Slashdot Mirror
McCain, Clinton Win New Hampshire
Well the title says it. I figured some of you guys might be interested in the results of New Hampshire. Next week is Michigan, where I live. Somehow I don't expect any of the campaigns to ring me up.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
May the best one win!
http://www.freebsd.org
Michigan was stripped of its delegates because the state Dem party moved up the primary without the blessing of the DNC. The candidates have already agreed not to spend any time there. On the republican side: If McCain can beat Romney in MI, Romney will be against the ropes and will likely have to consider withdrawing from the race, as it'd be an embarressing defeat.
Link, redux.
I, as usual, am less than enthusiastic about our choices for president. It would be nice to have a third party (or better yet a 4th party) who can win a substantial part of the vote and a significant chunk of congress (10-20 votes in the house and 5 in the senate and be very powerful)
I voted for Badnarik last time but I don't see the Libertarians even putting forth a palatable candidate this year.
I'll be satisfied as long as some Bible (or other religious book of choice) Thumping lunatic doesn't win and try to control my private life even more.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
I watched just enough of the coverage last night to walk away with one observation: Fuck the news media.
Seriously. They spent more time talking about Hillary "tearing up" then they did talking about policy differences between the candidates.
"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate? Why don't you do some research into Obama's time as a state legislator, because most of us outside of Illinois know next to nothing about this period in his life.
And why all this goddamn focus on who "wins" each state? The primaries (at least for the Dems) aren't a winner-take-all. All three of the leading Democratic candidates walk away from this with delegates to the convention. All three of them walked away from Iowa with delegates. Yet somehow Hillary's loss in Iowa all but doomed her campaign in the eyes of the media.
*sigh* And they wonder why people are disillusioned with the process.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
They may as well run a McCain/Clinton vs. Clinton/McCain ticket in the general election.
What?
So, they've won New Hampshire... does the state actually belong to them together? Does this winning hold some sort of legislative power? Is this a democratic election thingy?
USA politics are really confusing since I thought the big vote was in November of leap years.
The only major candidate who wants to immediately withdraw from Iraq...
The only candidate who has a grasp of economics....
The only candidate who will protect social security for the elderly...
The only candidate who understands how to fight inflation...
The only candidate who understands if you give up liberty for security you have neither...
RON PAUL
www.ronpaul2008.com
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Like most /.ers, I've been enamored of Ron Paul, but this poor showing in what should have been Ron's best state is disheartening to me. Yes, I know it was better than Fred Thompson -- but to be 2 places behind Huckabee? Ron's campaign seems to be so much more about the message than the man, which is great -- that's the way it should be. But the message is not getting our there. And I'm not sure why. Ron had a great point in the ABC debate when he pointed out that the price of a barrel of oil in gold is the same as it was in 1992. Everyone can understand that, and it clarifies why fixing fiscal policy is a giant issue. Ron's ideas of cutting spending, ending the war, following the Constitution and removing the income tax seem to be at least talking points that should be doing better than what Ron seems to be getting in the polls. So where is the disconnect?
I think the problem is that getting elected is still about campaigning -- and Ron's campaign is not being run as skillfully as others. Living in MA, I was waiting for the call to volunteer. I signed up to make phone calls, hold signs, do anything. I was never contacted or asked to do anything.
So I'll still keep giving money -- I want Ron's ideas to be heard everywhere, so that in 2012 the right candidate will not be buried/censored/mocked by the main stream media. And hopefully the campaign will raise the money sooner, and hire a real campaign manager. To change everything, as Ron and his followers want to do, will mean winning a presidential election -- and doing that means winning an American style presidential campaign. The message can win -- if it gets out there.
I hope someone can convince me there's still hope for this year, because I want to believe.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Hey, this is the most current news /. has ever posted. Wait until tomorrow's dupe before complaining.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
We foreigners appreciate slashdot posting this news - after all, your election affects us (this is not facetiousness, unfortunately).
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
If he had done just a little better and out-polled Gu9/11ani, I would have needed a roll of paper towels to clean up my happiness.
A writers stirke? No. But I did hear that Mr Hitler and his army invaded Poland. It's a crazy world.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Fortunately (or is that unfortunately considering the election will affect us?) we aren't inundated with news on the subject 24/7. I didn't even know New Hampshire had some election in this pre-election zaniness the Americans have designed to increase the length of elections.
I mean, I can live with Hillary - but for the life of me, I can't empathize with why someone would vote FOR her.
To my understanding, despite the usual 'common sense' about presidents, presidents don't make so many actual decisions of their own volition. They veto or sign bills into law. They have limited abilities to make executive orders (despite Bush's attempts to expand this). They guide some military decisions under some circumstances. They really don't guide much actual lawmaking beyond veto threats and ceremonial suggestions.
The key part about a presidential candidate to me is that most of their role is to give speeches, and represent us to the world. The part where I have no empathy with those who vote for Hillary is why anyone would choose to have Hillary Clinton represent them in that capacity. True, she's not the worst candidate in that capacity - but she just seems to have the worst personality for my tastes out of the Democratic candidates.
What is it in Hillary that makes people want her to represent them? Or is it really more of a strategic choice for those voting for her?
Ryan Fenton
While it is no replacement for doing real research and finding out where candidates stand relative to you on specific issues, there is a very interesting site called "Political Compass" at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ It gives a Cartesian representation (2 dimensional rather than just left/right) of your political values based on a questionnaire in terms of Authoritarian vs Personal Liberty AND Economic Right vs Left.
In addition to providing info on where you stand (you might be surprised) it shows were historical figures and the current candidates fall (based on their statements and voting records.)
You can also compare US politicians to the current crop in countries such as Canada, Australia, and England.
Very neat site!
If Obama can come within 2% of winning in a state that is about 97% white, I think he's got a very good chance nationwide. I don't think it's unfair to think that had something to do with the loss.
-William Brendel
it is certainly among the more interesting of the possible outcomes. It is hard to think of a result that would keep the race more wide open.
HRC would have been deeply wounded by a loss in NH. She would have had to drag her status of "former frontrunner" into a primary for an election Democrats passionately hope to win. Obama doesn't get unambiguous frontrunner status, but he doesn't lose viability either. The close head to head competition between HRC and Obama gives a tiny sliver of hope to Edwards. If HRC and Obama battle each other to a standstill, he might be able to engineer a victory in SC or a strong second place in FL, and be still in the running by Super Tuesday (Feb 5).
