|
That looks like a lovely board game logo. Money well spent.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:Or hired a consultant for millions of dollars and this is what they came up with. Well, Mike Murphy is the head of Jeb's Right to Rise PAC (at least until tomorrow) and is one of Jeb's top campaign staffers. He also worked on Lamar Alexander's '96 campaign.  (Jeb also used "Jeb!" in his Gubernatorial campaigns, which Murphy also worked on.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:So is this "Jeb! 2016" or "Jeb 2016!"? My guess is you read it top down left to right - Je20b16!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, Mike Murphy is the head of Jeb's Right to Rise PAC (at least until tomorrow) and is one of Jeb's top campaign staffers. He also worked on Lamar Alexander's '96 campaign. Hmm 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
JEB! I'm gonna runnnnn forever I'm gonna learn how to ... be President...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:So is this "Jeb! 2016" or "Jeb 2016!"? Of course it's the latter. It's hilarious how it doesn't even say the name Bush. Running away from your name much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Jeb! is truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:So is this "Jeb! 2016" or "Jeb 2016!"? When I was 12 I designed a leaflet for a local charity my mum worked for and it was genuinely more creative and attractive than that logo. I was paid with an Easter egg. I hope this guy got half an Easter egg at most.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
I like the logo you guys. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Devor posted:Jeb! is truly outrageous. I'm so glad I'm not alone in this world. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
I know next to nothing about graphics, but doesn't saving something as a jpeg create all of those ugly artifacts, and can't it be avoided by saving as a png? You wouldn't think Jeb would want the first released version of his logo to be something that looks like this if you tilt your laptop screen an inch back...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
I really hope that O'Malley's simplified O'M logo is a secret call out for the stoner metal band. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvfWuNdfoQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I got an email from the Bernie campaign apparently about Hillary Clinton but they decided to scan a letter in Bernie's illegible handwriting instead of typing it out. I think this is a clear case of an idea being better than the execution. The why of is so that we know it's actually Bernie writing us the letter, not a staffer that will just type his name at the bottom. That idea is a big and important one - Obama's past campaigns ran a seemingly endless stream of campaign emails "From The President" or "Michelle Obama"into my inbox to remind me how important it was that I donate, even if it was just $5. For most of us, it's pretty obvious that those sort of emails are campaign staff generated, and that Barack Obama isn't taking fifteen minutes of his day to write a note asking for pocket change from random schlub on a mailing list. It's just a cynical sales strategy - the campaign sells the idea that the candidate is actually interested in you and that you (yes, you!) are important. But the truth is! The candidate hass got bigger fundraising fish to fry, and unless your planning on donating more than five figures, don't expect any sort of real personal interaction with the candidate. So I think the intent here is to display that Bernie does think that his voters are worth at least 15 minutes of his time to sit down and write a personal letter. If you are going to ask that folks, (who in the campaign narrative are underpaid and underrepresented,) dip in and give $5 more dollars, then at least have the decency to do so in person. Does (insert other candidate here) care that people actually are giving them $5 bucks? Does even register in (other candidate's) conscious thoughts that their supporters have been solicited for $5 bucks by some unpaid intern who is hoping beyond hope that his might lead to a low level staff job should the boss win? There's no telling with the other candidates, but at least a handwritten note means that Bernie is both cognizant of what's being asked and wants to try to reach out to his potential voters even if he can't possibly write an individualized note to each one. But as others have noted, the execution leaves something to be desired. Handwriting is an anachronism in this era, and it means that even if you are old enough to read cursive script, this notes going to take you several minutes to get through instead of a few seconds of a type email. (Granted, this might not be a bad thing: if it forces people to look at the email a little longer, statistically they are more likely to respond.) But overall, it just comes off as a little eccentric and out dated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:So is this "Jeb! 2016" or "Jeb 2016!"? This is worse than anything on this list - Presidential Candidates logos ranked
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:why isn't voter registration an automatic thing that happens? Slippery slope that leads to mandatory voting and one world government.  Targeting the senior citizen Yahoo crowd. Well, at least he knows his audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:Why don't we standardize voting in federal elections? Online voting is useful for small groups who can't physically go to a voting station, like expats, but shouldn't be used for the general population. You can't guarantee secrecy, because you need an authentication mechanism to verify that a person is eligible to vote. After that it would be very easy to figure out someone's actual vote. Online voting is also insecure, because pretty much everything digital has lately turned out to be insecure, and you don't want a single hacker deciding who gets to be president. It's much harder to tamper with significant amounts of votes when those votes are on actual paper, and multiple persons are involved in the counting process for every batch of votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
 If it aint broke..don't fix it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Rocks posted:Of course it's the latter. It's too strong to just bring out casually. By the general he'll be like "Bush!" and everyone will swoon. "The guardians of freedom" everybody will say. "John Negroponte."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's too strong to just bring out casually. By the general he'll be like "Bush!" and everyone will swoon. "The guardians of freedom" everybody will say. "John Negroponte." "John Bolton" is better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Online voting is useful for small groups who can't physically go to a voting station, like expats, but shouldn't be used for the general population. You can't guarantee secrecy, because you need an authentication mechanism to verify that a person is eligible to vote. After that it would be very easy to figure out someone's actual vote. Online voting is also insecure, because pretty much everything digital has lately turned out to be insecure, and you don't want a single hacker deciding who gets to be president. It's much harder to tamper with significant amounts of votes when those votes are on actual paper, and multiple persons are involved in the counting process for every batch of votes. I'm not really convinced that online voting can't be done securely and safely. As far as secrecy goes, sure - but mail ballots already have that issue, and the trade off has been more than worth it. As far as security, you could for example require people to have a unique code mailed to them at every election combined with other personal information. It would then be very difficult to take one vote, much less multiple votes. Because you record vote totals, who voted, and how many votes each candidate received separately, it would be virtually impossible to modify the totals without it being immediately detectable. There's also not really a reason why, if you allow online voting, you can't have voting over a long period of time (multiple months). If you detected fraud, you could have people vote again. Not ideal, but still better than millions of people being disenfranchised. Client security is a greater issue. We may not be totally ready yet, but PC security has improved by leaps and bounds over the past 4 or 5 years. At the very least, locked down devices like iPads are secure enough to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Ahahahahaha that's really it. JEB! AHAHAHAHAHAHA so fantastic. Hey Jeb, here's some free advice, "Jeb" is a name that's up there with "Jethro" and "Jim Bob" and "Uncle Ant Bed" as conjuring images of slack-jawed one-toothed yokels in people's minds, you should probably go with your last na- Oh. