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?
... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.
Obama- He's my pick. He might seem socialist- but I don't think anybody can top ol' G.W. these days. I personally want what's good for society. After the past 8 years of crapping on society, killing the economy, and ruining our constitution- it's time for a change. I don't see that change in McCain.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I'm voting for Obama and proud of it. How often do you get a chance to support a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential, but also runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.
I personally hope he is a socialist. It would be nice to see my friends and family back in the US brought up to the quality of life I've found after moving to the Nordic countries.
He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.
Er...I think he called Senator Obama a Marxist for his statements to "Joe the Plumber" regarding taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx. He wrote that in his critique of the ``Gotha program.'' (Search for that exact phrase on wikipedia.) I am not sure how anyone could argue that Senator Obama's statement was anything but Marxist. He did everything but quote Marx.
Life is short; think quickly.
Obama only seems socialist if you ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout we handed to businesses - easily the largest act of socialism ever in US history. Oh, it was penned by republicans, too.
Called my dad this morning and he said they were in and out in an hour. About 35 people in line but it went fast. He said the poll workers were really helpful and seemed well organized. I'm sure it's not going that well everywhere but the news isn't all bad.
If the Republicans get crushed and lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I wonder if they're going to clean house or keep on with same failed people and platform that put them in the tank? Or if they'll blame Palin and minority turn out?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election."
Are you kidding? They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.
Did you get the Republican party robocall about Ayers, that basically said Obama was a bomb throwing terrorist who would bomb the Pentagon.
Did you see Sarah Palin saying Obama "pal'ed around with terrorists".
As soon as McCain fired his old advisors and replaced them with people who ran Bush's campaign they adopted all the same Swift Boat tactics and it completely turned Independents, like me, against McCain, that and picking a right wing nut like Palin.
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.
@de_machina
If McCain is the next president, the world will say "Ya know what? We're done here. Game over. Thanks for playing" and it will hurt (a lot) in the short run, but once the American Empire's wings are clipped, the rest of the planet can set about building a future that works.
Economic? Send the dollars back home. How? Buy up the assets. Devalue the currency. Don't loan them money.
Diplomatic? The USA as a pariah state, sim. N Korea today or Libya back in the day. Turn off the WTO and IMF. Look elsewhere for partnership.
Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.
The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some. And if some swaggering third rate imperialist like McCain or, godferbid, his delusional retard of a VP, Palin, comes around acting like a dork, the simple and obvious reply is to shun them.
Now, before you think I'm some sort of Obama supporter, you're wrong. Obama is every bit the imperialist that McCain is - it's just that his focus is not on global domination, but on the much more realistic goal of regional domination. In other words, McCain is a unipolar imperialist and Obama is a multipolar imperialist. The multipolar option is the ONLY realistic option for the USA right now.
So, if the USA has ANY sense of self preservation, it will put Obama in as president. If it wants to drive itself off the cliff of history and explode on the rocks of self-inflicted stupidity, then it should vote for McCain.
The reality that is going to come crashing in is simple: energy. You either have it and use it wisely and with great thrift, or you act like Americans and permit atrocities like Las Vegas and the Cadillac Escalade to exist. Get with the program, or die off. It's a simple choice.
Now, go vote, and vote wisely.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The presidential election is OVER. Has been for a long time. Obama has won this in a big way. The question is the senate seats. The pubs pulled all their dollars on McCain nearly a month ago, as well as a number of seats such as Colorado's Schaffers and Musgrave. Instead, they targeted seats that are on the edge such as Coleman (vs. franken) in minn. If there is any cheating going on, it is doubtful that it will be systemic. But if the polls, and exit polls match up with results in most areas, BUT do not match up with those contested seats, then it will be time to consider what is going on. And I fully expect that neo-cons will pull garbage in those areas IFF they have the capability.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
An ironic ending for a guy who was a VICTIM of this very kind of dirty politics in 2000. Of course, that was back before he had spent 8 years abandoning every single principle he had once stood for (including, most tragically of all, his opposition to the very kind of POW torture that he himself had once endured). In short, when John McCain loses today he can blame Bush, Palin, the economy, Obama, etc. all he likes. But, in truth, he has only himself to blame.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical. Likely you've never actually read Marx (or anything beyond the Communist Manifesto). Pity. Marx actually has a lot of very interesting, insightful commentary about history, economics, and society. You may not agree with all his conclusions, but the man was a very careful, educated scholar.
