipients as takers. The democrats may want you to think that, but it is not true.
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
Keep an eye on George P. Bush, Jebbie's son.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith:
The three "R"s do not classify SS recipients as takers. The democrats may want you to think that, but it is not true.
A discussion for another time and thread. Personally, I'm suffering from internet burnout over the election. I would like to say that the final vote in here which, I believe was 14 O, 9 R mirrors very closely the ratio 332 O, 203 R of the electoral college tally. As for my remarks above regarding a little "contest" in here, I now realize that I was referring to my correctly selecting the "under" on Mike Smith's posting of his estimated electoral totals.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
SS recipients who have insufficient income for tax liability make up 10.3% (in 2011 according to the Tax Policy Institute) of the 46.4% who pay no income tax. I guess that makes me a Type B with one foot in taker-land and the other on a Medicare banana peel.
But of concern to railfans should be the fallout from the election. Once Texas secedes, will Amtrak 21/22 now terminate in Hope, AR, and be renamed the Arkansas Big Bird in a shameless act of payback and cronyism?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
QUIZ
Mr. Twin Star or anyone, assume Married taxpayers who elect to file Jointly, both 65 or older that each received during 2011 the maximum Social Security Benefit of $2513/mo, or $30156/yr. They also had Interest Income of $14630, but no other income.
That's $74942 of income; what was their 2011 Federal Income Tax liability?
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Surprised you haven't gotten an answer to this, Gil. I could figure it out for you, but I become violently ill every time I look at one of those "Social Security Income Worksheets" for my own taxes. I do know that the wife and I are Type B's and not quite in the 47% category.
Do you really want a numerical answer to the above, or are you just trying to make some kind of point? You haven't actually given enough information if the former, i.e., deductions, exemptions for age/blindness, etc.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Unfortunately I no longer do paper filing and my online tax service does nothing but ask mostly yes/no questions. It has a what-if calculator, but is no longer accessible this time of year without an archive fee. Back in the days of paper I could probably figure this out. I have not yet been through a tax year without wages (until this one). So I have to say I dunno.
But I would guess that the Social Security is non-taxable and the interest does not exceed the exemptions and standard deduction, so the tax is zero?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The answer is $0; no tax liability.
In fact, had the Interest income been $1844 or less, this couple would not even been required to file a Federal Return.
But my point has been made; you can be retired and "doing OK" and not pay any Federal income tax.
These folk would have been in the "Romney 47%".
Mike, be it assured everything needed to compute the tax is there (Married, election to file joint, both 65 or over; if they had Itemized Deductions in excess of the Standard, I would have said so). That is just the kind of "trickie" than can be asked on the CPA exam - and with one of the choices E) Insufficient information.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Interesting, Gil. I guess the key is to not have any income from wages or other taxable pensions like the bride and I have if you want to hit zero tax. Can't complain, though; our effective tax rate is still lower than Mitt's. I think I figured out that we are both working in part-time jobs for probably $.40 on the $1.00, hence the likelihood that we will be "packing it in" next spring.
Maybe we'll do some volunteer work as counsellors at one of Mr. Smith's "Death Panels." I might look good as a "grim reaper."
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
It is not my death panel, it is obama's death panel, and you have to be a very well connected member of the governing elite in DC to be assigned a position on that 15-member Board.
(That's right... Fifteen high-priced bureaucrats will be determining if it is cost-effective to give you an operation or send you home with pain pills.)
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Still in shock here....still not understanding what happened...
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
You're in shock because you have been lied to all along by the right-wing media/industrial complex in business to pipe "all the news that fits, we print" to the sheeple that follow them. My advice: double the dosage of the adult beverage/antidepressant/pain pill you use for setbacks like this, and call your doctor after the holiday.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Smitty, it is what it is. Eventually we will find out if the election was this insane or if it was a trojan installed into the voting machines.
Until then, we have another day to live...
