Slashdot Mirror
Election Dirty Tricks About To Begin
An anonymous reader writes "ABC is warning that dirty election tricks are about to start. In the past, they've ranged from late-night robo-calls to voter intimidation. ABC has a pretty good list of what to watch out for as told by Allen Raymond, a former Republican operative, who was reformed after spending three months in prison in 2006 for pulling some of the stunts he now helps to prevent." To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign.
Clean tricks?
Funny how often "Country First" seems to involve stealing, lying, and trampling all over democracy, law, equality, justice and the Constitution...
A-Bomb
like voter fraud?
CLEVELAND - Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.
The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Where have you guys been? The ads have been on TV for a couple of weeks. The economy is going down the tubes, so distraction is the key.
i am already getting
Mc Cain + Palin spam emails
for last few weeks
tho im not from US :( stupid spammers
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Strange that, you'd nearly think it was a popularity contest... oh wait
You might learn something
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
... except for:
1) citizenship
2) name
3) birthdate
4) state driver's license or SSN (required)
But hey, they're poor, so obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Especially since they so often vote the wrong way, and thus prove how unAmerican they are.
Yesterday I received a DVD in the mail from an obscure group known as the "Clarion Fund." It was a hatchet job meant to scare people about the evils of muslim extremism.... The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label....
The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
"A plague on both your houses" is the correct line (from Romeo and Juliet)
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Dictatorships are run by dictators. Monarchies are run by monarchs. Democracies are run by demagogues. What did you expect? for the people to vote for the best candidate? no way. They'll vote what appears to be better for them. It's not like you can vote based on what you don't know... :)
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Appearance is 90%.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There is nothing more essential to a democracy or representative government than VOTING and ELECTIONS. They must be sacred. Voter fraud, election fraud, and illegal fundraising (thereby affecting the outcome) cannot and must not be tolerated. They must be dealt-with swiftly and severely. They are the moral equivalent of TREASON and should be punishable by death or life in prison.
While some might laugh-off "dead people voting", "100% precinct turnouts", "illegal alien voting", and "Internet contributions from donors named 'Good Will'", these crimes undermine the very foundation of our Great Nation. They cannot be tolerated.
electronic voting. no better device for dirty tricks has ever been invented
paper ballots. ocr. end of debate
anything else, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
fox news? plutocrat neocons? liberal media? america hating moonbats? corporate lobbyists? christian dominionists? uninformed apathetic voters?
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to american democracy
nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to american democracy
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Try the turn of the 19th Century. Look up the Adams vs. Jefferson election if you want to see really dirty tricks.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Man, I wish more Americans realized the emptiness of their "political" debates. The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently not continue to dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
Well, I'd say Obama's a fair bit smarter than McCain... with Palin coming in a very distant last place. Dress-wise, I'd say it's 50/50. Articulate - Biden seems to be the most fluent. But this is all from a UK resident who, like pretty much the rest of the world, hopes the US people vote Bush out and Obama in. McCain looks like he'd be disasterous - but if that stupid cretinous moron Palin has to replace a deceased McCain then bye bye USA. I'll ratchet up my Chinese lessons and forget about North America.
Has anyone seen any of these kind of blody nuckle tactics yet in this election? Do you report them to the local police or state election board? I'm not talking about the typical FUD TV ads or stump speeches. I was hoping to see some of the drama first hand, but now that Michigan is basically uncontested I'm probably out of luck.
I'm sometimes curious as to what "news" Fox is covering on their morning show as compared to everyone else. While CNN, MSNBC, CNBC et al are covering the falling markets, what each campaign is doing, comments and the like, Fox is covering the dirty tricks of Ohio and how the Democrats are trying to steal the election.
What dirty tricks you say? The fact that people can register and vote on the same day for a one-week period. Now, as Fox spins it, this opens the door for fraudulent voting and other dirty tricks since there was a big push to register voters and have them vote on the same day.
Mind you, Fox didn't say word one when the head of Diebold made his infamous statement because after all, that wasn't a dirty trick nor even the appearance of a dirty trick.
So have no fear, Fox will report all the dirty tricks the Democrats attempt to pull.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
how about the one where that one side convinces it's followers that it's less corrupt than the other side, and (perhaps) takes LESS money from special interests, even though the full disclosure sites show they actually took at least as much, if not more money?
What bugs me about this election, more than any other, is that the sides are polarizing. As a student of history, this is setting off alarm bells.
Republicans and Democratics: Zelotry will get you in trouble.
Well, it's not like their picking candidates for a beauty contest, now, is it?
Man, I wish more Europeans realized the irrelevance of their countries. The pointlessness of a N-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently continue to not dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
vote Bush out
He's gone, regardless. He's limited to two terms.
i'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed that.. while she did very well compared to early interviews.. saying she "won" is complete crap.. all she did was add drama to things and put in little fear remarks when no one had the chance to question her on them.. such as the closing .. i wonder where she gets off saying we are all going to lose our jobs if democrats are elected..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, when you look to countries which have more workable multi-party systems you often see far more political instability. Look at Japan, many European countries and so on - weak coalitions that are easily toppled as political allegiances change.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
...But she changed the subject of the questions when she didn't know the answer! That's what a good debater does, right?
With less than 28 days to go before election day StopPoliticalCalls.org has started to see reports in the media and from members that the robo calls have started, big time. You can help us Robo calls are the worst form of political campaigning. Candidates can send them and voters receive them and they disappear into thin air. There is no record. Until now. The internet has made it easier than ever to record robo calls and then put them up for the world to listen to. There is no better disinfectant than sunlight. **What we need you to do: StopPoliticalCalls.org is keeping a database of all robo calls that are made in the 2008 election cycle. Since we are non-partisan, we have all calls made from all sides. Here are two examples from members in the past two weeks right here in Northern Virginia. One is Progressive and one is from the VA GOP. 1--Working Families Win Robo call regarding Frank Wolf --> http://thinkdodone.typepad.com/ccd/2008/10/working-familie.html 2--VA GOP robo call --> http://thinkdodone.typepad.com/ccd/2008/09/va-gop-robocall.html **What you can do: 1. Record the robo call. 2. Send the file or link to the file to me at info AT citizensforcivildiscourse.org with the subject: "Robocall Recording: Date, Name of Candidate" **How: 1. If you have a VOIP service like Vonage, it is easy since the system creates files you can email quickly. 2. If you have an old fashioned answer phone simply get out your "camcorder", video tape the answer phone with the volume on, and upload the recording to YouTube. Regards, Shaun Dakin CEO and Founder The National Political Do Not Contact Registry StopPoliticalCalls.org
How about ACORN, on a voter registration drive, making up names and addresses from the phone book? Man its going to be a long election :/
That he is a less bad candidate than McCain is obvious to anyone with two ears and a brain, but anyone who thinks his policies would be all that much different from McCain hasn't been paying attention to Obama's voting record or campaign rhetoric.