I don't get this socialist BS.
Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.
If you want socialism, vote for the big-government republicans.
(Does anyone else miss small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans? I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but man am I ready for the neocon/religious right section of the GOP to dry up.)
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Actually, Adam Smith (the guy who basically invented Capitalism) was also in favor of the rich being taxed at a higher rate than the poor, so that's not a good argument.
True Socialism is more about community property and state ownership of businesses than it is about progressive taxation.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The internet would be so annoying if he lost.
The Internet would still be much less annoying than the resurgent right-wing militias are going to be if he wins.
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.
Sounds a bit like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wasn't that brought about by those infamous commies Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
because it brings out those inbred rednecks to vote, and they will vote Republican.
We in Missouri dealt with that in 2004 (unfortunately, the white trash got the Constitution amended successfully), so maybe we'll go Dem this time.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Marx is great, in theory.
Just like communism is great, in theory.
It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand communism (or any 'everyone works together' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed. Thereby ending up with a situation similar to... China.
Note: Similar to, not exactly like.
Use what works.
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't.
Isn't this "Marxist" type of negative tax one of the basic principles of the state governed by McCain's running mate?
Its not the President that is going to make the necessary change. Its Congress, American business, and the America people.
1. Congress makes the decisions on domestic policy and passes legislation. The President can sign or veto the proposed legislation, but congress can override that veto by a 2/3 majority
"After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress]
So what good is the President on domestic policy when his decisions can be overridden?
2. Look at the current credit/economic crisis in America. Greed and overspending on the part of business and the populus. Short of the SEC and Fed making mistakes, 90% of that is due to non-governmental factors.
3. The President [at this time] has the obligation to preside over foreign policy matters and matters of national security. Thus, the next President must have a keen sense of foreign policy and diplomacy as we do live in a now "global" community.
In as far as either major candidate (yes, there are four others), I don't think any of them have the intelligence and experience to meet today's requirements.
Congress, That's where we need a change. They are the branch of Federal Government that is responsible for 90% of our domestic policy. Make the change there.
BTW, The House is majority Dems and the Senate, tho is 49/49 Rep/Dem, the remaining two seats have aligned themselves with the Dems, giving them de facto control.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Look up "aencephaly." And tell me if it's fair/moral to knowingly bring this child into the world. Let me help, so you don't have to RTFA! Most of the baby's brain is missing with a gaping hole in the back of its head and it's spinal cord is mostly exposed. It will die shortly after birth, and spend its brief moment of life on meds or in agonizing pain and mother knows this for most of the pregnancy. There is NO medical treatment for this, it is 100% lethal! Then she gets to watch her child die. Does this make God happy? Who is this fair to, the mother, father, grandparents, or the child? Don't give me any of this it's God's plan crap. Who does it benefit to not allow this mother an elective abortion? This is only one example of many. For a human to choose death is not always wrong. Thank God for freedom of religion or freedom from it!
How about curtailing it a little next time lads?
(Speaking from an outside-US position) I've been following this whole thing with great interest since the Obama/Clinton things started - and going back a bit I stayed up all night watching the Gore/Bush thing - so I'm not knocking it.
But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.
Maybe some work needs to be done on limiting the scale of the thing - both in terms of time and of money, which is verging on the ridiculous too.
See you in 2 years time...