It is even possible for a third place finisher overall to win the nomination. By Democratic party rules, almost 20% of the convention delegates will be unpledged. Suppose the big three go into the convention with something like this: 30% for HRC, 25% for Obama, 15% for Edwards. Edwards could win if the HRC/Obama fight is seen by the unpledged delegates as splitting the party.
On the Republican side, things are just as interesting. Republicans have always preferred a candidate that their party can unite behind for victory, which is why you heard some evangelicals making noises of support for Giuliani when he was in his ascendancy. There is no such candidate yet. Huckabee can potentially pull of a win in SC, and he may walk away from FL with a large hunk of the 57 delegates up for grabs in FL, which awards delegates on a district by district basis. McCain is merely back in the race; he is vulnerable on immigration, and it seems unlikely he will build up any kind of aura of invincibility by Feb 5. However he will be a force to be reckoned with.
The media is counting Romney out, but this is malarkey. Romney has only don poorly compared to (press fabricated) expectations. Two second place finished and a first in a race with no clear front runner is nothing to be sneezed at. Even if he does poorly in SC and FL, he goes into Super Teusday with a huge advantage: money. It won't be possible to press the flesh in all 19 states, so the campaign will be waged largely by advertising; advertising to a population of people who may not have been paying that much attention up to now, and a ripe for some early impression manipulation.
It is even remotely possible for somebody farther down in the Republican standings to score an upset before Feb 5, which would result in a log of free attention.
Overall, we're looking at very competitive races all around, which is a good thing. The candidates are also hitting their stride, under the pressure of competition they're working as hard as I can ever remember at figuring out what it takes to connect with voters. It's looking like we'll see a more interesting and less conventional fight than we've seen in our lifetime.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's right: Clinton took 9 delegates and Obama took 9 delegates in NH. Edwards took the remaining 4.
This was not a popular election. It's about the delegates. How the press could report this as anything other than a tie is beyond me.
There's no shame in second place in a Democratic primary. So long as you take 15% of the vote, you get delgates, and you are not a "loser" by any stretch of the imagination. Especially in such a tiny state. It takes over 2000 delegates to be nominated.
And don't forget, Democrats have "super delegates," that are unpledged, to spoil a close race towards the Will of The Party, regardless of what the popular vote says.
Here's a good look at it: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html
But all the major news outlets cover our civic process like it was a soap opera. The primary reporting is just incompetent and wrong, if not bloody-minded lying.
--
Toro
How much of Huckabees success comes from the endorsement of Chuck Norris? And as much as I like the aging martial artist, I don't think HE'D be as popular as he is without the internet.
While we're at it, Obama has Opra's backing and Opra controls how many minds?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Am I an idiot or Hillary looks to me as a republican in a democrat dress?
If I lived in the US I'd probably be independent or democrat, but if I had to choose between only her or any other republican I'd probably vote a republican (save maybe Giuliani, and I'm italian).
So, why exactly is it that there wasn't a story posted when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus?
More Twoson than Cupertino
Comment removed based on user account deletion
States allocating pledged delegates to date:
Iowa, Wyoming (GOP), New Hampshire
Republican Delegates (1,191 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Rudy Giuliani 0
Mike Huckabee 31
Duncan Hunter 1
John McCain 7
Ron Paul 0
Mitt Romney 29
Fred Thompson 3
Total 71
Democratic Delegates (2,026 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Hillary Clinton 24
John Edwards 18
Mike Gravel 0
Dennis Kucinich 0
Barack Obama 25
Bill Richardson 0
Total 67
WAAAAAYY too early to tell...we almost have to wait til Super Tuesday, because none of the front-runners are even halfway out.
It will be 'fortunate' for all nations once George is out of office. While my country's reputation isn't exactly favorable in the international community these days, I hope people realize the difference between the agenda of the George W. Bush administration, and the principles of the United States of America. He's pretty much violated everything our country stands for, and personally, I think the world will be much better off with who ever is next.
This election is probably one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
What is the point of comparing the price of oil with the price of gold?
Oil is bought with dollars (Venezuela and Iraq both considered switching to euros, guess which two countries the US didn't like) not gold. This is actually important, it is considered one of the things to help keep the dollar somewhat alive.
Gold is also not nearly as stable as people seem to think. So explain why this connection should be so clear and what it all means.
I have read up on Ron Paul and the couple of policies that he has sound intresting until you start to wonder how to actually implement them.
End the war. Oh goodie, another vietnam style strategic withdrawal (read route, if you are dumping your helicopts overboard to make room for new refugees, you ain't withdrawing, you are running)? The US made the mess, would be nice if you clean it up first before you go back home. It don't matter if you are pro or anti the war, it is a fact and you have to deal with it and you can't just runaway.
Cut spending. Another lovely one. I got a way to cut spending right here. NO SALARY FOR THE PRESIDENT and he pays rent for the whitehouse and buys his own airline tickets. Wanna bet NONE of these simple spending cuts will be taken up? On a larger level, you just can't cut spending. It just never works out, even if you try to do it for real and massively re-organize the state, the cost of the re-organisation will take years to re-coup in savings. Companies know this, that is why big companies when they make cuts in staff to save money ALWAYS reserve extra cash to pay for it. Saving money costs money. It gets even worse in big projects because the money you are cutting is somebodies income. Close a department and you are firing people, never a good idea for somebody who is elected by a popularity contest.
A policy of cutting spending is like a good intention with no actuall plan attached. Show me where you are going to cut spending, how you are going to deal with the sideeffects and how much it is going to cost to achieve in the first place.
Removing the income tax, another idiotic scheme. Sure it can be done, but it would require a massive change and is going to upset a lot of people. Voting people. It would basically force a radical change on how the US funds itself and what it can and cannot do. How are politicians going to buy votes with pork projects if there is no cash?
No Ron Paul is just another smooth talking figure head who promises everything that people like you want to hear without actually ever going into how he thinks he is going to achieve any of this.
In the Netherlands we got something called the "rekenkamer" (mathchamber) which during campaigns checks the various political parties agenda's for financial soundness (normaly they check the goverments policies). They don't judge right or wrong, just wether the financial side of it all makes sense. Promise free public transport, abolish taxes all fine with them, but the figures have to match up.
Perhaps the US should do something similar, check all the politicians promises and do the math.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
A rather idiotic story, about how the two candidates who lost on both sides where anti-gaming, as if voters in Iowa care.
Learn to read slashdot every day, every hour.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, the office of the president is really all about the individual far more than the message.
If you have to come to slashdot to get your political news, you really need to get out more.