Nobody should be allowed to vote unless they provide their public key
Maybe he meant McCain = Yet Another Bush
The biggest trick is the one that Obama is pulling. The one that makes us all think that he is somehow a better choice because he appears smarter, cooler, and more articulate than McCain.
Oh, you mean COMMON SENSE?
Perhaps that's your problem; there are ways to learn about candidates other than what's on TV. While obviously none are perfect, some of them are better at conveying what a candidate is actually like.
We need to continue drilling the McCain campaign on economic issues. Neither McCain nor Palin has addressed the economy in an intelligent, organized manner.
We need to continue drilling Obama on the constitutionality of the things he wants to do. Social healthcare is prominent unconstitutional issue and it must be drilled.
We need to continue drilling the media to get more focus on the third party candidates and the up to 10% of the vote they have in some states, especially swing states like Ohio.
Our dirty tricks--we the geeks--can be to FLOOD iReport, Digg, Reddit, and such with third party coverage. They need to be inundated with it.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Your post sounds like you're trying to advocate the "reasonable middle ground" or something, but since it contains at least one explicit lie, I suspect you may have a particular agenda. Though you may have just been misled by others with the same agenda.
First, for the true but misleading part of your post: it's true that both parties do this. All political parties always have and always will play dirty tricks to some degree. But that's hardly the "bigger point" if it's always true of everyone, because it ignores the matter of degree: not all political parties have always pulled the same amount of dirty tricks at all times in all locations. For the last few US elections, either the Republicans have pulled dirty tricks on a much larger and more systematic scale than the Democrats, or the Democrats are much better at hiding it. But the typical republican "voice of reason" response is to find some minor incidences of Democratic corruption and treat those as if they're equivalent -- or to give up on specific data and just repeat "Chicago!" over and over.
Now, for the explicit lie, which is actually an instance of Republican intimidation and corruption: Obama supporters did not go to the police to have dissenting voices intimidated in Missouri. Some state employees volunteered to work for the Obama campaign in their private capacity, that is, as citizens. They did not use their state powers to help Obama. State employees have been doing identical volunteer work for the McCain campaign. This is as it should be. No police or prosecutorial powers were abused, or even used, in this process. These were just citizens participating in the political campaign. That the governor could make this into an issue of Democrats hiring police squads to track down and suppress their opponents, and not be torn to shreds by his constituients for the obvious falsehood, is a travesty. Nonetheless, it's become a Republican talking point even though it has no basis in reality.
So, no, the bigger point is not that both parties do this. I wish the Democrats did it even less than they do, but that doesn't mean that both parties are somehow on the same ethical level right now.
I am the man with no sig!
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies. Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight.
Either approval voting or range voting (aka score votingwould break the forced two-valued dichotomy of the current system.
(In fact, approval voting is just one version of range voting-- in games theory, they are identical).
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own. Neither campaign will tell the whole truth. So, if nobody won, I guess it technically is a tie. The problem is that all of America loses.
Darn tootin' right she won! Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory when the criteria for "winning" is that you don't make yourself look like too much of a moron on international issues AND you have to study for a week to pull that off.
Say it ain't so Joe.
At least Putin didn't rear his head into the debate.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Australian system, compulsory preferential voting and proportional representation in the upper house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system
Yes there's mostly two parties, but its much easier for smaller parties to actually win some seats and make a real difference and we've had a mostly stable system.
What a lot of those crypto/security people don't about their fancy fool proof electronic voting schemes is:
Elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
A typical Joe Sixpack has got to be able to look at the elections and grudgingly admit - "Darnit, my party lost and there wasn't that much cheating".
Rather than "What's this complicated bullshit? They're cheating big time I know it".
And the funny thing is - it doesn't really have to be that complicated. Hand counting scales.
Maybe he meant McCain = Yet Another Bush
You know, I don't buy this in the least. Not that I buy the "maverick" crap either, but McCain isn't really a guy that Republicans love. If it weren't for what an awful job that GW Bush did the last 8 years, they'd never have a guy as moderate as him in their #1 slot. You'd see Romney with Huckabee instead. The simple fact is that McCain is enough of a moderate that Republican primary voters saw him as a change from the status quo.
Honestly, I think we'll be ok with either Obama or McCain. The real scary part of this election is Palin. She's completely unqualified to hold any elected office. She took 6 years and 6 colleges to get an undergraduate degree in journalism, and apparently she has absolutely no grasp of foreign affairs at all. If McCain wins, everyone should pray for/toast to his continued health.
- Vincit qui patitur.
Well as long as we all sit here and watch the Reps and Dems destroy our country then yes we all lose. And we only have ourselves to blame. Is it the republicans fault that they have spent the last 8 years ruining America or is it our fault for letting it happen?
I live in South Carolina, and have seen many nasty tricks over the years (being in a particularly conservative/religious-nutball/reactionary state). Of course, there was the infamous John McCain flyer that was sent out to upstate Rebublicans in 2000 (implying McCain had a black love child). But the nastiest bit is the one they've done the last two elections (and will almost certainly do again this time). Republicans show up a precincts on or near historically black colleges (like Benedict) and demand to see people's ID's before they vote, checking every crossed "i" and dotted "t" and generally trying to intimidate black voters or make it as hard on them as possible (since they know they'll likely vote Democrat). They do not, of course, do this for precincts at predominantly white colleges or in strong Republican precincts.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
the only thing i have to say is
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
please read it in full..
then look up the history of Presidential Directives and what in history they have changed including overruling the supream court - (freeing of slaves, the march of tears, WWII jap camps to name a few)
then ask - why - if it isn't to be used, was it passed at all?
then realize that economy is listed
"(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions; "
and just look around..
and again ask.. if it isn't to be used then why was it put in place?
