Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election
We made it. It's election day. Tomorrow we'll know. So for today's election discussion story, I'm throwing it wide open: let's discuss the election itself. Who are your picks and why. And also what about your actual experience voting today? Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.
All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
The fact that you voted is not secret. Only who you picked is.
My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..
If I was told I had to wait several hours to vote, I'd be very mad.
MABASPLOOM!
I was amazed by the wording of some of the proposed amendments to the Florida constitution. One example was the marriage "keep the gays from marrying" proposal. First off, I happen to believe that marriage is a personal issue and has no need for government intervention but that is not my point here. The language was worded very biased, in that it started by stating that passing this amendment would "Protect marriage". As if I voted not my wife would someone stop loving me tomorrow or something. Second, it was the only amendment that ended with an entire paragraph dedicated to informing us voters that if we pass this the economic effect on the budget is "unknown at this time but likely minimal". This was on no other initiative. Holy bias Batman!
"This message was sent from an Apple
No, he called him one for wanting to increase income taxes on people who do pay income taxes and then write checks to people who don't.
Fixed that for you. If you claim that he's giving money to people who don't pay taxes at all, you are spreading a common misconception. Sorry.
Then why do they need to record the number the machine assigned to my vote? That I walked into the machine and pulled the lever should just get a check next to my name.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!
At the end of the 6th paragraph
This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax.
It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.
:(){
Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.
Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!
Now, let's talk about Palin.
Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"
Palin passed a windfall profits tax , literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.
:(){
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.
Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
You mean like this?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
As for accuracy...
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Congress has been a disaster, so you vote to strengthen the majority party in Congress?
I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I was told she was not his first choice. He had the final say, but it was his people that pushed her forward.
I agree with your take on McCain. After Bush won the 2nd term, McCain decided the only way to become president was to quit being such a maverick. Thats when he started supporting all the Bush initiatives. Thats when he lost his "base."
The real McCain would have been strong with independents. However, I am not sure he could have won the nomination without selling out to Bush.
McCain made his choice. Kicked his independent support to the curb to try and get ultra conservative supporters that never liked him.
Having lived in both a country with mandatory health insurance (Germany) and the US - there is a difference. If you're in the US, and have good insurance, you generally seem to end up in nicer facilities. Not necessary better care, but hospitals, at least in my area, seem to be in better shape.
Having said that, I would trade back to the German insurance in a heart beat. Every time something is not covered by my US insurance, the out-of-pocket expenses balloon, and there is no way for me to get my insurance to expand their coverage. Add the lifetime benefit cap that prevents me from getting the help when I really need it, and it becomes a lot of eye wash.
The German model is assessed as a tax, with a cap based on what you'd pay when you reach the "opt-out level" (You don't have to use public insurance in Germany if you can afford to buy your own, the cap used to be around 100k yearly income). The rumors of "don't get a bed for 5 years" are just bullocks, it's not any more difficult to get your doctor to see you in Germany than it's in the US. And at least insurance acceptance is universal, so if your employer switches insurance carriers you don't have to switch doctors.
I'd love to see a universal HMO be established here, one that can't drop you like a hot potato if your get sick, or flat out refuse to let you in for "pre-existing conditions" if you change jobs.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
Here's one, a quick Google will show you a few hundred others all from the same dozen or so primary sources (US budgets, WHO figures, and so on from a few years). Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Micromanagement of healthcare at a Federal level is not the key to socialized medicine. "
Even in Canada the public health care is managed at the provincial level. I wonder if many Americans who point to Canada as an alternative realize that. It's only a minor detail, but the federal government has little to do with public health care in Canada.
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017. In 2007 the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.
There are numerous cites in the Wikipedia article that you can read.
I would argue that spending over $7000 per person per year in health care, yet having vast numbers of your citizenry uninsured is a powerful example of a health care system that is both expensive and inefficient.
What? Obama is *not* gun friendly
BTW I dont own a Gun nor will I buy one (I have little kids and I make the personal choice not to have such an item in my home):
Obama: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"
Obama on Handguns:
Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama: "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns (made so by laws he supports) off the streets"
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
--
The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
Bankrupted by an out-of bounds banking industry that was totally deregulated and ten times larger than the Iceland GDP i.e. the real Icelandic economy. These banks were counter parties to many Wall street institutions that pushed their toxic sludge bonds on the Icelandic banks. Totally not related to their welfare system.
Nice try though.
The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Which, in 2012, will be December 17.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
[sarcasm]As opposed to Bush, who, as we all know, was a great respecter of the Constitution.[/sarcasm]
Obama is an expert on the Constitution to a level that is hard to even define...He taught Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. So it's not unreasonable that he may have criticisms of the document, the same way any expert may have criticisms of things under his area of expertise.
But I do not think that he has anything like the arrogance and disrespect for the law and the Constitution that has been shown in the last 8 years, and having anyone imply that with a straight face makes me laugh.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Nice try.
But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.
Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation.
No, every time the Republican controlled government sticks its nose into something, it turns to shit, because Republicans do not believe in government. When a party that believes government is good and can work controls things, things get better.
