Slashdot Mirror

And had it been Obama, we'd be talking about how visionary and forward looking and all that he must be ...

When the ACA fucked up my health coverage, I called it like I saw it. When "cash for clunkers" let people trade in old pollute-mobiles for new pollute-mobiles, yup - bitched about that, too. I also recall not being too happy about the EV tax credit, because rich people don't need the taxpayer's help buying a luxury car (regardless of how "green" it is).

I still think the Republicans are worse, because homophobia is part of the their platform (yes, that's actually the GOP's own website admitting they're against marriage equality), and they're still just as bad (if not worse) at taking taxpayer money and using it to give benefits to the super-rich. They're also fucking hypocritical for incessantly claiming how pro-life they are, yet they don't seem to mind when adults drop dead because they can't afford healthcare/medicine. Gotta take a mulligan on that one, right GOP?

Both sides of our two-party system are evil. The Republicans are just more so.

You can thank your local chapter of the US Nazi party for that.

Trump Fake News Awards

Not a single one of these should have been run in a trusted news outlet. Trump listed 11 OUTRAGEOUS news screw ups. If the news was even close to being fair at least a single one would be a story benefiting Trump. Most of them are outright known lies in an attempt to smear Trump. I'm not even sure how they thought these stories would stand and no one would call them on it.

Meanwhile...
Clinton literally RIGGED a national primary election and not a peep out of the news. Think about that, ACTUAL RIGGING election and not a word from the NYT?

Fake News term created by CNN, Trump applies it to CNN a week after they come up with it and here we are 2 years later and they are proud of earning that title. When actual election rigging doesn't rate a singe story in your news outlet, your news outlet isn't actual news.

Absolutely wrong the main resistance to pornography is now coming from the hard left feminists. You are misinformed.

No sir. Did you know, for example, that the 2016 Republican Party platform, which was formed at the RNC convention that nominated Donald Trump declared pornography a pubic health hazard?

Here is the language from the official party platform:

"Pornography, with its harmful effects,
especially on children, has become a public health
crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage
states to continue to fight this public menace
and pledge our commitment to children’s safety
and well-being."

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.co...

The Democratic Party, which as we know is controlled by the radical feminists, had no such language.

Really? Are you not in the US? Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

It was clearly a lie. The statement implies that 100% of people could keep their health care plans, and in fact it was only 98%+ of people. Comparing the scope of Obama's "lie" with the daily rants from the Twit-in-chief is an exercise best left to those with lower blood pressure than I.

Also:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

https://www.gop.com/the-lie-us...

I'll take it that means you're ignorant about her position(s) on the TPP then.. Not entirely surprised there.

The evidence is that she flipped on numerous issues, and as such, can't be trusted on this issue either. But I bet if we swapped the name "Hillary" for "Trump", you'd agree immediately, as would the useful idiots who modded up your inane response as "insightful" (these people need to look at that word up in a dictionary some time, see what it really means. Hint: does not mean "I agree!")

Peter Thiel's Founders Fund is investing in the TAP molten salt reactor. This is one of many promising designs that seek to address the concerns about nuclear and allow it to displace fossil fuels through superior economics. Additionally, the republican platform supports leveling the energy market, solving the Thorium Problem, and enabling development of advanced nuclear:

We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. A federal judge has struck down the BLM’s rule on hydraulic fracturing and we support upholding this decision. We respect the states’ proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal drilling, and we will end the Administration’s disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste. We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital. The United States is overwhelmingly dependent on China and other nations for rare earth and other hardrock minerals. These minerals are critical to advanced technology, renewable energy, and defense manufacturing. We support expediting the permitting process for mineral production on public lands. We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

This is what the Republican Party had to say about the 2012 election. Read it. Educate yourself.

http://goproject.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf

And you demonstrate your ignorance every time you post, yet like the idiot you are, you just keep at it.