Considering how keen America is on exporting democracy to all and sundry, have you any idea how damned wierd your particular version looks to non-Americans? I've just had to spend twenty mins on Google trying to work it all out what with primaries, electroral collages etc. The fact that it seems to require so much money just to get heard doesn't help. Not really a very good advert for democracy in action.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
You're so right Clinton was a fucking moron,
now GW Bush on the other hand....
The purpose of this particular bit of pre-election zaniness (I can't argue with that term) is to narrow the field. The states each hold some form of "primary" whereby the opposing parties can decide which candidate to offer up during the "end-the-zaniness" election when we finally decide upon a president and put an end to the high volume stream of telephone calls and junk mail we all receive during election years.
The significance of the primaries here in New Hampshire is that we've historically been "first in the nation" to hold these polls. In fact, I believe (but could be wrong) that our state government even passed a law forcing us to move the primaries forward, if necessary, to protect that status.
American quasi-socialist neo-liberal or classical liberal? If the latter, Republican is the closer of the two parties.
I come here for the love
I wouldn't vote for a Republican ever, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
Because it is not part of the Constitution, not part of the official process.
Our two ruling parties have so taken over our process that what they do is effectively the process. We hold multimillion dollar conventions to select the candidates on the taxpayer's dime, and they are really just functions of the two parties. Minority leader, majority leader, minority/majority whip, etc., all just a power structure within our government invented by the two parties, yet they get paid more, get a bigger staff, etc. The only legitimate one is the House Speaker.
The electoral college is peculiar to us because of our original situation. It is designed for the now unfortunately antiquated idea that the individual states are sovereign and have only created a federal government for their common defense and other things best managed as a group, such as coining money and international relations.
But we don't try to export our way of democracy. Notice that Iraq and Afghanistan have parliamentary systems.
Or not.
Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996.
I'm just sayin'.
WTF?
I remember watching the the original GWB v Al fight for the presidency, which I think opened up to the whole world the complexity of the US election system. Now the current race is spot-lighting the nomination process - which adds another layer of complexity.
BTW I think Hilary, like it or not, will probably go a long way to improving the US's reputation abroad,
mainly because she is a republican in a democrat dress (and sure isn't Arnold a democrat in a republican dress). How she is on other things, I don't know.
Another interesting thing from Europe is that most of the newspapers here had headlines this morning proclaiming Obama's victory and the dismal end of the Clinton campaign. Tut! Tut! Tut! Shouldn't let a deadline get in the way of reporting the facts.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Remember the "one drop rule"? One drop of black blood makes you black.
Ralph Wiggum! See here or here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Interestingly, Clinton did far better than the exit poll numbers in the locales which were tallied by LHS from Diebold (now Premier) machines, while Obama won in the municipalities which were counted by hand. The discrepancy is about 5%. You can check this yourself. Here's the database of counting systems Bev Harris collated from information supplied by the Secretary of State of New Hampshire before the primary: http://www.bbvdocs.org/NH/state/Jan-08-votingsystems-NH.txt -- and here you can find the AP vote tallies: http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html (I'd appreciate a better source than this flash, BTW.)
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
It was a nice week after Iowa to think that at last we might get a break from the Bush-Clinton dynasties. It's already been 20 years we've had to live with it (Bush Sr. 4, Clinton 8, Bush Jr. 8).
I like Edwards as much as Obama, but really wish he'd cut a deal with Obama for the VP slot so the anti-Hillary vote wouldn't be split. That would have put a hard stop to the Hillary campaign right there.
Obama would be the clearest signal to the country and world that America is set for a new course. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be even stronger.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Why do you think Clinton is going to screw up international policy?
It's not THE MEDIA it's not THE GOVERNMENT it's the people...
It's because Ron Paul is insane. His political philosophies represent 19th century America. He talks about eliminating immigration laws and public education, health care while pushing for moving the dollar to the GOLD STANDARD. No one would collapse the world market faster.
He also talks about completely eliminating basically all taxes and funding the military with the re-1913 uniform tax.
It's the 21st century. Ron Paul is 150 years too late for his platform to work. People are not voting for him because he lives in the wild west, economically. Ron Paul fans, just move to Mexico- it perfectly embodies his governing style.
I have the same mix.
How anyone on Slashdot can seriously consider anyone that doesn't believe in Evolution is beyond me. It seems like a one question sanity test.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
I highly suggest that everyone have a look at votebyissue.org. I consider voting to be my civic duty, and so I spent about an hour on Saturday reading through the blurbs and checking off boxes. The results were surprising. Before taking the quiz, I considered Edwards to be my top choice, followed by Obama. Surprise, surprise-- Clinton and Kucinich were actually better aligned with my views (although Edwards was still on top). Ron Paul was the only Republican to make it into the "positive points" column, and I apparently despise Tancredo. Obama ended up being dead last for Democrats; just about tied with Ron Paul.
BTW, if you don't agree or disagree with a blurb, leave the checkbox blank. The software takes this into account at the end. The instructions were not clear on this. After I had my tallies, I formulated a simple tally system-- +1 point if I agreed, -1 point if I disagreed, and -.5 if I did not answer. I did not answer if I thought the candidate was being purposefully vague.
This is worth your time, and much more time-efficient than trawling through the fluff on the candidates' websites.
Cue the Ron Paul cultists. Before November I expect communes of them to castrate themselves and wait for Ron Paul to be taken up in the mothership.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, this is not a threat, I'm not even in the USA anyway, Mr. NSA/MI6/C3/Mossad/Whoever person reading all my /. posts:
What happens if the person who wins this pre-vote-vote thingy is assasinated between their nomination and the actual election? Does the next person in line just step up, or do they go back to square one and have another pre-vote-vote?
The book has already pretty much closed on GWB. The Republicans have moved away from him, the electorate made their displeasure known in 2006 by kicking them in the stomach. No one wants the war in Iraq or the disasterous foreign policy that Bush and his neo-con puppetmasters foisted upon the US and the world. The chief differences at the moment are largely domestic, and how exactly to go about untangling the US from Iraq.
Quite frankly, what I think is more important this November is how Congress is reshaped. I have a feeling that, whoever ends up in the White House, Congress is going to be far less willing to simply hand over the keys and say "You drive, we'll sit back here and enjoy the ride!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Goddamned incompetent, lying, corporatist press.
Yes, it's utterly impossible that different locales could have different election results. Everyone knows every state is entirely homogeneous.
Nah, seriously, I'm glad people like you are keeping tabs on things related to computer voting, but this little statistic just doesn't sound significant to me.
Comment of the year
Try this XML file that the Flash pulls its data from. Very simple, looks easy to parse; I'm already working on correlating the data.
If Ron Paul had been an atheist, we would be all over him even more.