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
Early Christians (and many today) practiced this concept but it differed on a very significant points: it was voluntary. No one forced them to do so.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical.
I received a tax cut from President Bush. I make nowhere near $250,000 a year. I make a very, very small fraction of that amount. Senator Obama claims he will give a tax cut to me and will roll back the current President's tax cuts. The two appear to be mutually exclusive, especially since I currently do not pay federal income tax. I am among the 38% of Americans (or is it households?) that do not pay federal income taxes. How is it possible to reduce zero? I currently pay zero (though I did pay federal income taxes prior to President Bush's tax cuts) and yet Senator Obama promises me a tax cut (while taking away the tax cut I have already received). A reduction of *zero* would be negative. That means I would get back money in the form of a tax rebate of taxes I did not pay. This money necessarily comes from someone else. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Argue that this is acceptable, but don't argue that it isn't Marxist or Socialist. It is at the core of Marx' philosophy.
Life is short; think quickly.
he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him
Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The good news is that, like Ron Paul's supporters, I'll be able to easily tell if Diebold ate my vote.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power.
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't. Can you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been on a board with an abortion bomber? Could you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been a member of a church that preached racism? Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
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.
The press ran Obama's campaign. They elected him a year ago!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but let's call it what it is, instead of "well, we're just rolling them back, so it's not really a tax increase, per se."
Second, it's not the graduated tax structure that so many object to as "socialist." A relatively decent and logical argument can be made that those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets. I can work with that.
What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism. It's one thing to run a jobs program where those in it are actually contributing something to society--building infrastructure, cleaning things up, etc.--but quite another to give out money simply for drawing breath. And whether or not that's what Obama's plans truly are, it's what many fear.
Personally, I don't really care at this point. I distrust Obama more, but none of the candidates (including third parties) is appealing. I just don't want to see a democrat supermajority in Congress combined with an Obama win--one party rule is bad; absolute, filibuster-proof one-party rule is downright terrifying. Should that happen (from either party), you could probably kiss about half of the Bill of Rights goodbye.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real
Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all believe fairy tales that make life easier. I choose to believe that people are basically decent individuals and will eventually reach mutually beneficial objectives via consensus and co-operation. He believes that there is an invisible man in the sky who loves him. There isn't much evidence to support either of our fairy tales, but they help both of us participate in society.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This year I realized what my actual philosophy is, so I voted that way. Voting for the lesser evil is still... evil.
The voting machines around here are still mechanical-lever type, so I'm pretty confident the vote was tallied correctly.
That's far short of being "each candidate" isn't it?
-SaNo
McCain didn't change the Republican Party. The Republican Party changed him.
Ironically, I thought McCain was going to be the one to change the party. The GOP has lost it's way, and every year the party moves to the religious right. John McCain always seemed to stand up for what was right. I'm lean left but I respect some of the core republican causes. I once donated to McCain's Senate campaign, because I thought McCain would be the leader to save the Republican Party from itself.
And yet in the last couple years McCain completely collapsed-- it's like he lost his independence, and quickly started spewing the same vitriol that I hear coming out of the far right. John McCain, what happened to you?
I'm not sure if he chose Palin because he liked her, or because his Masters told him too. Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
It's funny how the socialist tag only seems to apply to handouts to poor people. Somehow, when businesses, farmers, and others have their hands out, it's not socialism--it's investing in America.
To the Democrats: when Obama wins this election, you're going to claim that you have a mandate from the people and as a result you're going to go hog wild and pass bill after bill under President Obama's rubber stamp. You feel like you've got a decade of repression to overcome. You also are blinded by your own hubris; you think that somehow humankind can overpower the universe itself and all that is needed is just willpower. But you're wrong, and you're stupid, and despite being on the short end of the stick for so long you just can't learn any humility. I hate you because you wear rose-tinted glasses. I hate you because you fight against the fundamental forces of the universe -- you think you can change human nature; you think you can turn basic economic principles on their ear and things will work better merely by the force of will; you think that all of humanity is somehow collectively more powerful than the very planet we live on and brighter than the sun we orbit. I hate you, you elitist snobs.
