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?

Comments

I'm only going to say

[cptnapalm]

... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

Re:I'm only going to say

[The Assistant]

MidTerm elections would be in 2010!

Midterms in college are probably being given right now, or maybe they're already over.

Can't we have a break from campaigning for at least a year? I think we deserve it after having to deal with this for the past 2 years!!! Wouldn't it be nice if the news could actually contain some news? It's been a while since that has happened!

VOTE, VOTE Quickly, and lets get on with the rest of our lives!!!!!

Re:I'm only going to say

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Whether or not Palin decides to pursue a post-election career as a national-level politician, the real damage has already been dealt to the Republican party. Her meteoric rise is only a slight clue into the inner turmoil of the GOP.

The 20+ years of neoconservative leadership has bankrupted the Republican party of its core conservative platform, and the pandering to the religious fundamentalists has turned off the moderates of the party. Those left are the ones who see Palin as more than she ever could be. She represents precisely the reasons why the Republican party is unable to attract new members and votes.

Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

That these pillars have been completely ignored in the actual implementation of policy is the primary reason so many are seeking answers elsewhere.

Re:I'm only going to say

[LWATCDR]

I agree but I still think we should get to slap the Slashdot admins every time they stick a Politics story under News.
They have a Politics category for a reason and I have it turned off for a reason!

Re:I'm only going to say

[Sique]

Sometimes I am really wondering about the antipathy against something that is perceived "socialized medicine".
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations. In parts it is not even effective, e.g. not providing all U.S. citizens with even basic health services.
For a visitor of Earth, who doesn't look too deeply into the inner workings, he has to be under the impression that, given normal economic theories, the U.S. one is the most socialist system and the other nations have market driven ones (Ok... UK might be in a hard competition for place one in this race ;) ).
But whenever someone is barely suggesting, one could have a look how other nations organize health care and at least pondering some ideas, he gets shout down with "Communism! Socialism!" immediately. So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?

Re:I'm only going to say

[tha_mink]

The US is in desperate need of good PR and Obama could help us a lot with that.

Ten months ago, I would have agreed with you. I'd have said that was one of our biggest problems. But now, given the current state of the economy, war, etc...I think we need a hell of a lot more than charisma. I don't think either candidate has a true plan to deal with all the issues. I think they're both lying weasels that would say/do anything to get elected, and I believe we're not better off with one or the other. (Just like always) It doesn't mean I don't have my pick, but in the end I understand that this one vacant position getting filled doesn't have a chance to change *anything* that wouldn't have changed anyways.

Re:I'm only going to say

[Gotung]

The Democratic "majority" in the Senate is possibly the weakest "majority" that there has ever been.

It's really a tie 49-49 with 2 independents that usually side with the Dems.

Add to that extreme fillabusters from the Republicans, and a Republican president that has threatened to veto pretty much every Democratic initiative and you have have a Democratic "majority" in congress that can't get a damn thing done.

The current state of the union is not the fault of a 2 year weak Dem majority in congress, it is largely the fault of the Republican's near complete control from 2000-2006, and the gridlock they've created since.

Re:I'm only going to say

[JrOldPhart]

Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?

Re:I'm only going to say

[jollyreaper]

Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

I have a rather conservative outlook to life -- small "c", no vast ideology involved. I believe that it's best to approach things cautiously, make sure we don't leap in feet-first and screw things up before we even understand what's going on. I believe we shouldn't fix what ain't broke but this doesn't mean that there's not a better way of doing things out there. Sure, maybe 9 in 10 times the new idea turns out to not be a good one so we decide to not go ahead with it but there's always that 1 in 10 chance that it's a really good idea.

I despise what big "c" Conservatism has become in this country. Right-wing media outlets actively seek to inculcate their listeners against logic and reason, giving them predigested talking points to hurl back in forth in shouted arguments where nobody is really listening to each other. To me, conservatism is about caution, prudence, relying on wisdom won through hard experience and tough lessons. The opposite of this conservatism is flighty, mercurial indecision, mistakes made from inexperience and the best of intentions gone wrong. The non-conservative sees a drowning man and jumps in after him to save him. And as we all know, a drowning man is going to try scrambling up the body of his would-be rescuer and get them both killed. The true conservative does not immediately leap to unthinking action but looks for a life-ring to throw the two of them, preferring meaningful action that will produce results to empty actions full of symbolism and nothing more. But what would the GOP Conservative do today? He would look at the drowning man and say "Fuck him, it's his own problem. Let him save himself," and walk away.

And what of liberalism in this country? Why, the very debate has poisoned the word. Liberal is now an insult second only to child molester. "He's a liberal," the television ads sneer, as if that one word satisfactorily sums up every reason not to vote for someone. That's bullshit.

What is a liberal? A liberal is someone who is unsatisfied with the status quo. He worries that his conservative friend is too comfortable with the way things are and sees a better future in the way things could be. In a healthy political environment, there is give and take between both positions. Perhaps the liberal reaches too far, perhaps the conservative isn't reaching far enough. Through vigorous debate the public is informed of the issues and will decide who they agree with.