In the early voting stages, we have a lot of candidates. Evangelicals may have liked Huckabee, but held their nose and voted Romney because while he's not one of them, he's closer than a Guiliani to them. Once Huckabee takes Iowa and proves to be a viable candidate, those that found Romney the best of the "real candidates" may switch because Huckabee is now a real candidate.
Guiliani planned to skip the early states and focus on Florida. The theory was that McCain was gone, and nobody had leadership gravitas but him. So going into Florida would be Romney, and Huckabee/Thompson (people expected Thompson, but Huckabee grabbed that part of the base). In that three way race, Guiliani wins security republicans, splits fiscal Republicans with Romney, and hopes that Florida's smaller portion of social conservatives leaves him with a win in a major state.
The issue with momentum is that the early states give people a viability kick. If there are 3 solid evangelical candidates, only one is going to be seen as serious, because if you split the vote 3 ways, you lose. So as soon as one wins a race, the others supporters pick their favorite of the viable candidates.
That's how the rolling primary season is supposed to work. Candidates prove viability and therefore start gathering supporters, or fail to prove viability and drop out, letting their supporters move to the most similar candidate that is viable.
The existence of a Super Tuesday meant that elections after that have been meaningless, and ones before that are support important. That's what has been screwing up the elections, and letting "winners" of a small state with split delegate counts to screw things up.
Post Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democratic race is down to three candidates, HRC, Obama, and Edwards. All are pulling in support. Edwards is in third, but not by much in the delegate count. All the other guys should either prove viability and get out. The GOP is a bit more open because Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida are all good proving grounds for different candidates... Romney/McCain in Michigan, Thompson/Huckabee in SC, and Guiliani in Florida. But Super Tuesday makes this all screwy, and the horse race garbage isn't helpful.
A rolling primary had advantages, and a national one does, but what we have this year is just stupid.
Thats actually really sad. My guess is you'd be better off not voting because in reality - you're just as bad as the Bill O'Reilly's of this world. I'm republican as can be, but I've considered people on the other side when making my decision on who I'm voting for. For example, I'm considering voting for Obama (which I still think he's going to win) come the general election if Ron Paul isn't elected in the primary. Maybe I'll be modded down as a troll or whatnot, but at least I actually have the decency to look across the aisle (and quite frankly, I wouldn't vote for a Presidential canidate who didn't have that same decency).
They guide some military decisions under some circumstances.
They have the ability to start a war of their own volition.
They have the ability to trample your civil rights.
Bush has proved both of these to be true.
Who the President is is important. It might not affect which health care bill gets proposed, but it can sway things like how many hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on wars. You'd be amazed how much health care you can get for a few hundred billion.
paintball
If you mean the American People, that argument lost all validity with the 2004 elections. If you mean some abstract concept of the nation as a whole, I would argue that that concept is essentially meaningless given that it is not adhered to by people who are actually taking actions.
> Some more of "his type of independence"?
:)
For a second there I though you were talking about McCain. Sorry, don't need the sort of 'independence' that causes McCain to wipe his ass on the 1st Amendment. Add in McCain/Kennedy (NCLB) and McCain/Bush (No Mexican Left Behind (in Mexico)) and he is the only sorta Republican (Paul is an idiotarian Libertarian running as an R) I would stay home for on election day.
> You mean like dismantling the fucking government? That dude is INSANE.
Ah, Paul. I actually kinda like most of that part of Ron Paul, too bad he isn't talking much about that, just losing WWIV by tossing in the towel. Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.' The time for that sort of talk was 2003 when Congress was considering declaring War. Once it is ON there is a simple binary choice left, Win or Lose. Have the balls to say "This war isn't worth winning so I propose we just quit and toss this one into the loss column." Hell, it might actually be possible to make that argument as putrid as the political climate has become because of the War.
> And that's before you even get to the facts that he's at best a racist apologist.
We active Repubs have been worrying about how to cleanse shit like Paul (and worse, some of the same sort of neo-nazis from the ranks of the anti-jihad forces on the European front of the GWOT) at sites like LGF for a few months.
The pickings are really crappy this season. Lemme snark the rest of the field.
Clinton is a powermad socialist bitch. Nuff said.
Obama is a nice socialist with almost zero experience (One year in the Senate before effectively resigning to campaign full time) and enough small hints to scare the piss out of anyone who has done any digging at all. (Member of a 'church' that is Farrakan''s Nation of Islam with the serial numbers filed off being a good starting place for research.)
Edwards is a low IQ powermad socialist with delusions of being Huey Long reborn. I'm from Louisiana and can say "Senator Edwards, You ain't Huey Long." And has the sort of hair that says Metrosexual. (Ok, cheap shot.)
Rudy I could vote for. Two outta three ain't bad, even if I get an 'slightly unstable' vibe at t imes. But his biggest idea seems to be this notion that he can win the nomination in the Blue states and then expect the Red states to accept that and turn out in the fall. Yea.... Right.
Romney thinks he can triangulate in the Republican Party. Sorry, we are smarter than that. Why don't Mitt and Johnny get together and discuss hair care secrets or something while the adults work. And aren't we just getting through with dealing with the results of a moderately successful MBA running mostly to avenge his Father? Ok, Romney didn't spend the first half of his life as a hell raiser, but then just how many hell raising Mormans have you ever seen? (Just ain't in em.)
Or then there is Huck. God save us from that populist rabble rouser. Ok, he had the balls (but more likely desperation) to hitch his fortune to the Fair Tax. But I won't enumerate his other problems.... just too depressing.
Finally we have the great hope.... Fred! Who is making a final stand in SC and is almost certain to end up like Davy Crockett at the Alamo... with no avenging Army of Texas to settle the score afterwards. Good ideas, solid conservative, steady leader. Crappy candidate.
Biden and Dodd are at least adults but they got eliminated in the very first round. So much for experience counting. (Guess HRC wasn't taking notes.)
Richardson made a lot more sense before he got into the race and decided his core voters would be Dailykos and moveon. But he will also be exiting soon so it doesn't matter.
Tancredo was almost as batshit insane as Ron Paul, just in different ways. Was good to see the end of him.
Sorry if I forgot to snark your favorite fringe candidate, but they sucked too.
Democrat delenda est
We'd vote Republican if it weren't for the whole religion thing (which ultimately leads to the drug thing). Simple as that.
I've generally voted Republican (and occasionally Libertarian). But if, for instance, Huckabee got the republican nomination, I very well might vote Democrat. Why box yourself in like that? Proclamations like yours just promote zealotry... promote the perception of politics as a type of sporting event, in which you have a 'team' you root for even if they suck this year.