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA JEB!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm not really convinced that online voting can't be done securely and safely. As far as secrecy goes, sure - but mail ballots already have that issue, and the trade off has been more than worth it. As far as security, you could for example require people to have a unique code mailed to them at every election combined with other personal information. It would then be very difficult to take one vote, much less multiple votes. Because you record vote totals, who voted, and how many votes each candidate received separately, it would be virtually impossible to modify the totals without it being immediately detectable. Online voting may not be conceptually problematic but imagine a company like Diebold running the online election. It's a pipe dream to get it implemented in a way that is as tamper-proof, reliable and cost-effective as paper ballots. Yes, voting machines are basically the worst of both worlds. It's not even a matter of whether you genuinely think an election will be stolen or not - elections rely on their perceived legitimacy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:AHAHAHAHAHAHA so fantastic. Hey Jeb, here's some free advice, "Jeb" is a name that's up there with "Jethro" and "Jim Bob" and "Uncle Ant Bed" as conjuring images of slack-jawed one-toothed yokels in people's minds, you should probably go with your last na- If this were a concern, he could go with just his first name, John. But I'm sure this was focus-grouped at some point in his youth. It's important to remember that nobody is actually named Jeb. It is always an acronym.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Wow, so he did make it official after all.. It's about time!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:
Caim would make a pretty good GOP candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
OctoberBlues posted:I know next to nothing about graphics, but doesn't saving something as a jpeg create all of those ugly artifacts, and can't it be avoided by saving as a png? You wouldn't think Jeb would want the first released version of his logo to be something that looks like this if you tilt your laptop screen an inch back... Sweet Bro and Hella Jeb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Looking forward to the official GOP theme song by Jeb and the Holocausts
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Antti posted:Online voting may not be conceptually problematic but imagine a company like Diebold running the online election. It's a pipe dream to get it implemented in a way that is as tamper-proof, reliable and cost-effective as paper ballots. Yes, voting machines are basically the worst of both worlds. Well, I would sincerely disagree that paper ballots are "tamper proof" considering the that paper ballot elections have been tampered with for as long as there have been elections. Plus they lack accessibility and are prone to miscounts. Virginia is a pretty good example of the failure of our paper ballots - Fairfax relies on paper and vote counting, while the most of the rest of the state has moved to digital. The result is that election results in close races can stretch weeks as precincts struggle to keep track of all of the ballots, and it predominantly hurts Democrats. And systems like England's would be extremely difficult to implement at our scale due to expenses and the challenges of voting for most of our rural states. I don't think there's real reason to think digital elections are less secure. A paper trail/electronic voting combination is about as close to foolproof as you can get. (in lieu of actual paper, for online voting, an email receipt and paper log at a remote location would be acceptable)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
.
BristolSOF fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Sweet Bro and Hella Jeb. I tried, I'm sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:Ahahahahaha that's really it. On the other hand, Obama. Seriously, Barack Obama? I think Jeb! is good. It's punchy and memorable. The execution isn't up to modern standards, but the concept is solid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:Our lives are centered around the internet: banking and finance, news and information, medicine and insurance, goods and service all have advanced to the internet so why shouldn't voting be the same? I'm not saying that paper ballots are immune from chicanery (obviously they're not cough cough JFK '60 cough Bush 2000 cough) but online voting would be a frigging disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:There are data breaches all the drat time. The other thing is that, if the bank screws up something electronic, you as the customer might have the opportunity to notice that $5000 didn't show up in your account. People who give a poo poo and balance their books can discover errors and seek remediation. If your vote doesn't get counted (or gets changed to the other party), you have literally no way of knowing. The only things that could provide any accountability (like ways of associating each vote with its voter) are horrific because that data, if breached, would compromise the foundation of democracy, i.e., the secret ballot. Well, these are all issues that can be largely mitigated. It's not like it's impossible to make tamper-evident databases, and there's no reason why a ballot choice should ever be connected to a real person's name, except for a receipt. The goal isn't making a totally 100% secure election - this is impossible under any format - but to make it so difficult & risky to do without being detected that it isn't worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:After that, why isn't there online voting? Can't one state attempt this? I imagine the turnout would be significantly higher. 75yo oligarchs are terrified of young hackers with their techno music and anarchy symbols stealing an election. That will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Work on mail-ballot voting and then we can worry about voting, but with Bitcoins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
I like Bill as Friar Tuck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
"It's not just about yappin' about thing." ~ Jeb 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQt_E4acnWo
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Work on mail-ballot voting and then we can worry about voting, but with Bitcoins. Yeah this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Rodham Hood, Rodham Hood, riding through the glen Rodham Hood, Rodham Hood, emasculating men Feared by Iran, as well they should Rodham Hood Rodham Hood Rodham Hood
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:17
|
|