To the Republicans: thanks for turning your back on fiscal conservatism and mortgaging my child's future. Again. Also, while I think Jesus is great, but please keep your fucking religion out of government. It is not for you to judge me; most of you sensibly relegate that responsibility to God. Now you just need to tell your radical right-wing to shut the fuck up and "live and let live". Unfortunately, many of you allow your faith to blind you to reality. I hate you because you are hypocrites. I hate you because your being in power for so long has corrupted all of you, and you don't even realize it. You deserve to continue to lose power because you need to learn some lessons. But I know you won't, not really, and I hate you for that too. I hate you most of all because you have real contempt for the common man but you're too stupid to realize it; you don't even understand that you are condescending to an entire nation!
I hate both of you because you treat me like a ten-year-old; I hate how you try to pander to my base instincts and assume I have an IQ of 80. I hate both of you because none of you have any balls and won't allow yourselves to go off script; I hate both of you because you both require your politicians to toe the line. I hate both of you because you lie and you "spin". I hate both of you because of your implicit collusion to keep the status quo.
I lament the death of the U.S. I hate you, Republican and Democrat alike, for killing our great nation.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
And it's well known-that one of your good high school buddies was a pedophile. I'm going to show up at your job tomorrow and let everyone there know about how you like to pal around with pedophiles. You cool with that?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's as if this whole country has a collective memory loss and just keeps bouncing back and forth between two bad choices.
The problem is that as long as people make one of the two bad choices, the remaining choices will all be infeasible to make, unless a large chunk of people agree to make them.
Duverger's law is a principle of political science which predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting)
You may have heard the phrase "Every vote not for number two is a vote for number one". Think Ralph Nader.
We can analyze this in the framework of Game Theory: suppose you're a not-so-moderate leftie. You want Nader to win, then Kerry, then Bush, with payoffs [N=10, K=2, B=-10]. Suppose there's three percent like you, and the rest vote K=48%, B=49%. If you all vote Nader, you get payoff -10. If you all vote Kerry, you get payoff 2. Your goal is to maximize your payoff; what will you do?
Voting for the big two is probably a Nash Equilibrium, when the voting game is formalized the "right" way, which means that it's in everyone's self interest to keep doing what they're doing as long as no one else change what they do.
One thing you probably want in a voting system is that voting honestly (:= for the candidate you prefer the most) is a dominant strategy (:= it's at least as good as any other strategy).
As long as people vote for the big two, they have to vote for big two to get what they want unless the game (i.e. election system) changes. And the election system won't change as long as people vote for the big two, because the politicians who have the power to change the game have higher payoffs from the game being what it is.
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
if Obama wins, January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..
The fact that people are out there making statements like this with a straight face just goes to prove my point.
I think you're exactly right on Palin: she's a capable non-intellectual.
And I think you're right that Obama is not a 'steady hand'. But you're wrong about that nudge left. Obama is at is heart a 1960's radical wannabe, out to destroy what he sees as white supremacy and the power of an unjust AmeriKKKan empire.
Whether or not you believe that America has an empire, and is unjust, and in the urgency of electing a symbol is whether you buy into Obama or not.
Despite how nice it would be to elect a black President, I held my nose and voted McCain.
And let's not forget the millions that have died at the hands of communism.
Please let's be clear here: I haven't ever heard of anyone who was killed by communism. (That would be like saying that everyone killed by US troops in World War II were killed by "capitalism"...) The millions you're talking about were killed by repressive totalitarian dictators using the name of "communism" to make themselves sound more palatable to the ordinary people. Their economic systems may have been partially communist-based, but their political systems certainly were basically your garden-variety dictatorship.