I guess in my opine it's way too early to tell. The media is covering this like flies on s--t. So its all hype for now. We all have are favorites and eventually it will whiddle down to a select few. These primaries are really a non issue at this point. These primaries will flip-flop back and forth. The DNC and RNC will be the big news events.
TEH NEWS IS LIARS!
TEH VOTE IS FRAUD!
Wow, this losers never stop with their infantile primal screams....
Shhh... your parents will get mad and come down to the basement...
I, for one, am very much looking forward to this election. It's the first election in my life where I get to vote for the candidate that I like, not the one I hate the least.
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
In other words, Clinton is more popular in urban areas and Obama is more popular in rural areas.
Give me a f'ing break. You really think the Diebold are going to be set to cheat for Clinton, like they did for Bush in OH in '04? Read the rolling stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr if you don't understand what happened in OH.
It's interesting at least. Things to check:
-Is it statistically significant (seems like it, a large percentage of voters probably participated)
-Is it normal historically (You'd need to pull the numbers from the last primaries to see if they are homogeneous or not). Has NH been redistricted since the last election?
Maybe the richer districts have voting machines and vote for Clinton or some such. Plus with gerrymandering voting districts might be split across political issues anyway.
You'd probably have to do an ANOVA with spread from average against voting mode and year.
After all correlation does not equal causation.
That doesn't prove electoral fraud. It's a lot more likely that people were just embarrassed to admit that they voted for Hillary.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This election is probably one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
Nonsense. Hillary Clinton would keep our troops in Iraq, keep the Patriot Act, and continue the inexorable march toward corporate law in America. Rudy 9/11, ditto, but more of it. John McCain, ditto. Ron Paul will not get elected because he is fucking insane. Barack Obama will not get elected because his name is Obama. Mike Huckabee will not get elected because God just can't possibly hate us that much.
So what exactly makes this "one of the most important elections in our nation's history?"
-p.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
If Obama wins and Ron Paul loses, I'll be able to ignore this election.
You have a lot more faith then I do, because the history of the last 100 years is one of Congress ceding power after power to the Executive Branch. Beyond that, it seems that in this day and age that party matters more then principle. Recall some of the things that Republican Congressman said about Clinton went he went into Kosovo. Now try and reconcile that with the Republicans saying that people are "supporting the terrorists" if they dare to criticize Bush policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Republican Congress bent over backwards to give Bush his "agenda" even where that agenda stood in contrast to Republican ideals. I'd like to think that a Democratic Congress would be less inclined to do that with a Democratic President, but I'm not holding my breath.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, because 100% of the American population voted for GWB in 2004. I mean it's not as if 49% of the country voted against him or anything. Hell, it's not as if the guy running against him in 2000 got more votes or anything.
Besides all that, Bush largely won that election on fear. While I'm not advocating that as an excuse, it's hardly unknown for extreme leaders to come to power after using an external threat to scare the hell out of the populace. And it's hardly unique to the United States either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If Obama can come within 2% of winning in a state that is about 97% white, I think he's got a very good chance nationwide.
What a nice backhanded way of saying you think most people are racist pigs. Voters (especially) are better than that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He supports public education at the state level, and NOT at the bureaucratic federal level that does not work.
We can have an excellent military with our tax money WITHOUT the income tax if we weren't policing the world and protecting other countries. Those other countries have become dependent on us, which gets us into even more shit when something international goes down.
He isn't for eliminating all taxes. I don't know where you guys get this straw man stuff.
The Republicans were given a real kick in the ass in 2006, and ever since then, they've been visibly moving their collective political asses away from Bush. It's a matter of survival in that ugly jungle known as politics. Bush is the most unpopular president in a generation, but Congress's approval ratings have been just as dismal.
It's too early to call the game one way or the other. We don't know who the contestants in this weird gameshow are going to be yet. I think someone like Obama or Huckabee will probably do a lot better with Congress than someone like Clinton or Giulani.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Like Alan Greenspan?
[Ego]out
> > Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.'
> Sure there is. Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force, but they do believe in returning force with force.
> "Never be the one to start a fight. Always be the one to finish it."
Looks like you missed my point. Being for 'ending the war' is like being for Mom or Apple Pie. EVERYONE wants wars to be over. I want us to crush our enemies and bring our troops home in triumph. Democrats want us to just come home with our tail between our legs in a humiliating defeat. And being gutless cowards they won't admit it. I haven't seen any difference between Ron Paul's position on the War and any of the leading Democrats. Once a War is begun the only certainty is that it will end, the choice is HOW it ends.
But in the end I don't give a damn what Libertarians believe. That is my number one problem with em, they don't live in the real world. We don't live in a Libertarian country and even if we did it wouldn't exist in a Libertarian world. Here on Planet Earth we Americans live in a nation state that practices a form of Welfare Socialism and exists in a world filled with nation states that follow a variety of political systems, none of which could be termed Libertarian.
Don't get me wrong, I think Libertarian ideas are the best way forward... More individual liberty, free markets and less government is the right polestar to be following. Much like I'm convinced that there IS a unified field theory, even if we have been chasing it in vain for the better part of a century. However once you assemble a dozen Libertarians thinkers and try to figure out what a society would look like if Libertarian principles were to actually be implemented one quickly realizes we don't have the whole theory worked out yet because the discussion starts looking like a bunch of String Theorists discussing similar yet incompatible details.
> Yeah, we'll probably lose a city or two in the first decade or two after we try non-interventionism.
And I really wonder about the comprehension problem with the notion they HAVE initiated force already. There is a big fucking hole in the middle of New York that was a SMOKING hole for a year. It was only by Bush ramming through a truly massive tax cut that we avoiding a total economic collapse that could very well have ended our civilization right there. Just how many of those kind of hits do you think we can sustain before we either collapse or become a police state? Do we really have to have mushroom clouds sprouting over a few major cities before you idiots will figure out the War has been going on for a while now, only we have been closing our eyes really tight and wishing it would go away?
I don't really expect Democrats to ever wake up because most of their leadership are quietly rooting for the other damned side anyway. But I really expected the idiotarian vs. non-idiotarian split amongst the Libertarians to be more in favor of survival.
Democrat delenda est
Even Mexico is trying like hell to modernize its government and economy.