For anyone who is going to respond to this.. please read it in full first.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
As a Canadian, I have to say that if the worst does come to pass... Well, let's just say that there is a whole bunch of concrete and razor wire standing by. Don't tell the americans about this though, they'd just get all pissy.
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
Not so. Maybe he could have "run" for an additional term, but "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice", period.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Man, I wish more people realized the irrelevance of countries. The pointlessness of systems based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Actually, I think there's some hope.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's even more empty than you realize.
the candidates REFUSE to attend the debate if they dont get to review the questions first. they also will refuse to answer some questions.
The hard questions that people want answered they refuse to deal with. That's how fricking empty it is.
I want them to answer the hard ones.
"when are you going to end this war on the middle east?"
"What are you personally going to do to fix healthcare?"
"How are you going to help address corruption in Capitol hill?"
"What is your position on Medical Marijuana? Why?"
"What are you going to do to restore the constitution and amercian rights?"
They REFUSE to answer the above questions or the other hard ones I cant think of.
They also refuse to debate with the other candidates that are willing to answer those questions. Our election process is a complete joke.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But McCain and his li'l gal are people the Republicans can use.
After all, if you're trying to destroy a government, which conservatives admit is their plan, you really don't look for a great leader. Just a chump who likes to stand and wave. That's McCain.
Palin is the most dangerous. She's Dick Cheney without all the charm.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Really? I heard they both pretty much did what was expected from them. Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter. Biden demonstrated he knew what he was talking about without getting pedantic, and that he'd be an adequate choice as VP.
And according to the analyses I read, that's pretty much all the Obama/Biden ticket needs to do: show they're not idiots, reliable, and an adequate choice to lead the country. McCain and Palin are working so hard to appear mavericks that they come across as unreliable loonies.
No idea if it's true, but if it is, it'd be pretty impressive that a young, black advocate for change has conquered the "safe choice" position. Although that's probably more because of McCain's panicky stunts than his own doing.
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote
and if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's osmething wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, that's better than what Bush did in 2000. He didn't answer a single question, and somehow he won it.
If your goal is to win, winning without answering a single question is about as good as you can get.
In a absolute system (one party in power, can do mostly what they want) things get done, and they can steamroll through unpopular things that are for the longterm good, but they can also steamroll through things that are for no-one but themselves
In a true multiparty system you must get concensus to get anything done so it is difficult to get unpopular things done
In a two party system like the US have, when the president and the house are the same party (as they often are in the first half of a term in office) they can push through almost anything .... when the president and the house are different parties (as they often are in the second half of a term in office
Stability is a false good, anyone in power for too long stops caring about mistakes (because they have not suffered for them)
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Is political stability necessarily good? There's an optimal point somewhere between the instability of, say, Italy, and the stability of, say, Cuba.
As for the two party system: it can work sometimes. I'm not convinced that it's working in the US, and I'm not convinced that in general it's better than a three or four party system.
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
You think that'll hold the Alouettes fans?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think what Obama really radiates is a non black-and-white worldview.
Some may say that it is him being a politician (which doesn't make sense considering that many politicans like to paint the world in black and white). Some may say that it is a weakness of his, causing him to do "stupid things" like agreeing with his opponent on occasion.
However, the end result is that you get the appearance of someone who actually tries to understand an issue before making a decision. And that is what real intelligence is about. Not being closeminded, but still being able to make a choice when needed.
Is Obama faking it, possible, but I doubt it. It is not something that is easily faked. There are quite a few things that I don't agree with Obama on, but questioning that part of him is not one of them.
If you want to attack him, it is easier to go after him for voting politically instead of what he actually thinks is best, because there is probably a lot of truth in that. But then again, most politicians do. It is just that Obama has tried to stand up against that, which is coming back to bite him in the ass.
As a card carrying member of the "Bush is a Moron" club even I have to admit Bush actually did quite well as a debater. In terms of scoring debate points he fought both Gore and Kerry to a draw. I attribute this more to Gore and Kerry focusing too much on pre-prepared talking points rather than thinking on the fly during the debate, which made them seem wooden, disingenuous and out of touch. Bush had his talking points too (fuzzy math) but was able to put together some coherent statements responding to his opponents arguments. Comparing Bush to Palin is really an insult to Bush's intelligence--and I wouldn't have thought that was possible a month ago.
As a VP candidate Palin is the new Dan Quayle--only without the pedigree. If she were a man she would have been laughed off completely weeks ago, but they've played the gender card well.
But wait!! She was great 'cause she winked at meeee!
Wherever you go, there you are.
Well, it's not like their picking candidates for a beauty contest, now, is it?
Well, that would make the choice a lot easier.
Whenever I am watching a politician on television, and they are appearing to be smart and articulate, I just turn the volume back up and that usually solves the problem.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I know! I just want to Give her a hug!.
Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
But Palin was McCain's choice. She illustrates his judgment, or rather lack thereof; we would not be ok with the sort of president who chooses Palin for a running mate.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Yeah, but wasn't it one of those 2004 debates where Bush had that bulge from something under his jacket? Did anyone ever really find out what the heck that thing was?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
"So Governor Palin, what is your favorite pizza topping?" "Well, I may not answer the question the way you want me to, but Obama has voted to raise taxes on 94 times. Baby."
Well, I didn't think he won. I don't think anyone with any intelligence thought he won, either. Although it proves that P.T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.
If I want to say that we were right to try and stay out of WWII even as genocide occurred, I'd be completely within my rights, I could even go further and suggest that it was a good thing, try doing that in Europe. It is a genuinely disgusting sentiment, but here you can actually say it.