Anyone who holds up Stalin as an iron-clad reason why Communism is Evil doesn't actually understand what communism is.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
If there's anything to be learned from the last elections, it's "don't count chickens before they hatch." In 2000, every major outlet that I heard (includes CNN, CBS, ABC) had awarded the election to Al Gore by 9:30 p.m. EST and having him take Florida by several percentage points. Voters in Florida and elsewhere left polling lines and went home; Republicans were resigned to the fact that Bush had lost and Democrats felt that their candidate was safely in without their vote.
You know, that's another thing I don't understand about Florida and the last election. (The first being why they wielded so much power that they dictated the outcome. Someone explained to me about the lopsided electoral college system that the US has. In the US, you don't vote for the president directly, you vote for electoral voters, who then vote for the president. Certain states have more electoral voters than others.) Why did Florida toss in the towel? They're on the East coast of the country. The polls open up first in the east. The results are tabulated first in the east. If it was 9:30 pm in Florida, it would still be only 6:30 in California, and a lot of people, perhaps as many as half the country, would not yet have voted. So why did they bail on casting their votes solely on the "strength" of early poll results?
I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Frankly the 1-party thing was a drum I beat for 6 years, and I'm tired of beating on it. The Republicans need a good old fashioned asswhipping to kick their sorry asses back toward the middle and maybe, maybe to kick some of the damn social conservatives back into their caves. At the very least their massive arrogance needs to have some holes shot in it.
When good Sentors like Chuck Hagel and Arlen Specter are called traitors to their party because they don't suck up to the social conservatives, there is something seriously wrong.
The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is two parties who think they've got the right to legislate how we live our lives.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The charges about Wright are maybe defensible. The accusations about Ayers are complete bullshit. Obama was eight when Ayers led the Weather Underground. The FBI decided to never charge him for anything so he has no criminal record He turned over a new leaf and is a respected University professor and champion of better education in Chicago and this country. Obama didn't associate with him in the first part of his life only in the second, and there are just as many Chicago Republicans who work with him as Democrats. Not like his ties to him are particularly close. If you are going to make it a prerequisite for a President that they NEVER have associated with anyone every in their life who might be in any way be controversial you are going to require them to live in a bubble their entire life, and they sure can't go to a college. We've already have one President who lives in a bubble, George Bush, it was a disaster, we don't need any more.
Sending out robocalls that somehow Obama is a bomb throwing anti American terrorist because he knows Ayers is over the top offensive. Sure go ahead and do it, you are just going to turn off every independent in the country doing it which is what you did in my case.
The fact is there was a serious culture war in the U.S. in the 60's and early 70's. Obama and I missed it, we were to young. We aren't fighting it any more, we are moving past it. Its unfortunate the rest of you haven't. Its time to move on. This country has serious issues to fix and the culture war is making them worse, not resolving them. One good thing lately is young people are starting to get involved and vote again, I'm hoping they are a lot less rascist and homophobic and lot more tolerant than previous generations.
@de_machina
McCain abandoned his opposition to torture? This would be the McCain who said in a national debate:
"I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is... Then I am astonished that you would think such a - such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our - who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention"
That's pretty clear cut. Regardless of whether McCain is the best man for the job of President, his clear anti-torture stance - which went against the general Republican stance at the time - was something he should be admired for.
those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets.
Talking about calling things what they are, let me rephrase that for you:
those in the higher tax brackets derive ALL THEIR benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets.
You can talk all you want about your rugged individualists and self made men, but how many Bill Gates are there in of Somalia? None. How many poor people? lots. The rich in this and other countries owe everything they have to stable government and rule of law. The poor just owe their TV and car to it. Who should pay more to support the system?
If I were running a swap-meet and people who rented stalls were getting rich, yet my rents were so low I was going into debt to keep it running, my share holders would sue me if I didn't raise rents. Seems like the same thing is happening now.
Afford a tank of gas? Think about retiring?