I love trolling the trolls on Slashdot.

it's not as if other republicans haven't noticed something odd...
"Republicans have to stop buying into things that demonize the president. I mean, why aren't Republican leaders shouting out about all this birther nonsense and all these other things? They should speak out. This is the kind of intolerance that I've been talking about where these idiot presentations continue to be made and you don't see the senior leadership of the party say, 'No, that's wrong.' In fact, sometimes by not speaking out, they're encouraging it. And the base keeps buying the stuff. "And it's killing the base of the party. I mean, 26 percent favorability rating for the party right now. It ought to be telling them something. So, instead of attacking me or whoever speaks like I do, look in the mirror and realize, 'How are we going to win the next election?" -Colin Powell, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
"The GOP “still looks down on minorities,” Powell said. He slammed Sarah Palin‘s “shuck and jive” comments from last year about President Obama and criticized Republican’s use of the word “lazy” to describe the president. “Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?” he asked." -Colin Powell, 2015 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/col...
"Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists," Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said Friday on MSNBC's "The Ed Show." "And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander in chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable." https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"The Republican Party and the conservatives have shown very little interest in black Americans and have actually done things to leave the impression among blacks that they are antagonistic to their interests. Even as someone who's labeled a conservative --I'm a Republican I'm black, I'm heading up this organization in the Reagan administration--I can say that conservatives don't exactly break their necks to tell blacks that they're welcome." -Clarence Thomas 1987 http://reason.com/archives/198...
"The party must follow Governor Bush's lead and reach out to minority communities and particularly the African-American community -- and not just during an election-year campaign," General Powell said pointedly. "It must be a sustained effort. It must be every day. It must be for real." He did not spare the party for its record on affirmative action. There was "cynicism in the black community," he said, because "some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousands black kids get an education." But, he added, "hardly a whimper is heard from them over affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax codes with preferences for special interests." -Colin Powell 2000

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

This is what the Republican Party had to say about the 2012 election. Read it. Educate yourself.

http://goproject.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf

And you demonstrate your ignorance every time you post, yet like the idiot you are, you just keep at it.

I love trolling the trolls on Slashdot.

- GOP 2012 Platform

Ask and ye shall receive! From the 2008 Republican Party platform. Addressing Climate Change Responsibly

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.

Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...

I'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaiting , nah - no more.

Tell me, you really have to hate the Internet. It is most inconvenient for you. If you want to argue with me, I will give citations, and I check them out before I post, most of the time. Oh yeah, Here's the 2008 Republican party platform link http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those.

ahem... this microphone on? You in the back I said the 2007 platform.

Tell me, it's gonna be Trump, or Dominionist Cruz as your chosen representative. Which one acknowledges AGW? or GW? Your Presidential Candidate Donald Trump says about Global warming

"“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”

"Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'"

"It's really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

He's your presidential Candidate, and he wil control the party platfom

And dear reader, is a straw man when a person uses verifiable quotes? Take your stupid "left winger" pejoritives and spend spome time doing research instead of lockstepping.

The bubble and the echo chamber is your home, and no doubt.

We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy, but the taxpayers should not serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors. It is important to create a pathway toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources and to aggressively develop alternative sources for electricity generation such as wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal energy. Partnerships between traditional energy industries and emerging renewable industries can be a central component in meeting the nation’s long-term needs. Alternative forms of energy are part of our action agenda to power the homes and workplaces of the nation.

- GOP 2012 Platform

Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...

As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those. Other than projection, or perhaps some left-wing whacko website?

Other countries are acting and changing their policies, for example Germany.

Is that the same Germany that is replacing clean nuclear power with brown coal power? The same Germany that has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and buys as much power as it can from nuclear powered France?

Even China is beginning to invest heavily into renewable energy.

Yes, the same China that intends to double current nuclear power capacity in two years and then double it again two years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's mostly the US with a republican dominated congress and their policy of denial that is doing business as usual. And many developing countries won't even think about going environmentally friendly as long as the US doesn't take the lead.

