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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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?
"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
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