Look someone in the eye and say, "In the US we don't torture prisoners of war, we don't unilaterally invade other countries, we don't imprison our citizens without a trial, and we don't allow the government to spy on citizens without due process of law."
If you can look back on the last 8 years without feeling sick with shame, there is a problem.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Yep, and the UK, France, Germany and much of the rest of Europe are stunning examples of the failure of socialism. They're cutting back on social programs and privatizing where they can because they just can't sustain the system. And they've got these problems despite the fact that people are taxed heavily at all income levels.
One thing that always gets me is how people compare a nation like Denmark or Japan to the US. Those countries have relatively small and homogenous populations, unlike the US. They're in a situation where they have most of the population paying the system ensuring it's sustainable.
And even then, eventually problems arise, like in Japan, because of declining birth rates there aren't enough people paying in to support the aging population. From everything I've seen, unless we completely abandon any monetary system socialism is always doomed to failure in the long run.
Ummmm this is generally how dems behave as well, that somehow they are the sophisticated light and anything else just isn't socially acceptable or permissible. At least republicans take a stand on issues rather than constantly whining about how they would have done things better and dangling theories in front of their party members. "Oh if a democrat were president 9/11 would never have happened" "If a democrat were president, we wouldnt be in the war" "if if if...for the love of pete, give it up and SHOW the world things will be better". Yes I voted blue this round, but as the Simpsons democrat quote goes "We will screw it up somehow".
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..
From which we can conclude that:
January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..
Even though Obama will have no power to write laws and it would be political suicide even for a Democratic congress to actually pass such laws in this gun-crazed country.
"Even though Obama will have no power to write laws and it would be political suicide even for a Democratic congress to actually pass such laws in this gun-crazed country."
Funny for 8 years we have been blaming Bush for Iraq when he cant declare war, Blaming him for the patriot act when he cant pass laws, ..., .... So Bush is the all powerful and Obama would be a weak little sheep?
But you are right, my statement was over the top, I apologize for that, Ill fix it..
January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights in the same manner you can today!
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
He pretty much took one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. government, limited government, and said he doesn't like it. Having vast knowledge about the Constitution doesn't in any way imply that he believes in or respects it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
LOL funniest thing I have seen in a while, you get modded up and I get modded down. Doesn't bother me but I find it funny.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
"What landmarks did Liddy bomb?"
Right you are. As best I recall..... he just napalmed our Constitution and tried to nuke our electoral process. Nothing important.
I'm assuming you are saying that since his terrorism was state sponsored it was different? Right you are....
@de_machina
"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""
Then he doesn't know how the 2nd Amendment is worded. Nor does he know or understand the arguments fought back and forth within the Federalist Papers. That means he is incompetant. He also doesn't appreciate the many thousands of American men and women who died to uphold that document.
They Live, We Sleep
Karma plus paying for your mortgage and gas too? WTF else do you want? :p
"the media is mostly conservative."
The media execs and share holders are mostly conservative. A lot of journalists tend to be well educated, idealistic, liberals. Fortunately for the conservatives we are replacing most of our journalists with talking heads who just spout what their audience wants to hear which happens with the views of their bosses and whichever party is popular at the moment. As a result there is very little critical analysis of how true anything is, you know the stuff journalists used to do. Today's "fact checkers" are a pale shadow since they don't uncover anything new.
The New York Times and New Yorker seem to be one of the very few outlets still doing investigative journalism, and exposing things like the Bush spying program. It drives the right nuts that the only investigative journalism that seems to be left in the U.S. is left leaning.
@de_machina
Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of exclusivity in our laws; so, for an individual, we don't have to allow more than one marriage to be valid at any one time. I'm not so sure about group marriages, where the "marriage contract" is between 3 or more individuals; but it seems as if [disallowing group marriages] might not be discriminatory. Frankly, I don't have a problem with group marriage -- I mean, if the 3 or 4 or whatever of you think you can deal with it, why should the government stop it?