Tell me, what political party is in charge of the executive branch? Are licenses for nuclear reactors issued by Congress or by the executive?

Read the two party platforms and tell me which one gives nuclear power the best chance of growth?
Is it the RNC?
https://www.gop.com/platform/a...

Nuclear energy, now generating about 20 percent of our electricity through 104 power plants, must be expanded. No new nuclear generating plants have been licensed and constructed for thirty years. We call for timely processing of new reactor applications currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The federal governmentâ(TM)s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers. Our country needs a more proactive approach to managing spent nuclear fuel, including through developing advanced reprocessing technologies.

Or is it the DNC?
https://www.democrats.org/part...

That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.

Wow, of the entire Democrat platform document nuclear energy gets a mention in one sentence. I did however see a lot of mention of preventing nuclear proliferation. No mention of building new reactors that I could see. They did seem concerned about the amount of nuclear weapon material and the desire to destroy it. Tell me, what methods would those be besides using that material as fuel in a nuclear reactor? Would not the desire to destroy nuclear weapons coincide with expanded nuclear energy? Then why be silent on using this material as fuel? I can only conclude it is because they have no intent to see this nuclear material as fuel. They will likely down blend it with natural uranium and bury it in steel drums somewhere in the desert. Which is fine I suppose. When the Republicans get into power at some future date then it can be dug back up.

The Republicans have a majority in both houses but a 54% majority in the Senate allows for all kinds of methods to hold up bills. A lack of a sympathetic POTUS means vetoes and lots of them.

Democrats held both houses of the 111th Congress and the White House, why didn't we see a nuclear power renaissance then?

they're around but they are the exception not the rule.
Look to the party platforms.

This is the GOP platform on the environment:
( https://www.gop.com/platform/a... )

rotecting Our Environment (Top)

The environment is getting cleaner and healthier. The nation’s air and waterways, as a whole, are much healthier than they were just a few decades ago. Efforts to reduce pollution, encourage recycling, educate the public, and avoid ecological degradation have been a success. To ensure their continued support by the American people, however, we need a dramatic change in the attitude of officials in Washington, a shift from a job-killing punitive mentality to a spirit of cooperation with producers, landowners, and the public. An important factor is full transparency in development of the data and modeling that drive regulations. Legislation to restore the authority of States in environmental protection is essential. We encourage the use of agricultural best management practices among the States to reduce pollution.

Note the claim that everything is better now, that efforts have been a success, while ignoring that is regulations from the EPA and its state kin that are responsible for that success, while at the same claiming the EPA is a threat to the country.

Our Republican Party’s Commitment to Conservation (Top)

Conservation is a conservative value. As the pioneer of conservation over a century ago, the Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles. For example, we believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success. A policy protecting these objectives, however, must balance economic development and private property rights in the short run with conservation goals over the long run. Also, public access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be permitted on all appropriate federal lands.

Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research.

-Note the admonishment that it's a moral imperative from God to maintain good stewardship, again reinforcing that this is a religuous directive in the eyes of the party.
-Note the implication that scientists are corrupt and not telling the truth, and that truth must restored and revealed.

Private Stewardship of the Environment (Top)

Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they

Apparently the GOP can't even keep its own web site from getting hacked. I go to GOP.com and I get a U.S. right-wingnut political party. So will this hoodie become an anti-Sony statement the way plush Snowden the Snowman toys became an anti-NSA statement?

Look here. I'm sick and tired of liberal morons painting everyone with the same brush. We're not all the same.

You as an individual may not have the same idea. However the social conservatives have documented their political platform and fully subscribed to it. You can find it on the tea party patriots site,Heritage Foundation site, and the actual republican party site.

if you don't subscribe to their philosophy then good for you. You are not the target of my "brush"

You did immediately lose your moral high ground with:

I'm sick and tired of liberal morons painting everyone with the same brush.

You assumed that since I didn't agree with your beliefs in this particular instance that I'm not only liberal but I'm a moron too.