"In Europe"? What the hell does that mean? I'm "European", and I can say that in public. AFAIK there's nothing prohibiting me from doing it other than shame and life-long ridicule. I'd say the same applies to most European countries, other than Germany where it may - or may not - fall under the anti-nazi speech laws, but then Germany is the scene of the crime, and what they do is not my concern.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Well, as an Australian I prefer our system by far compared to the US system. I just didn't want to derail the thread.
Preferential and mandatory voting leads to the best representation of voter intention I've seen in the world, but it also can lead to the balance of power being held by a single independent politician. A few years back Brian Harradine held the balance of power in the senate, and was able to massively pork-barrel for Tasmania by selling his vote for terms that suited him well (even though the gov't of the day had an electoral mandate to deliver). It can be argued either way whether this is good or bad politics.
The best example I've seen in our politics so far was in Tasmania some years back when the Labor Party had to join a coalition with the Greens to form a government. There was a real move towards Green politics in Southern Tasmania, and that actually did come out in the elected politicians. It didn't last so long, and after a while the two major parties reworked the system to destroy third party power (yay democracy!) but it was the best representation of a third party I've seen here.
You may note that I discount the Nationals in the federal political coalition with the Liberals. They are utterly spineless, bending to the Libs' whim immediately and obediently. Sadly they represent the 'bush' voters as much as any inner-city Lib does (and their complete willingness to fold on Telstra was all the proof we ever needed of that). More's the pity. A real coalition would be better for all concerned.
(Help for our international friends - the Liberals (note the capital) are the Australian conservatives, Labor are closest to the small-L liberals and the Nationals are meant to represent the rural voters.)
To any Australian voters - always vote below the line! Distribute your preference how you want to, don't let some party official give your vote away!
(diatribe over, resume normal transmission)
As a card carrying member of the I dislike leftist politicians club, I have to say Bush got his clock cleaned in the debate against Kerry. He came across as whiny and petulant ("It's a hard job").
Make no mistake about it, Palin is smart. She did bad in one interview, but both the Couric and the Gibson interviews were hostile cut, splice, and smear pieces.
Keep in mind what Palin did to become governor. She defeated the incumbent Republican in the primary, then defeated a popular former Democratic governor during the general election. You don't do this by being some dumb broad who got lucky. And she's gone on to have a very high popularity rating in her home state.
Cultures yes, genetics no. We are not automata
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
IMO, Bush did not do well against Gore (aside from the fact that he impressed people who care more about how someone looks than what comes out of their mouth). Bush may not have been wooden in the 2000 debate, but he came across as extremely insincere. I'd take wooden over insincere any day. He sounded like a used-car salesman. Maybe that's what most people like, but that vibe has always bothered me. Combined with the fact that every single answer against Gore was "Well folks, I'm stupid. But I can surround myself with smart unscrupulous people who will tell me what to do.", I knew from his first debate with Gore that Bush's presidency would be bad. I had no idea it would be this bad.
Now we hear McCain saying the same thing (about the economy, at least). Fortunately Obama looks good and comes across well to the same people who decided that Bush won his debates against Gore without answering a single question. No one can win an election if only the intelligent people vote for him.
Ah, clearly my humorous comment wasn't well pitched.
I don't receive US TV, and all I know about your elections is from reading newspapers, commentary and blogs. I was (badly) attempting humour.
I'll leave that to the professionals next time. Or put a smiley face to bludgeon the message home.
In a true multiparty system you must get concensus to get anything done so it is difficult to get unpopular things done.
True enough, but the right thing and the popular thing are often not the same. As a libertarian I would say that a broad consensus, across a wide and diverse group of people, varied in terms of income, geography, race, gender, rural vs. urban, etc., should be a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for the passage of any law. Interestingly that is exactly why the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was . . it was designed to make exactly such a consensus a necessary (but not sufficient) prerequisite for any governmental action at the federal level. Unfortunately those checks and balances have mostly come apart, so we now have a mostly national (not federal) system in which people want to believe they have some stake and some semblance of control, but in which the same unelected oligopoly actually holds most of the power regardless of who wins elections.
Nonaggression works!
Britain is not a typical European democracy, it is an effective two party system. The nearest thing to a viable third party (The Liberal Democrats) have their seat count kept low by our system of first-past-the-post (rather than proportional representation, the norm in mainland European countries that gives them their multiparty elections).
Leveling anti-European criticisms at Britain is stupid because of how politically aligned to the US we are. IMHO my country would be vastly improved by independence from America.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
See the problem with answering questions honestly is that americans don't want to hear the truth. Carter proved that out when he asked the americans to tighten their belts and live within their means. They called his speech a "malaise" because Americans didn't want to hear it or accept it. So Reagan was voted in when he said "Carter is wrong, you can have anything you want!"
Bush Sr. said no new taxes. But a tax hike was required at an important time, so he helped raise taxes. He was then voted out.
A significant portion of Americans believe that the US government is required to preserve their specific way of life, no matter what that is. What's why we require so much foreign oil. That's why we have such large cars. That's why so many people have such large credit card debt. We want our politicians to tell us we can have everything, and they want them to ensure that we can get it. Few Americans are willing to accept that maybe we personally all have to accept responsibility and start buying less and tighten our belts and accept higher taxes. We have to start thinking about quality of life, and not "quantity" of life.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
<p>OK, have a look at a HTML cheatsheet.</p>
<p>Notice how you can use <p> to start a paragraph, and </p> to end a paragraph? Slashdot formatting works the same way. </p>
<p>I'm just saying.. </p>
"They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own."
That's their job but I think there was much more to it than that. I'm a 50-ish Aussie who knows virtually nothing about Biden or Palin, I watched the debate on youtube expecting to see a loudmouth yanky politician argue with a rabid "soccer mom". What I saw was a polished statesman forced into debating a not so rabid "soccer mom", eg: in his conclusion he pratically begged the American people to choose reason and science over fear and faith.
That he had to have the debate with such an ordinary crackpot speaks volumes for American democracy, choosing Biden would speak equally well of Joe Sixpack.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ah, screw it.
When someone says "The biggest trick is the one that Obama is pulling. The one that makes us all think that he is somehow a better choice because he appears smarter, cooler, and more articulate than McCain," I feel okay to ask how you can tell just by looking that someone actually is "smarter, cooler and more intelligent." Clearly the original poster has never met either man, and can't make a judgement that way. That leaves either reading text or viewing on TV as the most common means a voter will have some contact, at whatever remove, with the candidates.