You forgot between adults and animals, or adults and inanimate objects.
This I definitely don't agree with. Children are a protected class of citizen, and do not have full rights under our laws. Children cannot vote, they cannot be drafted, they cannot enter into [some] legally binding agreements. If your argument was valid, then we'd have to allow marriage involving children today, assuming that they're heterosexual.
50 years ago, marriage between whites and non-whites was considered "an abomination against God" and not part of the "natural order of things". Even when I was a kid (I'm 43), I can remember when a mixed couple out in public caused people to stare.
The only reason to forbid gay marriage is because you don't like homosexuality. Either because your church says it's evil, because you fear you might be turned gay, because you're just "uncomfortable" with it, because you're ignorant, or some other reason. IMHO, that's just too damn bad. Your dislike of the lifestyle of others is absolutely no reason to abrogate their rights and force the government to treat them as second class citizens. *You* don't have to hang out with "teh gayz", and your church won't have to marry them (after all, I can't get married in a Catholic church without being a Catholic). That's different. We're talking about the government here, and the government should not be permitted to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.
Leaving things "as is" is the same thing--when it comes to the law--as being hardcore, rabidly anti-gay. Whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, unless you live in a cave as a hermit, you know gay people. Outlawing gay marriage won't make them go away. Society is changing, and does so all the time. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal", you owe it to yourself to vote down these ridiculous attempts to codify discrimination and hate into our laws.
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
I voted Obama a couple weeks ago by mail-in absentee ballot. Give me free karma!
Don't worry, you will be getting that in the form of raised taxes and a weaker economy. Enjoy!
--
My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
I suspect that Obama is shooting (haha) for laws that are somewhat akin to a motto that I came up with:
"Private weapons should be legal but regulated to a degree proportional to their utility and destructiveness."
That adopts a libertarian stand of anything should be legal provided that it does not harm other's rights, and yet recognises that there is an inherent risk regardless of noble intent.
This is an easy test: What is the risk to the population as a whole if it is intentionally or accidentally misused? A baseball bat is much less likely to kill or injure than say a hand grenade if misused. A baseball bat can be used for constructive purposes, while a hand grenade is pretty much only useful if you want to hurl small pieces of metal in random directions at high velocity. Ergo, a grenade should have a much higher level of regulation than a baseball bat.
I think its a fair request to have more dangerous weapons regulated. The bill of rights wasn't written to permit you to needlessly endanger your fellow citicens while excercising your own rights. Obama's stand seems to reflect this idea.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans.
If by "people" and "country" you mean two thirds of the electorate, then yes. The other third is about as dumb as a bag of rocks, and they're genuinely scared. This is not a small percentage. Thankfully they're not the majority, but do not discount them. The crazy lady at the McCain rally who said she's afraid of Obama because he's an Arab (which she concluded after reading "a lot of information about him") is NOT just a crazy nutjob; a frightening number of people think exactly the same way she does.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?
No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.
So the government can prevent hurricanes? People choose to live in a sinking bowl of mud with no bedrock and water on three sides of the city, and it's the governments fault? It's the governments fault when those people didn't leave when they were warned that, hey, there's a fscking hurricane coming, get out of Dodge. That's the government's fault?
I know what you mean. I get those same warm fuzzies when I realize people like you vote.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.
2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position
And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.
McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.
Hillary never would have had a chance.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
That isn't even funny or witty. Can't you do better than that?
ACORN was legally required to submit all the voter registrations they collected, they flagged all the ones they could tell were bogus.....
Try again, your smoking gun isn't smoking or a gun.
@de_machina
It's not exactly racist, it's more classist.
Have you ever been really truly poor? I mean so poor that you are wondering how you are going to eat and keep a roof over your head? So poor a meal at a fast-food restaurant is a big splurge?