Ron Paul's America failed spectacularly in 1861, and was crushed in 1865. Lincoln ushered in the era of a strong central government because, to put it simply, it was the only way America was going to survive in a global economy. This idea of laissez faire economics based on the Jeffersonian-Madisonian ideal agrarian economy was pretty much bullshit even in 1787, with the Northern states already moving towards mercantilism and industrialization, and as that process accelerated early in the 19th century, and the divisions between the more Jeffersonian southern states and the industrialized north become more pronounced, the whole thing started to fall apart, and only a series of ugly compromises which really pleased no one kept it going until Lincoln's election finally blew it all to pieces.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You're right. They completely abandoned him on the war in Iraq, on expanding SCHIP, budget vetoes. Oh, wait, they didn't do that at all.
He's still unpopular in opinion polls, but he took the initiative back from the Democrats in 2007 after their election gains in 2006.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
I think every libertarian needs to watch the theoretical political think-piece "Mad Max" before they start discounting the importance of government.
If you mean by "initiative" he's been more willing to use his veto, then yes, I suppose you're right. In reality, the whole damn thing is in a holding pattern. Since he's Command in Chief, Congress has little choice but to pay for his foreign adventures, that's the unfortunate side-effect that the Founding Fathers didn't see when they gave Congress the purse strings, but left the President in charge of running the army.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Or something.
Well, they should change that law, because the current primary system sucks at picking presidents. I'm not trolling. Seriously, something needs to change.
Judging by what's going on in Texas and Florida, and by what happened in Dover, PA, I'd say that the states ain't exactly doing a good job. And thank goodness that the Paulite view of the US isn't in effect, or there's no way in hell those the ACLU could have wiped out the religious fanatics in Dover.
By excellent you must mean small and ineffectual, because that's the kind of army the US had in the 1920s and 1930s. Before you try to shove off the Paulite Military Creed, look at how horrible the first days of the US in WWII were in North Africa in 1942. There's a reason why military funding skyrocketed.
Besides, whether Ron Paul and his cultists like it or not, the US is a global superpower, and every superpower since the Hittites has known you have to have a substantial standing army if you want to be around for any length of time. Just goes to show you how truly ignorant of history Paulites are.
He is for rendering the Federal government as ineffectual as it was prior to the Civil War. We all know how well that worked out. Or maybe some of us don't.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Also keep in mind voter turnout. In 2004, about 50% of the voting population supported Bush, which works out to somewhere around 1/3 of the population voting for him. You can obviously argue about people being too lazy, apathetic, or cynical to go out and vote, but saying that half the country voted for Bush in 2004 is not quite accurate.
Funny thing is, I'm one of those white, male, middle class, conservative Christian types too. Not only that, but I'll probably vote for Obama, too.
I have the same reservations you do about Ron Paul, more or less. I don't have even the tiniest scrap of faith in the free market. It gets made non-free by monopoly forces and if you don't allow government intervention there, no, the free market will not just fix it without a lot of ugly things happening. I know what kind of dirty tricks businesses played at the start of the 20th century and I don't care to see them repeated. And some of them are being repeated: Microsoft, Enron, and the telecoms all come to mind.
And yet, I do agree with Ron Paul on a fair number of points, but usually for all the wrong reasons. I'd love to see him take a few chunks out of the wrongly over-extended federal powers. I'd love to see someone say "no, that is not one of the executive powers" instead of inventing flimsy legal grounds to authorize whatever they want, laws be damned. I'd love to get rid of some of the overly-complex and ridiculous laws. I just fear that political forces would ensure that he'd get rid of the wrong ones first, like those barely propping up some uneven playing fields, rather than getting rid of the government-made playing fields entirely. It wouldn't even be his fault; I can see plenty of industries lining up to get "deregulated" but none of them will line up to give back all the government money they've taken, like the telecoms... I fear that Ron won't take care of our infrastructure, either, and it's going down the tubes. But maybe I'm wrong and he does support the general welfare clause of the constitution more than some of his supporters do.
As for Hillary, I don't think she can do much. I'm not even sure she's electable. You can't undo 12 years of being hated, whether you deserve it or not. I don't want to see that bad blood paralyze DC, it's unproductive, and there's too much of it aimed at her. It may not be her fault, but it's far too late to change the way so many people feel about her now.
As for Obama, I've read about his positions. I don't entirely agree with him, but his positions strike me as reasonable and thoughtful. It's clear that he's at least thought through things like how regulation impacts the Internet. He seems to understand how all of our infrastructure has been rotting under the current administration. Unlike Libertarians, I don't mind paying taxes, what I mind is not having anything worthwhile to show for them. Blowing up foreign countries and starting wars is NOT on this conservative Christian's "worthwhile" list, either. In short, I'd vote for him because I think he's one of the more reasonable people up for office and because I hope he can do something about how our country is splitting apart in acrimony. I think he can make reasonable compromises. Maybe he won't give me everything I hope for, but he's really the only candidate in whom I find any hope.
True, I have reservations over things like abortion. But I feel that the best way to solve that issue is not by legislation forbidding it, but by convincing people that it's not a good thing. I also think that it would be good to concentrate on things that will help people avoid thinking it's a good idea, by which I mean helping people get better neo-natal care, finding cures for birth defects and such, helping single mothers.
In other words, by helping and caring for people, not shoving laws down their throats.
I guess what you expect of a superpower and what I expect of one aren't same.
I thought he was finally using his veto because the congress was in control of the Democrats again. It was pretty clear to me that the White House had a pretty firm grip on congressional Republicans and they never passed anything that didn't meet his approval beforehand. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing since it wastes everyone's time to have the president veto something and send it back to Congress.
I read the internet for the articles.
Whatever the expectations, the reality of being a power has not changed in about 3,500 years. Whether it was the Hittites, the Persians, Alexander's Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Carolingians, the Elizabethan English, the Victornian British Empire, the United States or the Soviet Union, it all boils down to one thing; you need a large standing army. The US denuded the army and navy in and after 1919, in part due to new "peace" initiatives. Then reality struck the US hard and fast.
Now I will freely state that the use of the armed forces by various Administrations is pretty damned questionable, but the idea that the US lives in a world where it can maintain itself territorial integrity and its foreign and domestic interests with some stunted armed services is so woefully out of touch with reality that it's hard to fathom the level of historical ignorance that must be operating within Ron Paul's mind, save for the education that his economic and political ideas demonstrate. The guy doesn't know a fucking thing about what he's talking about.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Obama is too young and inexperienced, just like John F. Kennedy?
No I am not saying Obama == JFK, but if people were OK with JKF's lack of experience, and see how that turned out, why is it an issue with Obama?
Besides, exactly enumerate where this vast reservoir of experience that Hillary has? Senator two terms? Wow I'm impressed.
This person, a registered Republican, is supporting Obama, FWIW.
Clinton is a non-starter.