So when I ask this, I imagine that it's clear that I'm holding my tongue firmly in cheek. Obviously my post failed pretty comprehensively on that front.
To anyone who uses more of the media than the glass screen in the lounge room, it's clear which candidate has more functioning brain cells, higher intellect and more flexibility on complex issues. Sadly, few people look beyond that large screen.
I find that a very dubious claim. The Constitution enumerates the powers that the federal legislative bodies should hold, and grants them the authority to do so. The problem is that politicians use the clause giving them power to regulate interstate commerce, combined with the necessary-and-proper clause, to put their hands into everything. The typical defense of this view is McCulloch v. Maryland, in which SCOTUS granted the federal government the power to institute a bank. Given that the Constitution grants the power "To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof," this isn't too troubling. But today you'll find all sorts of situations where powers have been stretched much, much further.
While recent Republicans have been quite guilty of this, I view the Democrats as the worse offenders. You won't find federal authority over education in the Constitution. Or welfare. Or science subsidies. Or health care.
I'm not saying these are bad ideas. I'm saying the Constitution does not grant that authority to the federal government. Implied or correlated powers are one thing, but completely unrelated powers are another. Someone who's read and understood the Constitution by itself should conclude that these are issues that should be handled by the several states. It's sad that neither party represents the viewpoint that a lot of people hold -- that the federal government should be made weaker, not stronger.
>Yeah, but wasn't it one of those 2004 debates where Bush had that bulge from something under his jacket? Did anyone ever really find out what the heck that thing was?
Yes.
Remember, the democrats running were for gun control, so Bush was ready for them.
If they had pulled out a gun during the debate that said "Replica" on the side of it...
Bush would have pulled out a gun saying "Desert Eagle .50" on the side of it.
Now run along, there's no pussy for you here.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
Why was this modded up? The first sentence is simply untrue. In every major presidential debate, the moderators make it perfectly clear that the questions were not shared with anyone prior to the event. Do you think that journalists such as Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, or the late Tim Russert would flat-out lie to their viewers? It's true that the candidates haggle over the most minute details, such as podium height, but I think you're confusing finagling over the details of the format of the debate with knowing the questions in advance.
As for the second point, I'll admit that candidates will sometimes refuse to answer questions (Palin especially comes to mind). But as Gwen Ifill explained on MTP this week, it is not her job as moderator to force Palin to answer. It was a debate between the candidates, and therefore her role was merely to guide the questioning. Biden should have been the one to call Palin out on her non-answers. That was his failure, not Ifill's. As for your "hard" questions:
1. Was talked about extensively in the last debate, which focused on foreign policy.
2. Was talked about to an extent in the last debate, which is substantial given that it was supposed to focus on foreign policy. Will probably be a major focus of tonight's debate.
3. The fact is that this isn't a big issue for most people, especially with the economy in the tank. Nevertheless, the candidates' positions are readily available: McCain will continue the Bush administration's policies towards medical marijuana, and Obama will instruct the Justice Department to not enforce the federal laws on medical marijuana patients.
4. The way this question is worded, it will never be asked. It is loaded.
And she's gone on to have a very high popularity rating in her home state.
How long do you think that's going to last now that the McCain campaign has flown in a bunch of high-priced Washington lawyers to interfere with the troopergate investigation? Frontier independent types aren't going to like being told what to do by out of town lawyers -- even if they disagreed with the investigation in the first place.
Make no mistake about it, Palin is smart
What's smart about believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man and the dinosaurs walked the Earth together?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
At least Putin didn't rear his head into the debate.
He's too busy invading Alaska while Palin is out of town and has her guard down.... ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Meh ... As a card carrying "politicians are the demise of this country" club, she is a post turtle for the presidency. She was a tactic, a strategy. Why must politicians resort to such things. Remember when people got elected for what really matters?
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
The problem with our "two party" system is the two parties are nearly identical, especially in the leadership. The planks of both parties are considerably different, but it has been a long time since a Republican has followed its party's plank.
Carrol Quigley, Georgetown professor and mentor to Bill Clinton said this in Tragedy & Hope,
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers." "Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
He also had this to say:
It is increasingly clear that, in the twentieth century, the expert will replace ... the democratic voter in control of the political system. Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits
(Tragedy and Hope: 866).
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Brain slug. Unfortunately the Republicans did not make good on their promise of brain slugs for everyone, providing them only to other Republicans.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Well, I may not answer the question the way you want me to, but Obama has voted to raise taxes on 94 times. Baby."
"Wait, I know about the 94 times she is referring to, and that is completely false! Praise Obama, Amen."
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
Well, I didn't think he won. I don't think anyone with any intelligence thought he won, either. Although it proves that P.T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.
I think it proves you're one of those people Pauline Kael made famous when she said "I don't see how Nixon could have possibly won. No one I know voted for him"
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Comparing Bush to Palin is really an insult to Bush's intelligence--and I wouldn't have thought that was possible a month ago."
I've come to this epiphany only recently, though i felt it a long time ago...
Almost any discussion of our current President, and by extension any Republican candidate, by the loyal opposition generally referred to as the Democratic Party, seems to regularly include an ad hominem
Many people generally seem to be willing to use ad hominem attacks against Republicans, as the above quoted excerpt is an example thereof... Of course, these attacks are without substance or merit, unless of course the claim about a person's trait or characteristic is true and germane. Just so we're clear on this, our current President may be a moron, but this is not borne out by his ascendence to the Presidency, nor his choice of advisors and operatives. In other words, he's not so stupid that he didn't manage to win the Presidency. Twice. Of course, to be fair, the failure of the Democrats to defeat him is not because they are stupid. Being partisan, I lay that on their failed arguments, though I may be wrong.
Remarkably, however, I'm convinced that it is current Democratic Party strategy to consider any challenge, disagreement, or rebuttal of their positions to be by definition 'ad hominem attacks'. A clever device. rather than debate the merits, first claim assumption that any disagreement is obviously uninformed, specious, or wrong-headed, and then label it a personal attack. Ah, there goes any cogent opposition, down the drain of utter refutation by the basest or means - calling them idiots. No, malicious idiots.