The facts speak for themselves. The stock market has grown by an average of 8.4% under Democratic leadership over the last 100 years, but only 0.4% under Republicans. We can see plain as day what government can do when we believe in it, and how it fails when we don't.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's funny you pull mention his talking-point on waterboarding, because John McCain in fact voted against a ban on waterboarding. So his stance is maybe not as clear as you think.
It exists, and - from what I understand - Obama has it as the basis of his health care plan. The FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefits) system is a group of about 2 million federal employees and retirees which has several "competing" plans which are offered by private insurers. They have different costs, and the government provides employees/retirees with 75% reimbursement up to a fixed annual limit. You can imagine that most of the options maximize the benefits to hit that limit mark. There are some cheaper plans, and some more expensive, as well. The group is a pretty good cross section of the US, since it has a wide range of employees, in a wide range of jobs, and includes all federal pensioners.
As I read it, Obama wants to open enrollment up to "everybody" (I'm not sure how everybody is defined: citizens, legal residents, etc...), with financial assistance for those who cannot afford the various plans. Now, this is _not_ socialized medicine - it's just a very large group for negotiating purposes. It is still a private healthcare based system, with multiple providers. But since it acts like a group there is no penalty for switching plans, no pre-existing condition exclusions, and we presume "anyone" can buy in. The details are murky - how do we pay for those who need extra help (a family plan is about $12k/yr), how/when can you enroll (buying in right after you are diagnosed with cancer isn't financially sound), and will the plans be opened up for small (or any) businesses to purchase for their employees through this avenue. I mention the last because I run a small business. My premiums are affordable because we're all young and healthy. If someone in my office got serious cancer, I'd probably not be able to afford the new premiums. The FEHB system is more expensive than what I pay (bigger, sicker group), but not nearly as much as I could face if we had a major illness of one of the four in my office.
BTW - preexisting conditions are no longer excludable in group plans in the US, and group plans cannot drop or exclude an individual within a group. With 2M existing "customers," the big insurance players can't afford to just ignore the FEHB program. If the program weren't already filled with the elderly (retirees), I woudl be concerned about rate increases, but it's already a sickly bunch, as far as health insurance groups are concerned.
Oh, and as for socialized medicine - I think many people wouldn't know the difference. There are a very vocal minority who, on the other hand, actively seek out doctors with whom they have rapport. I'm one of those. If your experinces with healthcare are primarily the emergency room and whomever is on duty at the time, then socialized medicine looks just like private care. Just about anywhere you can find good doctors and bad doctors. In socialized medicine you get the luck of the draw - and that can mean very good care. In private care, you get a choice (to and extent) - and your care is predicated on how well you chose. We have outstanding care at the top because there is a financial incentive for it; by the same token, though, if you aren't rich, you're probably never going to see that level of care.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Also worth bearing in mind is that the 2 independents are completely different from each other:
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a real honest-to-goodness socialist. He's far more liberal than any Democrat.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 but now is one of John McCain's strongest supporters.
I am officially gone from
I find it telling that statisticians have long noted the correlation between education levels and political leaning. It is fact: smarter, better educated, and better informed people tend to vote Democrat. Find a Republican in the AAAS or NAS. Why do you suppose that is? The better educated stand more to lose, since they tend to be wealthier. (I have a feeling that there's a golden amount of wealth that allows us the luxury of investing in the future, without the pathology of being obsessed with accumulating money.)
I also find it telling that most everyone saying anything negative about Obama has referred to him using his middle name. This echoes the standard content of the message: "He does not look like us, therefore he must be evil." They don't tend to address actual policy issues, but simply try to instill fear/hatred/uncertainty/doubt based on rumours.
Could we, as a society, maybe move beyond that?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
That being said, I have been heavily involved in the academic institution for a while at the College level. I wouldn't say the correlation between Higher education and democrat has much to do with the democrat platform being any more sound than the republican one. Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more. You are also mocked in your career if you are a PHD and a republican unless you are a poly-sci instructor. Democrats also are in favor of looser policies for research and development.
Another thing you need to remember, just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior. It just means I am really good at focusing all my attention on a subject.
Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.
Remember the whole causation correlation memo that is constantly thrown around here.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
I figure providing a counter source will be more effective than modding you down.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html
Every time I have heard him talk, he has talked about how gun regulations at a federal level are completely infeasible, and it should be up to the cities themselves to determine how gun control issues should be handled.
It's obvious that a set of restrictions in Chicago aren't necessarily going to be as effective in Dallas or Los Angeles etc.
Also:
- States and localities are supposed to be prepared for and handle the first three days, while FEMA's charter (at the time) was to mobilize the big stuff (financial aid, rebuilding, food restocking, etc.) that comes in after that time.
- The fed was PROHIBITED (by The Posse Comitatus Act) from coming in without permission from the state's governor - which was withheld. So the fed mobilized as much as it could meanwhile, bringing some of it up to the state line and handing off some others to Non-Governmental Organizations (one of which was the Salvation Army) to bring in. (Then the NGOs were blocked from entering by the state and local authorities, too.)
(One tinfoil hat theory is that the NGOs were deliberately blocked in a political move to increase the suffering and thus the administration's embarrassment when it was blamed on them.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way