1. 1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. 2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. 3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. 4. Protect Free Markets
5. 5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. 6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. 7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. 8. Believe in the People
9. 9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. 10. Maintain Local Independence

There's always a gradient on "Excessive". #4 sounds like it could be easily bent. #9 is wishful thinking.

That, as opposed to: Democrats or Republicans. It all sure sounds good -- I think I'll pay attention and do s'more research here. Seems like we also somehow need a verifiable (independent?) source that describes how accurate these all are to their specified ideas (and they all need a few specific goals as well.)

You can argue over implementation details and exact meanings, but it seem shard to argue with the ideas behind of most of these. And with ALL of the parties --- dare I say it: "Trust, but verify?"


And as for think of the children....

The US position relative to the rest of the globe is irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the relative positions of the parties compared to each other in American politics.

How about the positions of the parties relative to themselves at other times in American history? Liberal Democrats today would be conservative Republicans in the 1960s. You want to read an eye opener? Go back and read The Republican Party Platform of 1960 and compare it to the 2012 GOP Platform. Much of today's Republican Party is still present in the party of 1960, but there's a lot in there that has been carved off of the party and rejected as "liberal." Here's some gems from the 1960 platform:

"To this end [opposing the Soviets] we will continue to support and strengthen the United Nations as an instrument for peace, for international cooperation, and for the advancement of the fundamental freedoms and humane interests of mankind."

"Our mutual security program of economic help and technical assistance; the Development Loan Fund, the Inter-American Bank, the International Development Association and the Food for Peace Program, which create the conditions for progress in less-developed countries; our leadership in international efforts to help children, eliminate pestilence and disease and aid refugeesâ"these are programs wise in concept and generous in purpose. We mean to continue in support of them."

"Republican policy firmly supports the right of employers and unions freely to enter into agreements providing for the union shop and other forms of union security as authorized by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act )."

"Republican action has given to millions of American working men and women new or expanded protection and benefits, such as: Increased federal minimum wage; Extended coverage of unemployment insurance and the payment of additional temporary benefits provided in 1958-59; Improvement of veterans' re-employment rights; Extension of federal workman's compensation coverage and increase of benefits..."

"Congress should submit a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for women."

"Strengthened federal enforcement powers in combatting water pollution and additional resources for research and demonstration projects. Federal grants for the construction of waste disposal plants should be made only when they make an identifiable contribution to clearing up polluted streams."

"Federal authority to identify, after appropriate hearings, air pollution problems and to recommend proposed solutions."

"Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy require that ... the annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled."

These are all positions that would have Tea Party nuts screaming to unseat them in a primary challenge. The GOP has taken a hard shift to the right of center, and they've dragged the Democrats behind them by framing and controlling the debate and by shedding moderates by labeling them as liberals.

Lastly, and perhaps most topically on the subject of the debt.

"In order of priority, federal revenues should be used: first, to meet the needs of national security; second, to fulfill the legitimate and urgent needs of the nation that cannot be met by the States, local governments or private action; third, to pay down on the national debt in good times; finally, to improve our tax structure."

It seems like our current GOP has a different set of priorities: 4,1,3,2. Well, with the furloughs hitting defense contracts and late pay for servicemen and their families, perhaps it should be 4,3,1,2.

If there was a group or organization that opposed the ACLU in every case, that took the opposite positions, I would probably be willing to contribute a modest amount.

Here you go:

  Gifts to the United States
  US Department of the Treasury
  Credit Accounting Branch
  3700 East-West Highway Room 622D
  Hyattsville MD 20782

Also, don't forget these assholes. Really excellent work from all of them in combating the reckless and dangerous excesses of the Founding Fathers. No organizations have worked so tirelessly as these have to free us from the tyranny of freedom — to liberate us from the chains of liberty — as these wise and righteous men and women of authority.

As it is, the only civil liberties organization I belong to is the NRA.