Isn't it fairly obvious that Hillary's policies will be exactly the same as Bill Clinton's? It's not like there's a lot of leeway for unexpected surprises here.
You can like or dislike Hillary based on what you think of Bill's political alignments, and that's perfectly valid. To some people she's too far left, to others too far right. Object to her politics, certainly.
But disliking her because you think she's dishonest... huh? She's the default, *vanilla* candidate. A dynasty. The taste you've had for eight years in the '90s and for better or for worse, demonstrated itself.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Barack Obama will not get elected because his name is Obama.
If Republicans get to change one letter of Barack Obama's last name to make a comparison, I get to change one letter of Mike Huckabee's.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
At digg, it's even a running joke how nerds like atheism and marijuana.
The horse race in the media is driven by all this nonsense about "momentum" and "viability" -- people are trying to get a sense from the early states who is likely to win, so they can vote for someone who has a chance. But the only reason this is necessary is because the votes are being split 7 or 8 ways. That's madness.
Think about it: suppose a party has three major candidates, one in the middle with respect to the party's base of support, one a little to a left, and one a little to the right. If each voter registered in that party gets to vote for just one candidate in the primary, the two candidates on the left and right will split most of the votes, taking them away from the candidate in the middle. The candidate in the middle, who would be preferred by the most voters in the party, gets eliminated.
The whole purpose of running a primary is to choose a single representative behind which the whole party can unite. If parties didn't run primaries, and all the candidates just ran in the general election, they would split all the votes and probably none would win (imagine a general election with 9 Democrats running against 1 Republican). But running a primary by plurality voting (each voter votes for just one candidate) just re-creates the vote-splitting problem that the primary is supposed to solve.
I can't understand why neither of the parties has decided to run their primary by approval voting (each voter votes for as many candidates as they like). That would better reveal the total support for each candidate, thus giving a better reflection of how well they will do in the general election. The first party to do this, it seems to me, would gain a significant advantage, because it would actually choose the most broadly liked candidate, the strongest candidate for the general election. What they're doing right now seems to be just shooting themselves in the foot.
Keep the same size armed forces here in America and protect us here. Quit fighting a war in Iraq and have bases in other countries. That is a lot of money saved.
http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html
2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)
2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)
By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org
In fact, I believe (but could be wrong) that our state government even passed a law forcing us to move the primaries forward, if necessary, to protect that status.
Yes, that's right. New Hampshire law says your primary must be at least a week before any other. Iowa law says their caucus must be before any other election activity of any sort.
I always thought it would be neat for another state (say Michigan, since we're playing with our times, anyway) to just pass a law that says their primary will be the same day as New Hampshire's, whatever that is.
I agree about quitting the war in Iraq (though I still think Afghanistan is important, and NATO is totally fucking it up). However, I don't see under Paul's plan how exactly you could keep an expansive and effective armed forces.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican.
Which seems appropriate, since the Libertarian Party started largely as a splinter off the Republican Party. B-)
That was back during the Vietnam Era, another time when the R party structure abandoned constitutional limits in favor of big-government meddling with the citizens.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I was about to respond to your post with "Dear Nutbag" but I thought it would be in bad form.
Suffice it to say, the fact that people who support ideas like yours still call yourself a Republican is one of the main reasons I no longer do. Yes, I can at least agree that Ron Paul is one of the crazies, but I actually agree with him on more points than I can with you.
As for the terrorists, if it were as simple as blowing them to hell, we'd have done that already. Our military is remarkably good at doing that. What they aren't good at is building new governments or acting as the police where there are none. Perhaps we should train them to do that, but I'd rather we not have to in the first place. As far as that's concerned, we already have lost. But I guess that there are people like you who still haven't figured it out. I bet I could guess why...
It can be effective without being expansive, I mean, our military does all kinds of training all the time when we aren't in a war. I also agree that Afghanistan is important. It would cost us a lot less (both economically, politically, and in terms of others around the world's negative view of us now) for them to train here and not all around the world. I am an Army brat, and have lived in Germany. There are tons of duplicated facilities there of ours that are a waste of resources. There is no need for us to be there now. It costs tons of money for us to be there instead of just consolidating our forces around our resources we already hve here in the US, and we could still be just as effective at defending ourselves when called upon.
Grammar Nazi
You are probably right about the importance of these elections. However, as an outside observer I can't help myself but thinking that there's something very wrong with the whole process of electing the US President.
Too much money influence, candidates that don't really represent the ideas of political parties they belong to - thus adding to confusion, too much focus on the foreign policies which affects US people in a very negative way...
I also have a feeling that you will elect the democrat, no matter who ends up in presidential elections, as a knee-jerk reaction to last 8 years of Bush government.
She only (barely) won because Republicans voted for her in an open primary. It was no accident that Karl Rove praised her as a formidable candidate; he knows the ONLY Democrat his coven can beat in the general election is Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. She is so universally reviled by the Right, even dead Republicans will ask for a day pass from hell to vote against her - regardless of who the GOP nominee is.
Why not? I see the Republicans wanting Hilary to win the nomination, given the choice of one of the three Democratic top runners. They know people already don't like her and don't trust her, and with all the baggage from Bill's years they know it will be easy to use swift-boat tactics to bring her down. They wouldn't mind Edwards either, being that's he was a lawyer and all. They are positively scared of Obama, since their normal way of running a campaign isn't going to work. He was broad support from the middle. A lot of their talking points like "lack of experience" people see as strengths. He keeps things positive, and negative attacks don't stick to him (take a look at how effective Hilary was at it).
I could easily see Diebold swinging the democratic primary towards Clinton.
This has no reason to be on slashdot except to incite flames.
Yes, I know it effects geeks, and this is an American site, fine. But, it's posted everywhere on the internet, Radio, TV, and general office discussion.
There is no reason for it to be hear.
If there was an event where sites couldn't load do to massive sudden interest(like 9/11), I understand that.
This was pointless.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
for some reasons, they think that the hard lines hand up not a hand out way of thinking doesn't work with the moder skulls full of mush. The funny thing is, this "compassionate conservatism" movement was started by Horace Greeley (a "Social Universalist") in the mid 1800s. He essentially became the father of Communist thought in America. Given the Cold War, people these days want to bury that connection as far under the rug as possible, but the ideals came from the same place and are not very different. Of the three "main" American social philosophies that came out of the 1800s, Social Darwinism, Social Calvinism, and Social Universalism: Social Darwinism led to US Nazi sympathizers, Social Universalism to the US Communist movement (toned down a bit in what we is now called "compassionate conservatism", and Social Calvanism was marginalized. The other fact that is ignored is that the Social Calvinists were far from "hard hearted". They were extremely active in charity and built compassionate organizations all over the place. What is "wrong" with them is that they mostly gave time/effort and sometimes goods, very seldom money. Because they rarely gave *money*, modern socialists discount them as "charity." Somehow, I think leaving a comfortable home and volunteering to walk into a slum and sit down with the poor, sick, and disadvantaged, bothering to find out what they really need and help them is rather more compassionate than voting to send someone else's money through taxes.