The real trick is to cast your opponent as incapable of meaningful participation in the debate, as they are either mentally/emotionally/ethically inadequate, motivated purely by the desire to insult your person, etc...
Yes, the real trick is to deny your opposition any basis for debate.
Not working.
ABC, a controlled puppet of one of the 5 corporations who own 95% of all USA mainstream media and who's masters hold controlling shares in both presidential candidates, wants you to believe that there is some sort of real choice and buy into this false left-right dichotomy.
Unfortunately for you, this is all a puppet trick played out on a stage when the real usurping of our government occurred a century ago and we have been subjected to a form of subversive slavery with increasingly severity since.
Watch this great big brother talk.
The real battle is not between obama and mcain. The real battle appears to be between the neonazi faction of bush and cheney who have been moving towards a coup for the past 8 years and may have finally made their move on oct.1 versus the established uber elite who oppose this and would like to see the system of subversive control remain in place as-is.
Was the 20 trillion payout the bush administration handed out this fall enough to satisfy them? Remember, because of fractional reserve banking, every trillion they dump into existence immediately becomes 9 trillion (conservatively: see "modern money mechanics").
Liberty.
What's so smart about believing that democrats only want to tax those making over $250,000/year? They bring out that bedtime fairy tale every election.
And how does the incumbent party responsible for the largest increases in national debt in history continue to claim that they're the fiscally responsible party?
Good! Laptop burglaries at Democratic offices here in Minnesota every election like clockwork.
OK, I'm going to play the part of a party-neutral observer, since I hate all politicians. Here is what you need to do to get a clean election.
-Republicans: Alright, you need to let minorities and homeless people votes. I know, it sucks. And you can't vote for dead people. And you can't arrange for campaign contributors to provide the electronic voting machines. Etc. I know you guys are aware on some level of the crap you've done.
-Democrats: You need to get rid of winner-take-all voting systems. California, I'm looking at you.
Of course this won't happen because the margins will always be close enough to make voting machine scams worth it. And truly representative voting would be a disaster for the dems, since taking the winner take all states gives them equal footing against all the representative states that are taken by republicans. Funny how that works.
OK, go ahead and rip my plan apart.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Really expensive keggers, with millions of servants running around dishing out snacks and booze.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
when the sun king ruled france, all of the propaganda and lies you pointed to above was in full force, deeply ingrained in the social dna of aristocrats and serfs. and yet the people still rebelled. not so much because they were smart and knew better, but simply because they were hungry
china's government has been described as the harvard alumni society with a standing army. it can do no wrong. it is perfect. except it isn't. it's human. it can, and has, made mistakes, and will do so again. the difference between the usa and china is that when the government deos something that proves deeply unpopular with the people, or makes some teribble mistake (the great leap forward, or invade iraq), or some horrible national crisis hits, in a democracy, the government can be swept aside and a new one can take its place, bloodlessly and without any effort. meanwhile, in china, in a totalitarian state, no matter how many lies are spread, the real world effects of that mistake or crisis persists, and grows, and stays a permanent mark on the system. not that the people have to even know the truth. they can blame foreign countries for something their own government did wrong if the propaganda machine is solid enough. but you can't make up a lie that covers an empty stomach. meaning: the mistakes compound over time, and you permanently impoverish the country, regardless of what the people believe is to blame for that impoverishment. and that leads to revolution: the empty stomach
the usa is not even 250 years old. and it is the most powerful country in the world. more powerful than much larger countries and much older civilizations. why?
because of democracy. when you have the freedoms and social stability in a democracy, you get a country that can adapt to horrible challenges and difficult times, and survive, because it can, with a snap of the fingers, change course with a new government and a new ideology. the ultimate in adaptive pragmatism. no totalitarian state can be that nimble. its more like an aircraft carrier trying to turn on a dime: it has massive investment in an ideological framework, and it cannot merely elicit edicts that contradict deeply ingrained ideology
well, actually, in some ways, it can. does it strike you as odd the the chinese communist party lords over the most capitalist system in the world? do you think this ideological hollowness results in no decrease in legitimacy?
that harvard alumni society with a standing army realizes this
a totalitarian state cannot persist, no matter how absolute its control over the people's will. for the sake of retaining power at all costs, it simply devoles into a weak, brittle, impoverished country. no lie fills an empty stomach. and then its revolution, or mass starvation, and even greater weakness
meanwhile, a democracy simply changes its ideological colors, and marches on, as demands and crises change, completely adaptive and nimble. this country outsurvives, outcompetes, and is richer than the ideologically brittle ones
so yes, if absolute retension of power is your point, yes, you win: you can lie to the people completely. however, if also want to have a country that can stay healthy and rich and survive as a force on the world stage, then you want a democracy, because a totalitarian state can do nothing but devolve into poverty over time
you can say china is an example contrary to this statement. actually, china is liberalizing economically, just not politically. the story is incomplete. there will come a point where any further growth, or even retention of growth, will require greater nimbleness that can only come from a democratic government. that further adhesion to a totalitarian ideological iceberg will simply mean china will begin to slide back into poverty. then its the empty stomachs of the peasants that will lead the way to revolution, that have always led the way to revolution, no matter what the propaganda is or what people believe
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Remember when people got elected for what really matters?
Not really, .... no.
> Iraq is not a war. It's an invasion and occupation.
And your point would be? The usual result of a war is the taking of somebody else's territory and the normal word for what happens after is occupation. By your 'logic' WWII was not a war, we just invaded and occupied Germany and Japan. And Hitler and Tojo didn't even start a 'War' they just invaded and occupied some minor countries. In a few years when you graduate and realize that not only do YOU not know squat, that your profs were 'tards too you will regret your words being imortalized in the slashdot archives.
> Just like Gaza and the West bank.
See? Ignorance on display. They could have peace any time they wanted it. It's easy. Requires some simple things:
1. Understand that War does solve things. They fought on the wrong side in WWII and lost. Thus the Jews got a big hunk of their territory gifted to them by the victors, to whom the spoils of war rightfully belonged. That is a done deal for the forseable future. So accept that 'driving the Jews into the Sea' isn't an option because of the ginormous disparity in military, political, diplomatic and economic strength between the two sides.