Best of luck retaining the one amendment in the Bill of Rights you seem to think is worth keeping — enjoy your ridiculous fantasy, pretending that you'll be entrusted with one amendment after having cheered on the demise of the others. The Bill of Rights isn't a fucking à la carte menu; if one amendment is in danger, so are the others.

Once the Bill of Rights has been thoroughly subverted, suspended, repealed, and forgotten... much of the blame will lie with the self-absorbed, naïve, short-sighted partisans who thought they could pick and choose which parts were essential liberties.

The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general[...]

Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

No, I'm not a Republican, I'm just sick of seeing shit slung at political groups without supporting evidence.

Or at least the GOP does not state that they have such views openly.

I'm not saying that's the case - just that it might be the case.

The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general[...]

Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

No, I'm not a Republican, I'm just sick of seeing shit slung at political groups without supporting evidence.

We’ve learned that certain behaviors on the part of an abuser portend much more danger than other behaviors. For example, if an abuser has attempted to strangle his victim, if he has threatened to shoot her, if he has sexually assaulted her, and there’s a number of other signs, about eight others. These are tell-tale signs to say this isn’t your garden-variety slap across the face, which is totally unacceptable in and of itself.

As for which party hates women... Ooh ooh can I take a guess? Is it the one that The one that says women can't control their own bodies and are not entitled to birth control as part of their health insurance?

1. Economy: I think that regulations should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. I think subsidizing specific companies is a terrible idea. I'm opposed to the Farm Bill, too, but that's a bipartisan problem. It's a very vague plank, but I'll call it a "soft agree".
2. Defense: essentially nothing to distinguish the two here, so I'll limit myself to the platitude that the Navy is the most important force we have. Nobody wins this one.
3. Health care: Obamacare is a disaster in the making that is going to have large, negative, and far-reaching effects that most people have utterly failed to grasp. Major agree with GOP. I'm a doctor, so it's pretty natural I'd agree with them on this.
4. Education: I believe that school choice is a win. Agree.
5. Energy: I don't so much agree with the GOP as think that the Democrats don't have a serious energy policy at all. Soft agree.
6. Courts: I think that the Republican nominees have tended to be a little better on constitutional rights but really can't stand the obsequious deference toward cops and prosecutors. Very soft agree

That's their summation of what they think is important. Additionally, I think that the Republicans are wrong on gay marriage and the drug war, but I'm not very upset about it since the official stance of President Obama in 2008 was opposition to gay marriage - and I don't see a lot of people raking him over the coals on that stance. And the Democrats are no better on the Drug War.

I live in a poor state. I have friends who are coastal liberals, and their ideas are great if you live somewhere that everyone is upper middle class - cue the old Friedman saw about "in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either". But most poor people are not poor because they are unlucky, although some are. They are poor because they are dumb - not uneducated and not even lazy, just dumb. All the education spending in the world will not get someone who cannot manage abstract thought to become a college graduate.

As an anesthesiologist, I ask every patient I examine to do the following three things: "Tilt your head all the way back, open your mouth all the way, and stick out your tongue." Try it yourself right now. If done correctly, I should be staring at something that looks like this. It is the single most difficult thing I ask people to do and at least ten percent of ostensibly normal people (i.e., high school graduates/GED holders) can't do it at all. They cannot do it after I demonstrate how to do it and repeat each step until they participate - yes, there are people who literally will not stick out their tongue in response to four or five requests to do so. "Stick your tongue out, please. Just like your mother always told you not to. No, stick it out. No, keep your mouth open and stick it out. No, I don't want to see your tongue, I'm trying to look at the back of your throat. No, you need to stick your tongue out." Ad nauseam. If you cannot get a (theoretically) mentally competent adult to do that, is it really a lack of education that's the problem?

Ultimately, as the old joke goes, liberals think conservatives are evil and conservatives think liberals are hopelessly naïve. Based on my experience with humanity, I fall where I do.