[snip] I have googled before and just did again. I see no conflict. People say that he "denounced" evolution as a theory. That's like "denouncing" Relativity as a theory. They *are* theories. That's not "denouncing" anything. As far as I can read and as far as I know, Dr. Paul's stand is simply against the common and popular confusion of Evolution and Abiogensis: the idea that species change over time and question of where it came from in the first place. Most people (and, even, unfortunately, many, many scientists) lump the concepts together. Taken separately, there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Creationism (or the idea that early life came from a comet for that matter). Certainly, the theory taken as a whole that life spontaneously from random molecules on earth and evolved via natural selection from there is just that: a *theory*. The basic tenets of Natural Selection alone are things we observe on a daily basis these days. Now, I doubt, whether or not his use of terms is that pedantic, but either way, raising his hand and being given 10 seconds to explain was no time for a deep lesson on semantics.
So, what is the big deal again?
haahahahahahahahahhaahhaaha sucker
Some things indeed are better to be standardized across the whole and the Constitution spells many of these out, but many things should not be. Remember, that the US is *big* compared to many nations. The individual states are the size of many individual countries and are sovereign in their own right.
There are a number of anomalies across the board. Given my candidate choice, I pay attention to particular ones, but unfair votes concern me, period.
Two I am immediately familiar with:
* A precinct where there were almost 700 registered local active Ron Paul volunteers but less than 400 votes counted. Huh?
* A (small) precinct that counted zero votes for Dr. Paul where a family of three (all of whom voted for him) submitted a challenge. It turns out that the hand ballots recorded 31 votes, but "0" was "accidentally" copied to the tally sheet when it was submitted to the party HQ. "3", "1", "13", "30", I could all understand, but how do you mis-copy "31" as "0". A problem here is that actual counts are usually observed, but the filing of the summary sheets is not.
I am not running around screaming "my candidate should have won". I think he did better, possibly quite a bit better than represented, but I expect that a recount would uncover (and correct) abuse against other candidates as well. People's votes, even if they vote for Attila the Hun, should count. There are people I would probably leave the country for if elected, but I still think the elections should be fair.
I am not even going to get started on the Iowa Caucus. It is so badly handled there is no fixing it and no way a recount would even correct anything. It seems pretty certain at least Giuliani, Romney, and Dr. Paul got under-counted, but who knows by how much or what else was going on. At least the vote is not meant to be binding and the delegates are elected separately (as I understand it).
Given how partisan and divisive elections are getting and how bad the question (and answer) of fraud is growing, it is a bad combination. I really begin to wonder what will happen when a large portion of the population "loses" an election and just plain refuses to accept that the election was fair (perhaps with valid cause). With many of the election systems and processes currently in place, you simply cannot *prove* that an election was anywhere in the ballpark of fair -to either side-. I see bad things from this. Replacing the voting system with something that requires a majority win, encourages moderate candidates or opens things to more parties can defuse the situation somewhat (e.g. Instant Run-off voting, or, better, ranked voting). Those systems tend to be a little less sensitive to manipulation and produce larger/clearer margins of victory.
Why would you have to go and live in a cave if you didn't own an SUV? I wasn't aware of any aspect of the vehicles that prevents cave-dwelling.
... and then they built the supercollider.
> When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
... nor gold, for that matter.
He apologizes for it only when doing politics? I notice a key detail: that it ran only during the time he WASN'T running for office. I sincerely hope he's telling the truth and he doesn't think like that, but I have a really hard time believing that. Look at one thing in particular: he says that he didn't EDIT it, not that he didn't read it or know about it. This is, sadly, normal for someone who wants to tell a lie of misdirection. I know that because, shamefully enough, I've told more than one lie like that myself and it's not that hard to see when someone chooses their words carefully to dance around an issue.
Sorry, I don't trust Ron Paul and I don't trust Libertarian ideals. I have no faith at all in the "Almighty Dollar"
*confusion* How on earth can it be considered kosher in freedom-loving America for a state government to meddle in the affairs of an independent group that happens to involve itself in federal politics? Does this only apply to the Democrats and Republicans, or are the Greens and Libertarians and whoever else might happen to have primaries similarly required to hold them before anyone else?
Look out!
Because the whole concept of "limited supply" goes out the window. Any other questions?
Your argument regarding the pre-eminence of fiat currency would be more convincing if the sole source (the government) of the currency was not capable of borrowing against it's future. The situation as it stands now is that the government can say, "Look, I'll promise to pay you back in the future" when they buy something - a government bond. That bond is a claim on air, however, as there is no gold (or other fungible resource) backing it. If the government needs to pay it back, it simply prints more money, reducing the overall value.
While this can have a 'stabilizing' effect on the economy, it also means that the real goods and services - the real value - has been transferred to the government and away from the private economy. One of the primary problems with government - in particular tyrannies - is that they take wealth away from being held by private individuals. Without any way of demanding real, tangible, fungible and valuable goods in exchange for currency the private individual is at a gross disadvantage.
I am not saying there are not real benefits to fiat currency, but there are real benefits to a backed standard as well. One of the major drawbacks with fiat currency is heightened when the government in question is allowed to deficit spend - spend against it's future. I don't see supporting a fiat currency without that check in the government.
[Ego]out
.... makes him somehow akin to Einstein?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... is the intellectual equivalent of Bozo the Clown.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... deaths. Hundred of thousands of them. Unnecessarily. By deceptive means.
I can't think of more power or more important decisions like those (compared to that US internal political matters are fluff).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You just have to look to other places.
If you think US people is any different you are completely mistaken.
Mr Obama may be just in the crossroads where people are prepared to ignore their tribal prejudices because the options are immensily worst.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Koffi Annan wanted to have a hair cut in a barber shop somewhere in the deep south, he was told in no uncertain terms that they did not serve "niggers" there, to which he replied he was an African student from Ghana, not a nigger.
The owner agreed with him and proceeded to serve him.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The UK has 3 major parties (4 or more on its constituting parts).
Mexico has 3 plus 2 minor ones.
Germany has 4 major parties (although they normally themselves in two blocks).
Israel, Italy, France have so many that nobody bothers to count them.
And so on and so forth.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.