The thing about status quos, there's always going to be someone at the top of the pyramid quite happy with the way things are and there will always be many more people at the bottom wanting to change it. In this case, the conservative will want to exert every effort to keep things the way they are while liberals will want to bring about reforms, democratize the process, make things more fair. This is the crux of the matter, the heart of the conflict. Read Roman history and this back and forth feels utterly familiar. Change the names and dates and it could be pulled from our own newspapers.

The people are abandoning the Republican Party because they feel they're getting screwed. In other countries, sovereignty resides with the wealthy and the people have no voice as a matter of law. In America, sovereignty resides with the people, not a king, not an aristocracy, not a priesthood. This is a country by, of, and for the people. And right now what the people are seeing is a huge screw-job, marshaling the resources of this vast land to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Wall Street is screwing us over. Polit

Re:I'm only going to say

[Cornflake917]

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.

Re:I'm only going to say

[squiggleslash]

Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.

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.

Or that other institution I stopped going to, er, what was the name? The one that sells you stuff but has unhelpful workers who don't give a shit, where you wait in long lines to buy anything, and which doesn't care what it sells you (working, non working, whatever.) What was that government institution called again?

Oh yeah, Wal-mart.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to find one example of a government department that's bad at its job (and then only in certain areas. Honestly, I don't normally have to wait for hours at any DMV I've been to) and treat that as typical, and ignore the fact the free market doesn't exactly produce the best results either. And, here's the thing, it's not as if healthcare is particularly well run at the moment. Who hasn't been through the "Who pays of this?" mill.

Re:I'm only going to say

[Shotgun]

Term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. Instead, of aiming at the head, aim at the heart of the problem. Push for all candidates to sign a pledge that congressional committee appointments will be by random selection.

Ted Stevens stayed in the Congress so long, because he was able to "bring home the pork." Alaskans would be insane to drop a political figure that was able to bring in money from Florida to pay for things in Alaska. He was popular with Alaskans because he was able to get money to pay for things they wanted without raising their taxes.

Ted Stevens was able to "bring home the pork" because he sat on powerful committees. But I ask you, why should Ted Stevens be any more powerful than Elizabeth Dole? Why should Alaska have more representation in Congress than North Carolina? Why should someone who's been hanging around for 30yrs have more control than the 'new blood' we periodically send in to fix things.

Spread the power around. Randomize committee selection. Get to the real power and disburse it.

Re:I'm only going to say

[squiggleslash]

Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

The Fed was created in response to numerous crashes and bank failures that had preceded it. Here's a thought - look at the economic history of the US post Fed and then look at it pre-Fed. Which economy was the more stable?

This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

Since 2002? Obviously you didn't read the numerous Ron Paul Newsletters when it was revealed what vile garbage the man spouted during the early nineties. 'cos he was predicting economic collapses then too.

If you sit there predicting economic collapses due to government intervention every day, then when there's a crash and it's in a country with a government, you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to claim you predicted the crash and that it was due to government intervention. Here's reality though: various unregulated banks sold crappy ARMs to people without checking (or rather, without caring) if they were able to pay back the loans.

Is the solution to allow all banks, including the biggest, to sell awful mortgages to everyone and never verify they can pay the loans back, or is it to outlaw (regulate) those kinds of practices?

(Or is it to blame ethnic minorities by claiming a law against discrimination which only affected regulated banks, and which mandated credit checks anyway, had some kind of role in this? 'cos despite the complete dishonesty of such an argument, that seems to be where the right wing are heading at the moment. It's the 1930s all over again, and I'm not talking about the American 1930s either...)

Re:I'm only going to say

[spun]

Maybe you prefer a great father on Wall Street to take care of all your ills and order your hirings and firings, but a great many of us have a spine and prefer collective action. We're called adults. The adults among us do much better when government works to curb the excesses of Drunken Gambler Daddy capitalism.

Re:I'm only going to say

[PachmanP]

Amen to that! At this point I almost don't care who wins as long as people stop talking about flag pins and all of this nonsense. I move to ban people from campaining prior to 3 months before the primaries and that the primaries be moved back so there is only 3 months between them and the general elections. I think if you can't convince me to vote for you in 6 mo then you shouldn't be running anyway.

Re:I'm only going to say

[moderatorrater]

I'd like to point out that the lack of prevention and preparation for that disaster falls as much, or more, on the state and local government than on the federal government. On the state level, New Orleans should have been one of the primary concerns; on the level of the city, there should have been nothing else going on. On the federal level, they had to worry about multiple other states and cities getting hit in addition to everything else that was happening. And yet Bush gets blamed. How does that make any sense?

Re:I'm only going to say

[tfoss]

And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

I can't totally parse what you are trying to say here, it seems pretty jumbled and at least partly demonstrably wrong.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were gov't entities, then were spun off into non-gov't corporations (though everyone thought they had some sort of special unspoken gov't back-up), then were placed back in gov't conservatorship recently. They are not the cause of the financial upheaval going on. They actually got into the sub-prime market late and in a lesser way due to legal restrictions that other companies did not have.

The CRA has been blamed by many on the right largely because it is about the only way to tie the financial shitstorm directly to Democrats. Unfortunately, the argument simple doesn't hold water. Are you really suggesting that a law passed 31 years ago caused no problems for 3 decades caused a sudden and dramatic panic? Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? Do you even know what the CRA really requires of lenders (and which ones)?

encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

Baloney. The CRA doesn't *require* any risks, and in fact CRA-regulated loans are not the ones that have been causing problems.

This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

And by gov't regulators who warned of problems back last century. It is not difficult to forsee that when bigger mortgages are given to a whole lot more people with a whole lot less ability to afford them, at predatory rates & conditions that there will be problems. Many people on the left (and some on the right) called for better regulations, yet we can thank Greenspan for undermining pretty much anything meaningful.

-Ted

Obama

[FredFredrickson]

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.

Obama - A template for future US politics?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

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?

Re:Obama - A template for future US politics?

[demachina]

"From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is."

It isn't negative campaigning to point out the party, and its President, you are running against has completely sucked for 8 years. If the Republican's don't like that...... they shouldn't have sucked so bad for the last eight years. Its entirely their own fault they are losing, they had their chance, they controlled all the levers of power.... and they blew it. That is the whole idea of a campaign against an unpopular incumbent. Unfortunately for McCain he does in fact support the lion's share of things Bush did with the possible exception of torture, profligate spending and a mismanaged war. Though he originally opposed the Bush tax cuts for the rich, for the obvious reason that they created staggering deficits, he has since flip flopped and has been running on a campaign to make them permanent.

Re:Obama - A template for future US politics?

[pubjames]

at least by my count, below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high.

Can you elaborate? What do you consider to be "below-the-belt"? People mocking her when she said stupid things? People pointing out her lack of experience and knowledge? People laughing at her un-presidential mannerisms and speech?

Some people command respect. Palin isn't one of them.

Re:Obama - A template for future US politics?

[Chris Burke]

From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

Well let me clue you in, then.

"John Kerry didn't really earn his Purple Heart or Silver Star" is negative, inherently so, it calls into question his honestly, character and valor.

"John McCain is unstable, and possibly insane, due to his time as a POW during Vietnam" is negative, inherently so, as it takes an example of the man's tremendous courage and turns it into a negative, questioning his very sanity.

Compare those to "John McCain is an extension of G.W. Bush's Presidency", that's only negative if you happen to disagree with Bush's policies -- oh which the vast majority of American's do, thus McCain's attempts to distance himself from the man -- but is vastly different than the other examples. It's technically worded as a negatively, but it's no different than saying "I think my opponent's policies are bad for the country", which is what you would want a candidate to be saying in an issue- and policy-based campaign.

"Going negative" is when you try to smear their character for things other than their political record. Bush did it hardcore to Kerry and to McCain. Obama has by and large avoided it. McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show. See, even if you don't see the difference between "Your policies are like George Bush's" and "you pal around with terrorists", most Americans can, and that's part of why Barack Obama is going to be our next President.

Obama's sense of responsability

[Drakkenmensch]

One thing the democratic party has brought is a sense that the solutions to ou rproblems is something we have to bring forward as we accept responsability for our mistakes. You can't fix your problems until you accept they exist. All the while, a constant line from republican speeches has been to blame others for the problems. Blame the democrats, blame big foreign oil, blame Osama, blame Obama. Blame other republicans, too.

We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.

Re:Obama

[CRCulver]

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.

Re:switfboat

[Theolojin]

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.

Re:Obama

[scubamage]

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.

Florida voting smooth so far

[HangingChad]

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?

Re:switfboat

[demachina]

"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.

If Obama is NOT the next president

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

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

Re:McCain FTW

[elrous0]

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.

Re:switfboat

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Re:Obama

[griffjon]

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.)

Re:switfboat

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:Obama

[naetuir]

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.

Re:switfboat

[Waffle Iron]

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?

Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?"

[El Fantasmo]

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!

More importantly....

[PinkyDead]

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...

Re:switfboat

[Theolojin]

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.

Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective)

[TheRaven64]

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.

Best Post Ever.

[stefanlasiewski]

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.

Re:Best Post Ever.

[Paranatural]

I'm with you on this. He totally and completely sold out everything that he had stood for for years. I can only imagine it's because he was convinced that's the only way he could win, and after he won he could go back to doing and saying the things he actually believed.

Of course, he'd never be allowed to do that.

Re:Obama

[canUbeleiveIT]

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.

Re:Obama

[jonaskoelker]

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.

Re:FiveThirtyEight

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Communism doesn't kill people, people kill people

[danaris]

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

Re:Obama

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:FiveThirtyEight

[FireStormZ]

"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!