So for you, and for JosephTX, I'd say that refusal to means-test SS is a sign of a lack of seriousness (and I will apply that label to the GOP, too). Cutting defense is probably a good idea but should be done primarily by winding down expensive wars rather than retrenching a peacetime commitment. Healthcare in the US is a long argument that I am not interested in typing out, but the very short version is that if we wanted everyone to be covered we could have expanded Medicaid to cover all citizens and been done with it - no new rules

With the amount of money in politics, I would be extremely surprised if the RNC was not already investing in their own software development. In fact, take a look at this recent press release

Some citations..

• Campaign Rally Numbers: Google them yourselves. Last night Biden drew 1000. Obama's Jay-Z PA event was half empty. Romney's events have had more people. I retract the 90%... but clearly the the thrill isn't what it was in 08.
• 40 papers have switched from an Obama endorsement to Romney. http://www.gop.com/news/research/what-they-are-saying-7/
• Citation needed for broken promises? You're insane. Gitmo. $2500 reduction in healthcare costs. He'd be bi-partisan. Large deficits are "unpatriotic" and he'd cut the deficit in half. But I don't know many middle of the road democrats who are "fired up" like 08. The liberals, union workers, and welfare crowd will vote for him.. but the average hard working middle class American may not be as happy with Obama as you think. Some polls are showing 11% black vote going to Romney (which again, may just be an indicator of how wrong the polls can be.)
• People lie to pollsters all the time. Almost everyone says they will vote, but we know that only 2/3's of the people actually do. Using 2008 as a metric to judge whether someone is a "likely" voter will skew the results--as 2008, Republican's were fed up after Bush, didn't like McCain, and Democrats were voting because they were really sick of Bush.
• Independents: This CNN poll says Independents are in favor of Romney by 22 points. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/04/top16.pdf Independents often decide the election.
• PA is in play. It might be a long shot with the Philly shenanigans (removing Republican poll watchers? Classy.), but its a statistical tie. Last time PA voted R in the presidential race was 1988, 24 years ago.
• AC: Re: Astroturfing. Look around--there are millions of people on both sides who follow politics fanatically like its a sporting event. 30,000 people don't brave the cold weather of OH to watch a dozen people speak about a candidate they don't care about. I encourage you to check up on all of it rather than blindly throw out the BS and idiotic thought that Carl Rove is paying me $5.00 to post crap.

Anyone else feel we are getting to the point where that needs to happen?

It looks like the answer to your question is no. I just went to four parties' websites, and none of them had any sort of inline gpg signature on the page. That kind of tech is unusual on the web, though, so let's look at one highly-broken but widely ubiquitous way for websites to have at least some attestation of who they are: https.

For some amazing adventures in mismatched certs, 404s(!), other brokenness, and even the CA "Comodo" raising its ugly head (did you think they had gone out of business?), try loading (shown in sorted order):
https://www.democrats.org/
https://www.gop.com/
https://www.gp.org/
https://www.lp.org/
You have to see it all to believe it. The one which "works" (no spoilers) still manages to be self-defeating and useless for identity-checking.

More than (I even included the biggest two third parties!) 99 of voters spoke: No, we're not at the point where any voter gives a damn if a party's site says who it is.

I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.

It's not all of us militating for this - only a select subset. Figure out what to do with those folks and you wouldn't have the problems you talk about. God knows the rest of us have tried...

Forgive me but the Republican Convention just proved the Reps haven't got the vaguest clue how to fix the mess we're in (except rape the middle class and give their organs to the wealth), and that they don't care anything for the middle class save caring that the middle class think they care about the middle class.

I'm not sure how you managed it, but it appears that you went here when you should have gone here for information on the Republican platform. See? No baby eating or organ selling.

Why ask him for the Republican Party's agenda? They make it quite is quite clear

or they can find another party with "Donate" button AND Google ads

The GOP has Google ads and a Donate page. I suppose you may reply and be pedantic and say that the button text is "Contribute" rather than donate, but the text "Complete the form below to make a donation." makes it pretty clear that the action is considered a "donation".