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Yeah, now the election was rigged! What stage of grief is denial? An early one, I presume.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Ocala, re-read what I posted; this time for comprehension.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I guess it was too much to hope for that the Obama administration would avoid any kind of scandal, but I guess now it has joined as good as any other coming to mind. Now that The New York Times has reported that there was knowledge of the affair within official circles that report to the president during late summer, I can "smell the meat a cookin'".
At least this one involves two highly driven and accomplished "personae" who intended to act discretly and not some "scantily clad Bimbette" chasing Senator Gasbag around the Reflecting Pool.
But the result is the same when any of these episodes move forth - who is in power makes no difference.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Won't be long before the "I" word is bruited about. Meanwhile, the "shock and awe" of events of Election Day continue to ravage the mental health of many on the right. Big pharma needs to come up with a pill for "electoral dysfunction," as some people can't get it up while others can't seem to give it up.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mike, I think that the "I" for impeachment is a bit much. The opposition has learned from the Clinton episode that they can discredit themselves absent having a case solid enough to result in removal from office. The case against Nixon was rock solid and had it run its course, he would have been convicted and removed. Those involved with exposing Watergate, living or dead, are regarded as national heroes.
I don't think same can be said to the "dramatis personae" of the Clinton affair. The "blubbery Bimbette" of that one has proven to be quite unmarketable, "Javert" (Kenneth Starr) is largely removed from the public eye, and Bill today has rock star standing (I'll always hold that had the people arose in unison "repeal the 22nd Amendment", Bill would have won a third term by a landslide).
But all told, this matter, even if no compromise of national security is found but considering the election-timed disclosure of such, will bring severe discredit to the second term and hamper any initiatives the Administration wishes to bring forth - even if it is old news by the '14 mid-term cycle.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
There was an impeachment bill in Congress way before the election, but if you only watch mainstream news, you never would have known about it.
The Libya scandal is one of the highest order. So many bits and pieces have come out---just wait until the whole thing is put together (that is, if the GOP has the guts to do a thorough and accurate investigation). Lots of people should lose their jobs over this, including Obama and Clinton.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
You're really comfortable in that bubble, aren't you, Smitty?
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
I think even us "furriners" were surprised at the gulf between the number of seats won for the contenders. I was with some UK friends in Las Vegas at the time so fortunately didn't get subjected to a live commentary - just a barman towards the end of the night who just seemed shellshocked (and not happy).
I guess we'll never know what was in those tax returns now.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Smitty here---still in shock.
I am slowing piecing things together, and I'm not liking what I am discovering. Besides the obvious voter fraud (which my side will NEVER EVER do anything about because they are wimps and are afraid of being called, "racist"), I am also beginning to learn just how much crap was covered up by the Obama Admin in order to get elected. We're up to three major cover-ups now:
1) Libya 2) The Patraeus affair was known BEFORE the election 3) Iran shooting down one of our unarmed drones
Those are three "acute" items that were purposely hidden from view prior to the election. But of course in addition to that, we have a complicit media who are completely on Obama's side and continue to do anything they can in order to get him elected and keep positive views on him. And now we have the left saying that the right needs to drop our platform and "get with the times, man!" because we are so outdated. Oh really? Is that what the left thought when they lost in 2010 in record numbers? Did they say, "Oh my, we lost from coast to coast in every category---we better stop talking pro-life and we better stop talking about gay marriage"? Heck no---they doubled-down on those things. Honestly, the left knows exactly how to push an agenda. The right needs to learn from them. Our side is pathetic, even though we are right.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
I think the left did learn a thing or two following the 2010 election. My state (WA) just elected a EuroGreenie for Governor, legalized marijuana possession and approved gay marriage. The GOP candidate in the Senate race ran on a platform criticizing the Dem incumbent for voting FOR the Iraq war (!) and the only statewide candidate that identified with the Tea Party got creamed. Lessons learned.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good one! 