2. If for no other reason than needing the goodwill (and buttloads of military and economic aid) of the US and the West in general the Israelis are willing to make a deal. Being a Western Democracy (on paper ar least... more like a socialist theocracy in practice) they pretty much can be expected to honor a treaty.
Personally I think the Israelis have been more than tolerant with the abuse they have taken from the so called 'Palestinians'. My solution would be to demand a ballot measure in the occupied territories on a couple of general questions.
1. Does Israel have a 'right to exist?'
2. Are we willing to forsake violence in exchange for a two state solution?
If both questions passed (cold day in hell) it would be time to help em throw off the terrorist yoke and establish a real State.
If only one passed I'd call off all talks and tell em to first have a serious conversation with themselves about what they really want, because no deal can happen in the absence of a large majority in support of both questions. Odds are this would quickly gell public opinion to one of the other choices.
If both failed I'd empty the territories while I still could, driving every last one of em into the neighboring countries. Thus would I repay the same treatment the Jews living in the Middle East suffered upon the creation of Israel.
One way or another the decades long problem would be solved and there would be peace.
Democrat delenda est
I see. So, by your reasoning, white people and Christians should have the majority of power and make all of the laws?
This is why we have a Republic. To prevent this sort of abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Democracy_and_republic
Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter
Yeah, but the common Fox News crowd opinion seems to be that by not coming across as a moron or a lunatic Palin "won" politically. It was widely feared in Republican circles that Palin would completely foul up the debate and lose all credibility. If that had happened it would put McCain in the unenviable position of having to choose between supporting her (and looking like he was an idiot or a fool), or dumping her (and looking like he made a fantastically bad choice in the first place). By doing OK Palin avoided a complete disaster, so she "won".
The problem with the whole debate in my opinion was that Biden couldn't "win". Palin could "lose", if she really made herself look like an idiot or said something crazy, but Biden could have been Cicero and it wouldn't have mattered. The nature of the two candidates totally put the the ball in Palin's court. If she did well she would win, if she did OK she would tie (and still in a way "win"), if she bombed she would lose. Biden was going to more or less be fine unless he bombed (and lost), but could never "win" on he own.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Yes, this is colloquially referred to as the "B-b-but Clinton!" Effect. Basically, when someone points out that the political group you prefer did something wrong, point out that someone from the other major party also did something wrong, and imply that (therefore) it is all a wash, regardless of whether or not the original revelation of wrongdoing was done in order to draw a comparison between the two parties (that is, even if the original statement that "party A did [wrong thing]" and ended at that, make your response be a partisan response).
GOP supporters have been getting 10 years of mileage out of Clinton in particular, but it applies to things like this as well.
Sometimes this is deliberate, though I think some people are in such a partisan mindset when elections come around (or, all the time, I guess) that its impossible for them to just say, "Yes, my party did this, and it was wrong."
First, send in your permanent absentee ballot early, before all the lies leak out.
Second, use your key to hack the Diebold machine (renamed to protect the guilty) and change all the votes for McSame to Bob Barr.
Third, watch the media go nuts!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign
Whoa there... I'm gonna need some pretty solid evidence if you want me to believe that the McCain campaign had strategic information.
First, "troopergate"? REALLY?
God how desperate are you, no one gives a fuck about that nothing story outside of people who have a direct, vested interest in smearing the candidate.
Second, please post the entire quote that proves what you're claiming she thinks is true.
what the fuck are you mods smoking that open partisan slander rises to the level of insightful to you?
And to answer the question, she's smart enough to get elected governor of Alaska, in addition to her previous achievements.
But let's pretend like the work she's actually accomplished is somehow dispatched by some ridiculous nonsense, sure that's genius.
I'd just to say a big "grow the fuck up" to those of you who think your sides talking points are useful in discussing the quality of a person's job performance.
Another one to be aware of is Michigan Republicans using lists of foreclosures in the precinct and challenging a voters eligibility to vote based on that list. NPR Story, Michigan Messenger Story.
If you're concerned about this, look up your states Voter Eligibility and Identification Requirements on a state.XX.us website. Print out a copy and bring them with you. If you're challenged, challenge them right back and stand up for fellow citizens around you who are being unfairly challenged.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
And how does the incumbent party responsible for the largest increases in national debt in history continue to claim that they're the fiscally responsible party?
I'm pretty sure that was the cause of the Republicans getting booted out in 2006, and will probably cost them them the 2008 election.
Republicans do a great job talking about fiscal conservatism, but my conservative friends all tell me they've had enough. My response: "What took you so long?"
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
No no nonononononononono. No. People are dumb. They don't know what's good for them even when they know what's going on, which they rarely do. There's a good goddamn reason the US isn't a direct democracy.
ResidntGeek
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution.
Riiiiiight.
On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3162) aka the USAPATRIOT ACT: Biden (D-DE), Yea
On H.R. 3199 aka USAPATRIOT ACT II: Biden (D-DE), Yea
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Where do you get off justifying your slurs on the US Constitution? The Constitution, like the Magna Carta before it, was nailed down on paper precisely so it cannot deviate, or be conveniently misremembered, changed, concealed, or any number of other dirty tricks. At most, it can be amended. The writers knew there would be cases where the law isn't crystal clear, and set up an entire branch of government devoted to figuring out exactly how it all should apply to the infinite variety of situations that arise, and keeping things as consistent and therefore fair as possible by recording reasoning and decisions for posterity. They had a lot of precedent to draw on from the experiences of other civilizations, and made good use of it.
