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
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.
Yeah. Because the homeless folks are jumping from state to state to get multiple votes.
Why shouldn't a homeless person have the same right to vote as me?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
And computers have been voting in republican for the last 8 years your point?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
i am already getting
Mc Cain + Palin spam emails
for last few weeks
tho im not from US :( stupid spammers
Strange that, you'd nearly think it was a popularity contest... oh wait
... 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... :)
What is your source for them being illegal aliens? or just making up facts as you go?
I'm willing to bet it's the later.
They are simply guilty of the greatest crime in America, being poor. Regardless they are still human and if citizens just as worthy of a vote as you are.
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.
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
As others have said, underhanded, yes, but not fraud. Kindof like the primarily Democrat regions in Ohio and Florida had a shortage of voting machines, while the Republican areas had more than enough to keep the wait short. Or how the polls allowed late comers in Rep. but not Dem areas. Well the latter might be borderline.
Gerrymandering anyone?
Fraud is when the Deceased in Chicago all seem to vote on the same party line.
Fraud is when "you"'ve and "everyone else" voted twice or more for West Virginia, again, all on the same party line, before you've (or anyone else) even entered the polling station.
Fraud is voting machines that change votes.
There's plenty of examples of all these happening, and it doesn't follow party lines. And it's not limited to the locations mentioned either. Each party has their areas that they keep by their underhanded tricks, or their frauds.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Perhaps because: ...and so on...
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
Maybe we need a country and people that believe in statements like: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
As others have said, underhanded
Sorry, but what?!?!?!?!
How on earth is it "underhanded" to help underprivileged people exercise their right to vote?
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?
You do realize that one of the Republican party's strategy for the last hundred years or so was to claim voter fraud wherever imaginable and then claim to be victimized by fictitious fraud, right? It's something that they started doing because they didn't want to count black votes.
In fact it was on a down swing during much of the 90s because they lost a few key legal decisions and were barred from doing so.
To suggest that there's anything improper or illegal going on there is suggesting far more than the facts dictate. What was going on is that the Republican party doesn't want the poor and homeless to be able to vote and so they throw up these spurious fraud complaints hoping to keep some legitimate votes from being counted.
Perhaps because: ...and so on...
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
You do realize that in the United States, the minimum age to register to vote is 18, right?
And a lot of 18-year-olds are still living at home, may not have jobs and are therefore not paying taxes (BTW, poll taxes were eliminated in the U.S. by 1966.), and probably don't have dependents of their own?
Wow... by your qualifications, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either, huh?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
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.
The line that moved your post from bigoted to just plain stupid was reason D. Your idea of "most laws" is "cars and copyright"? Homeless people have far more interaction with the actually important laws, and far more need for those laws to be reasonable and just, than people whose idea of the "law" is limited to traffic rules and copyright.
I don't know what "propositions" you are talking about (though I don't follow Mississippi politics), but all your "criteria" would be explicitly unconstitutional.
Did you know that most homeless people are not actually homeless for very long? Only a minority would even fall into your batshit-crazy idea that people without land or children have no stake in the future of our society.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
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.
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
"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."
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)
From: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/voterInformation/regToVote.aspx
What are the qualifications to register and to vote in Ohio?
You are qualified to register to vote in Ohio if you meet all the following requirements:
1. You are a citizen of the United States;
2. You will be at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. (If you will be 18 on or before November 4, you may vote in the primary election for candidates, but you cannot vote on issues until you are 18);
3. You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election in which you want to vote;
4. You are not incarcerated (in prison or jail) for a felony conviction under the laws of this state, another state or the United States;
5. You have not been declared incompetent for voting purposes by a probate court; and
6. You have not been permanently disenfranchised for violations of the election laws.
You are eligible to vote in elections held in your voting precinct more than 30 consecutive days after you are duly registered to vote in this state.
I see nothing about paying taxes. Nothing about owning land. Nothing about having families. Basically, you're talking out your ass with no factual basis for doing so. Because your points are all 100% wrong and 100% foul of Ohio election laws.
Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting.
Furthermore, any use of taxes to determine voting rights or status falls foul of the 24th amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
If a homeless person can prove citizenship, there is no legal basis to deny or devalue their vote.
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.
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"
"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.
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.
I spent my Saturday doing it, and felt pretty damn good afterwards for someone who, by right-wing ideology, is doing something morally wrong. I helped a lady born in 1925 who can't talk or get around much anymore (but who had political news on the TV) fill out an absentee ballot application. If it weren't for me, she would not be voting this year. I helped another lady born in 1923 fill out her first ever voter registraition! I had a guy invite me into his (incredibly modest rent-controlled) home, sit down next to his open bible while we filled out his form, and tell me dead serious that he felt God sent me there that day to get him registered. I wouldn't nessecarily agree, but who knows? Perhaps.
As the saying goes, if this is what being wrong feels like, I don't want to be Right.
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
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?
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.
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
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.