The British Conservative Party uses Google ads and they have a Donate page. The text "Why Donate?" "Make a donation" makes it obvious that this is considered a donation.

And that was just the first two that I checked, I'm sure you can find more examples.

Also, from The Fine Article, it appears that Google is being inconsistent:

the Greens candidate in the state by-election, Cathy Oke, has ads running on Google despite having multiple donate buttons on her web page. "We've sent them screenshots of the donate buttons on the ALP and the Greens sites and they've allowed all of those ads to run," she said. Google said in an email to Patten, seen by this website, that it "doesn't allow the solicitation of funds (donations) unless they're tax exempt". The Sex Party is an Australian political party and so, according to the ATO, donations are tax deductible. The party specifies this on its website.

It turns out that the Republican National Committee has inadvertently disqualified Mitt Romney -- either that or they open themselves to a class action law suit which would require them to cough up tens of millions of dollars to Ron Paul supporters.

On 4/25/2012 the RNC made this statement:

"Governor Romney's strong performance and delegate count at this stage of the primary process has made him our party's presumptive nominee," Mr. Priebus said. "In order to maximize our efforts I have directed my staff at the R.N.C. to open lines of communication with the Romney campaign."
and
"It's my intention to have a seamless and complete merger between the presumptive nominee and the Republican National Committee," Mr. Priebus said. "That means political, communications, fund-raising, research and the chairman's office, along with the governor's main operational team, are completely merged."

The RNC's rule number 11 ( which can be found on page 13 here http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf ) States:

"(a) The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing
deadline for that office."

(b) ... No person nominated in violation of this rule shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the nominee of the Republican Party from that state."

That the Republican Party is a "private" organization with its own rules doesn't permit it to defraud the public -- not even if that public is its own members. People have joined the Republican Party and made monetary donations on the reasonable presumption that the RNC would follow its own rules IT HAS ADVERTISED TO THE PUBLIC. The damages are actual and the fraud deliberate. Triple damages are due to all who have contributed to Republican candidates for President and the RNC is liable.

Actually, if you tell the executive branch, "Hey, a whole bunch of R-bags are being bought and paid for," you might see some investigation from a bunch of D-bags.

Of course, this could turn into a MAD type of scenario...

On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party.

Which half? I see both a Constitution Party and a Republican Party.

Try here and here.

Sure.

http://www.gop.com/

I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while.

Good grief. Read it again, only this time use your eyes and not your imagination. A hint: Look under "Free and Fair Trade".

When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.

That's a good point, but I refuse to affiliate with any party. I loathe politicians on an individual basis.

Actually, no he doesn't.

Hatch is a copyright holder and most of his positions concerning copyright stem from his wanting to protect his own interest.

I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while. It was back in the late 1990's when the DMCA was coming around because it was created out of the ratification of two WIPO treaties , the WPPT and WCT which were designed to protect foreign copyright in any country. This mean that other countries with laxed rules would have to honor the other countries copyrights and that meant more money coming into the US. After the DMCA was created, other countries started backing off of thier commitments.

As for agreeing with his speech but not him, that's propably because this has been largely a bipartisan issue for a long time. When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.

It is amusing to see that Obama's campaign emitted squeals about the Keating scandal as a response. Look up McCain and the Keating scandal and you'll see that McCain learned from his mistake and tried to improve things. All Obama has done is tried to hide his past, which merely indicates shame or fear of discovery, and we don't know that the youngster has learned anything.

If your looking for something that "keeps gas close to it" to send to mars can I suggest these assholes

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Oh, and of course, the RNC can invite whomever it wants to speak. The five states would simply force the RNC to allow Ron Paul to speak.

The U.S. banned international online gambling because of pressure (read: bribes) from the big domestic casinos.

Why does misinformation like this keep getting modded up as informative? It happens every time the online gambling issue comes up on Slashdot.

The American Gaming Association, the industry group representing those big domestic casinos, opposed legislation banning online gambling. See:

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/5/american-gami ng-association-study.htm
http://www.americangaming.org/hillupdate/reports_d etail.cfv?id=9

They want legalization and regulation, so they can get a piece of the pie. They're currently supporting legislation requiring a "study" of online gambling, as a preliminary to repealing the ban.

Right now online gambling is a booming international industry, but American companies can't reap any of the profits, despite what should be a very strong competitive position with their strong brands. The potential gain of locking in American gamblers to land-based casinos is negligible by comparison.

They made it into a "moral issue," but that's just bullshit that they can sell to a few Evangelical hicks.

That's not the cover story - it's the whole story. Banning online gambling has been a plank of the Republican Party platform since at least 2004:

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf (see page 57)

The most recent anti-online-gambling law, the Unlawful Online Gambling Enforcement Act, was railroaded through the Senate (as a last-minute amendment to a must-pass bill) by Bill Frist. Bill Frist, at the time, was a hopeful for the Republican presidential nomination, and as such needed to shore up support among the moral conservative types.

Parody or not, she has an 'official' page with the GOP:

http://shelley.gop.com/

I wouldn't call it random, but there's your evidence. I'm sure there are a few decent members, but on the whole....

Here is a good one.

I think at one point in history the party affiliation of a candidate would have stood for something.

It still does. While there are notable major exceptions, they are rare enough that the media tends to frequently emphasize the difference, making it hard to miss. For example, you often see a sentence that starts something like, "Senator Specter, the pro-choice republican who chairs the judiciary committee, ..."

It's still easier to define a candidate by the exceptions to the party platform. For example, my congressman and both of my senators are all members of the same party. I check the congressional record every day, so I know they agree with the party line the vast majority of the time, but I also know what few specific issues they disagree on. It's easy enough to keep straight that they only surprise me once or twice a session.

I would recommend to any "uninformed" voter, to spend a few minutes reading the current republican platform and democratic platform, bearing in mind that they were written at the 2004 national conventions, decide which platform he agrees with more, and vote a straight ticket. The chances that he will select a candidate that deviates so far from the platform that he wouldn't have chosen that candidate are slim. Chances are that an informed straight ticket vote will make him happier with his representation than a pure random choice or letting someone else decide would.

Just informing himself enough to know what party he currently agrees with most is not ideal, but is definitely better than nothing.

This is why political speech is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, and why we tolerate things like the Nazi Party and the Stalinists and any number of other kooks.

Unfortunately it also makes us tolerate even crazier idiots.

Encouraging people to change laws that they don't agree with often isn't even productive for society. There are a lot of stupid people out there and deciding what is best for anyone (never mind for everyone) is about the furthest thing from what most of them should be doing.

So what? This was an off-hand remark made in private. Have we come to the point where every word one says must be parsed and examined for any trace of anything that might offend the most hypersensative among us lest he or she be branded a racist?

Ironically, there is a myspace.gop.com. There are a lot of subdomains off of gop.com, and they're a part of the mygop program.

quote from www.gop.com: Set up your own personal web site on GOP.com! Share your message and photos. Set your goals. Build your team. Stalk underage children for illicit sex.

Ok, I added that last part. But the gop specifically caters to under-age children (and anyone else who might eventually vote for them).

Ironically, there is a myspace.gop.com. There are a lot of subdomains off of gop.com, and they're a part of the mygop program.

quote from www.gop.com: Set up your own personal web site on GOP.com! Share your message and photos. Set your goals. Build your team. Stalk underage children for illicit sex.

Ok, I added that last part. But the gop specifically caters to under-age children (and anyone else who might eventually vote for them).

Ironically, there is a myspace.gop.com. There are a lot of subdomains off of gop.com, and they're a part of the mygop program.

quote from www.gop.com: Set up your own personal web site on GOP.com! Share your message and photos. Set your goals. Build your team. Stalk underage children for illicit sex.

Ok, I added that last part. But the gop specifically caters to under-age children (and anyone else who might eventually vote for them).