Being on welfare isn't pleasant. Ignoring the social consequences, what you are getting while on public assistance is somewhere around the bare minimum needed to survive: the cheapest apartment available (typically 1 bedroom per 2 people), and some combination of WIC and food stamps. That's it: enough to eke out a meager existence. Any idea that you can get wealthy on public assistance is simply ludicrous.
I am officially gone from
I try not to do me too posts, but you're basically spot on.
The Republican party has overseen one of the largest expansions in income redistribution in American history and somehow taking a very small portion of future redistributions and leaving it with the poor and middle class workers is somehow immoral.
It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.
And for the record, David Duke was a former grandmaster for the KKK, he wasn't just a member. I don't know how their power structure works and the title might not be right, but he was a leader of the movement and fairly high up.
"Or, like, going to the post office and waiting often for minutes in short lines with government workers who are helpful and fri... wait, that wouldn't back up your example."
Yes, it does, only in ways you didn't think of. The USPS is run more like a corporation than a government bureaucracy now. It's easier to fire a USPS employee than it is to fire drone in another federal agency. And the USPS has to compete with other private firms, like FedEx and UPS. So it keeps them on their toes. They're also governed like a corporation, with a board of directors, and an Executive that basically has all the powers of a CEO. They heavily subcontract out work to non-government third parties to reduce costs.
The key here is competition. The Post Office has it, and thus treats people like valuable customers than can be lost. The DMV doesn't. Where else are you going to go to get a drivers license?
"Oh yeah, Wal-mart."
But Wal Mart is a perfect example of markets. Their motto is "low prices, always". You're making a choice when you go to a Wal Mart to forsake other things... better service, for example... in exchange for the lowest price possible. But you have a choice. You can choose to take your money to other places... Target, Circuit City, Sears, JC Penney, Macy's... where you have the choice to spend more money and get better service.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I voted early, but got a call from the Obama campaign saying that the county hadn't received my ballot (which I mailed). I showed up at the county courthouse yesterday and they were right. I filled out another one.
How did the Obama campaign know the county didn't have your vote? How did they know you voted for him? How did they get access to the county voting records? How does the county know not to count your mail-in ballot (since you also voted in person) if they find it on the floor later today?
That comment raises a lot of questions for me.
Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.
But it doesn't work like that. Do you know anybody who has their own business and DOES make more than $250,000? Here's the theory. They got that way by growing their business. Maybe started off barely able to make ends meet but took all their extra money and corporate profits and reinvested to make the business grow. Then the business got big enough to give them a health salary. Now, with their big salary, they take their extra money and add a location, or buy a new truck or more equipment. That, in turn, creates jobs which allow everybody else to make some money. If the average profit margin for a company is 8%, which I'm not saying it is, but that works for the folks I've worked for, then increasing taxes by 8% pretty much wipes out profits. Wipe out profits, wipe out growth. Wipe out growth, wipe out jobs. Wipe out jobs....well...you guess.
You'll have that sometimes...
Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...
Nah. He's got you there. Say what you want about Clinton, but he did a good job with the economy. That's pretty much undeniable. He made it a priority early in his presidency to focus on reducing national debt instead of tax cuts as a good way to keep the economy strong and he was right. It worked. Huge surplus, record low unemployment, smallest growth in government spending in a while...He did a fine job. I don't think you can really provide evidence that says otherwise.
You'll have that sometimes...
Just heard Obamas victory speech.
We here in Australia, are traditonally extremely cynical about politicians in general. But to my amazement I was inspired and moved in a way I rarely have by a speech of any kind. I was too young to hear JFK speak at the time, the same for Dr King, and this was the closest thing I have heard to the recordings of their speeches. I fell like a pivotal moment has come.
Hopefully Mr Obama can restore the admiration the rest of the world has had for the US for as long as I can remember prior to this century.
I dont believe it, for the first time since 2001 I feel some hope for us as a species. Shit.
Damn that cynical little voice thats telling me "You've been sucked in"
Heady stuff indeed.