The attitude here just the sort of stuff of which the fall of great nations starts. Wailing that we can't be sure what anything really means, the Constitution is a pile of crap that says anything a judge wants it to say, there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans they're both political parties and all politicians are liars and scum, they're all morally equivalent both pulling tricks of approximately equal dirtiness at approximately the same frequency. We can't know if global warming is real, it's okay to falsify income on loan applications because it doesn't really matter and everyone else does it too, it can be believed that the federal government's largess has already turned us into a nation of deadbeat welfare recipients because no evidence to the contrary (or in support either) is trustworthy, we also can't know for certain that any activity really does hurt the environment, it doesn't hurt to teach Intelligent Design in school because it could be true but we'll never know because we can't know anything at all, and, of course, the VP debate had no clear result so might as well call it a tie. All because, according to this attitude, no one can ever be sure what's real, and everything is going to hell anyway. It's the ultimate in defeatism by knowledge denial.
That attitude is worse than wrong. We can research solid facts, we can know what is true and what isn't. On all the questions above, despite what naysayers think we can get answers good enough to act on. We can make sound decisions based on these facts. We won't ever have complete information, but that's a far far cry from no trustworthy information at all. We won't always make the best decision, but that's hindsight. As to the VP debate, it's a solid victory for the Democratic side. Palin tried very hard to spin pretty much every question, even one straight from grade school civics classes, "Is the VP part of the executive branch?" Palin earns an F for her non-answer. Biden earns a B, since he didn't get the facts completely correct. The Republican party has thoroughly embraced this totally unproductive and self-destructive anti-knowledge attitude. You know it's bad when they refuse to give straight answers to basic civics questions we'd expect a 10th grader to know or be able to figure out easily. Very disappointing that their best maverick reformer showed by his VP pick that he wasn't turning away from these anti-fact liars and losers that infest the Republican party. "Doubt is our product" Sure, kindred spirits feel it was a Palin victory. Let us hope those kindred spirits are few in number. They are so going to crater this election.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Hear, hear. I'm personally amazed at what people look for in a president. I, for one, would really have loved to have Gore as a president. He's boring as hell, and that's a FANTASTIC quality in a president! Presidents who are not boring seem to want to stir up trouble just to keep their base motivated to support them, especially in a time of "war".
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The SCOTUS doesn't have to uphold nothing. It's in there.
Notmysig
It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it? There's no real barrier to the creation of third (or fourth or fifth) parties here in the US, they just don't get votes of donations. The Dems and Repubs could and, if it ever came to it, might put real barriers up if they wanted or needed to, but as things stand it's pretty much a social problem. People feel that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, but until more people vote third party it will continue to look that way. How do you fix that?
I'm guilty of it too, I'm not acting holy here. I haven't really even looked at the third party candidates this year, because I badly enough DON'T want a Republican that I'm going to vote Democrat. It's wrong of me... I should vote for the guy I want, not vote against the guy I don't, but it seems the lesser of two evils right now.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Have you considered this? There probably are people out there that are better off than you. There are many ways to measure worth, wealth, morality, politically connected, intelligence, strength, health - you name it. Does this mean their vote is worth more than yours? In my opinion when you start to measure the worth of an individual (or their vote) you yourself become a worthless individual.
Well, yes, they have. If for one, you call 18 months "several years" (nice spin, pal), and if for two you ignore at least twelve instances of Republican filibustering, and if for three you ignore the impact of a President who has used more presidential vetos than every other President in US history COMBINED, not to mention signing statement.
Then I guess we could say that they've played a hand or two.
Yes, I'm aware that they've also handled some of the things they have done horribly, but still. Nonetheless, nice try, Dittohead.
``It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it? There's no real barrier to the creation of third (or fourth or fifth) parties here in the US, they just don't get votes of donations.''
That's because of the winner take all system. Suppose there are three parties. One party you hate, one party you hate less, and one that you like, but isn't likely to get a lot of votes.
Now, you aren't going to vote for the party you hate. So that leaves you with two choices: the party you hate less, or the party you like. If you vote for the party you hate less, it may win, but the party you like will get nothing. If you vote for the party you like, it will still probably get nothing, but you will have increased the chances of the party you hate most winning everything. So you would be foolish to vote for the party you like.
In a system with proportional representation, you could vote for the party you like most. You don't have to help some party win everything to keep the party you hate out. Your favorite party will still get only a small number of votes, but, with that, it will get a small number of seats, instead of nothing at all.
So, as you can see, it's the winner take all system that makes it impractical for more than two parties to exist.
Presedential elections, of course, are always winner take all - but you could have two rounds: a first round with multiple candidates, and a second round with only the two most popular candidates.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it?
Easy, institute instant runoff voting. Now you can vote for Nader with out worry, since your losing vote will roll over to your next highest ranked candidate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If your response is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide". If your response to that is that General Welfare in Section 8 only applies to the listed powers, then Common Defense is also similarly limited.
So if nationalized health care is unconstitutional, so are:
And that's just off my head. Conservatives who complain about the so called unconstitutionality of socialized medicine are being just as selective as Evangelical hacks that don't protest usurious rates from Countrywide or NRA hacks that fight Democrats tooth and nail for supporting gun control yet give a 100% free pass to Republicans that support gun control, like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Now that that chestnut has been put to bed, the reason why you want socialized health care is because it provides better care for less money. It provides better care for less money. It provides BETTER care for LESS money.
I'm sorry, I'm an independent and I really don't want to but into the feverish partisan brawl going on here, but I honestly loath hearing any talk about taxes from the GOP. They have never done a damn thing to help small business.
C Pungent
Obama fraternized with Ayers and Rev. Wright, and he's the lesser of two evils? You must think highly of McCain.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's really annoying to me to have to call the Democrats "the Party of Fiscal Responsibility", because they didn't get that way by being responsible and wanting to cut government spending, they got that way by default, with Bush,Cheney,&Rove spending borrowed money like there's no tomorrow.
Bill Clinton does deserve some credit - it *was* the economy, stupid, and his administration did a good job of managing the situation they got left with, though they did manage to spend the proceeds of a radically productive technology boom. And a lot of the spending restraint he showed was because the Republican-dominated Congress kept attacking him over his tacky personal life so he couldn't do most of the Democrat-agenda big-spending programs like HillaryCare, whereas after Bush got elected they were too scared to say no to anything he wanted (and even after Katrina and losing the war demonstrated the failure of Bush's Strong Trustworthy Powerful Father-Figure model of government got enough of Congress replaced by Democrats, Bush kept them scared as well.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks