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.
FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%
I like those odds.
MABASPLOOM!
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!
Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.
All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I wrote the following for the blog I recently started ... I come at Politics from an Anabaptist (radical Christian from the 16th century) perspective, so I spend more time justifying the decision to vote in the first place than justifying who I vote for. The blog's at <a href="http://digitalscriptorium.info/">http://digitalscriptorium.info/</a> if you're interested.
--
So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:
1. I can not vote at all.
2. I can vote for Obama.
3. I can vote for McCain.
Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.
Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.
Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.
There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)
Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Roma
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Yeah. no matter who wins I'm afraid we are on the verge of: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You had better get it straight that it is not a bunch of boy scouts that you are up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We are after power and we mean it. You fellows are pikers, but we know the real trick, and you had better get wise to it. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power that any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ...just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that is the system Mr. Reardon, that is the game, and once you understand it, you will be much easier to deal with."
Why pick the lesser evil?
I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.
What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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.
McCain FTW
"Fails To Win"?
Who are your picks and why.
Third party, since I don't like either main candidate. This happened to be Barr, since I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.
And also what about your actual experience voting today?
I got there at almost exactly 7am (when the polls opened), and the line was almost exactly 1 hour (I finished voting and left at 8:05). There were 10 Diebold voting machines lined up along one wall with no privacy screens, just little flaps on the sides.
Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
Well, that's kinda hard to know, isn't it? (Some might say that's kinda the point of buying from Diebold.)
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.
...I had the option of either voting by electronic machine or paper ballot. As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot for the simple reason that it leaves unchangeable records. Electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate or are far too likely to have glitches. (Especially the Diebold machines based on Microsoft Access.)
The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:
You are supposed to draw a line for the vote you want to cast. e.g.:
Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.
I got up pretty early this morning, so it ended up taking more time to fill out these super-ballots than it did to wait in line. I then went home and listened to WGN ponder why it was taking Obama so long to vote for himself. Perhaps someone should show them one of these ballots! :-P
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I find your intolerance intolerable.
It's outstanding how in an election where I didn't start off hating either candidate, McCain's choice of talking points (and running mate) brought me to the point of incoherent spitting fury...I had to read the transcripts of the last few debates because I couldn't stand to actually listen.
I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.
McCain was a guy I'd have voted for in 2000...Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years. But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..
If I was told I had to wait several hours to vote, I'd be very mad.
MABASPLOOM!
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
Election? What election?
I pride myself on keeping apprised of current events, but I wasn't aware of an election today.
Who is running and for what position?
Srsly, whoever this CmdrTaco is who posted the story should at least give us this basic information in the summary.
"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
I was amazed by the wording of some of the proposed amendments to the Florida constitution. One example was the marriage "keep the gays from marrying" proposal. First off, I happen to believe that marriage is a personal issue and has no need for government intervention but that is not my point here. The language was worded very biased, in that it started by stating that passing this amendment would "Protect marriage". As if I voted not my wife would someone stop loving me tomorrow or something. Second, it was the only amendment that ended with an entire paragraph dedicated to informing us voters that if we pass this the economic effect on the budget is "unknown at this time but likely minimal". This was on no other initiative. Holy bias Batman!
"This message was sent from an Apple
most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition
quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm
why is that notable?
in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican
so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?
portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
She kicked it off last Saturday.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Agreed. I love how Republicans call him a socialist as if that's a bad thing. they say he reads MArx like that's a negative trait. Have these people got any idea what they're saying?
Snopes has some good articles about myths and urban legends about each candidate.
McCain
Obama
Joe Biden
Sarah Palin
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems back in the 90s--your average 20-year-old slot machine is light years ahead of a current voting terminal, in terms of the independent multiple party audit capability, internal logging requirements, tamper detection, and ruggedness.
Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.
Remain calm! All is well!
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.
I voted for Kodos.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
Is that what the Mayans forsaw, the event which caused the end of this round of civilization?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
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
No, he called him one for wanting to increase income taxes on people who do pay income taxes and then write checks to people who don't.
Fixed that for you. If you claim that he's giving money to people who don't pay taxes at all, you are spreading a common misconception. Sorry.
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.
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.
Voted straight Dem ticket this year, except the county auditor (who was in the room -- small county) who is an R. I figure, the fact that my ballot didn't arrive may not have been his fault, but the fact that I found out about it and was able to correct it is at least partly due to him, so kudos, and 4 more years!
Also I wrote myself in for sheriff. I feel good about that.
Synergy is your friend
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';
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well. Education is of an exceptional standard, and every person from every background is given equal opportunity to do and become whatever they choose. It's basically social capitalism, by which I am implying that raw capitalism *in practice* is one of the most anti-social and dehumanising concepts on earth.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
I saw three choices this year. I could:
1. Vote for someone
2. Vote AGAINST someone
or
3. Vote my conscience.
#1 and #2 would involve votes for people I didn't really agree with but either of which had a realistic chance of winning. Once I had worked this out, I realized that I was being suckered into the classic popularity contest. Not the one where "I'm popular", but the one where "I successfully picked the WINNER!".
That was crap.
So I went back to the ballot to find someone that I agreed with... and came up semi-blank. The solution, it was clear, was going to be more complicated that I had thought.
I began working my way through the party descriptions again, looking for something I might have missed. Then I compared the track records of the elected officials that identify w/ each party and worked out a rough graph with two axis to determine how well each candidate had met the stated goals of their party. I thought of it as a 'Truth in Advertising' metric. How often do candidates of party X meet their promises? Once I had that, I aggregated the data and set it aside.
I then wrote down my core beliefs and popped them into Excel alongside the data for the 'TiA' metric and generated a quick 3D histogram to find which political parties were closest both in belief to my own and high in followthrough (the TiA number). Finally, I had my spreadsheet take this graph and do a pivot on the results and generate the party answer.
Unfortunately, my grasp of Excel is presumably sub-par, so the answer field populated with some sort of complicated error. I tried debugging it, but I didn't know how to modify VBS, and then when I _could_ get to it, I couldn't figure out how to set tracepoints. I tried to bypass the error by initializing a pointer that I could push and pop to in a handy little block of assembly, but I couldn't quite seem to figure out how to use pointers in VBS, so eventually I just voted the Libertarian party.
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
An idiot or a lawyer? Not a very easy choice...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!
At the end of the 6th paragraph
This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax.
It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.
:(){
even if mccain won, none of the things you say woudl come to pass
your problem is you are confusing popularity with power. certianly, the usa has become immensely unpopular under bush, but it has lost none of its power. continue bush's policies though, and it WOULD lose power, but not because of anything you worte, but simply because america's ability to create and project power would be diminished because of internal factors
for example, before the global economic meltdown over the last 2 months, there was much hemming and hawing about becoming a non-us centered world, economically. however, as the meltdown progressed, the us dollar perversely gained in value. simply because, even though the problem was started in the usa, it was still the most stable thing still standing as the whole world went down with the usa
someday, the usa will indeed not be the center of the world economically and militarily. but it won't be for any of the flowery and powerless popularity contest-level considerations you put forth, but simply becaus esome other country, such as china, will siply be able to create and project economic and military power, again, simply because of internal efforts, having nothign whatsoever to do with what the rest of the world thinks of china
your understanding of how the world actually works is quite... silly
for example: "Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES."
any country that woudl be foolish enough to do that, would see their economy suffer, since americna businessmen wouldn't be able to get in the country and do business. do you know any country then that would give up millions or billions simply to make a statement that they hate americans?
again, learn: popularity is not the same thing as power
it is possible to be deeply hated, but be in complete control
it is also possible, by the way, hint hint, to be loved everywhere you go in the world, but be absolutely powerless to affect any change about any issue you care about
no, the truth is, even if obama wins (and please god, let him win), the usa will be hated by many (and loved by some), and see its power still quite large in the world, but still slowly dimming while china slowly amps up. and this would be true even if mccain won
power!=popularity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mayan Doomsday: December 21, 2012
Inauguration Day: January 20, 2013
Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
And while we're on the subject I would definitely argue that a negative income tax isn't Marxist or Socialist - the idea was invented by Milton Friedman, the darling economist of those notorious lefties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Don't worry, it would be worse if it was an idiot lawyer.
Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.
Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!
Now, let's talk about Palin.
Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"
Palin passed a windfall profits tax , literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.
:(){
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.
Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...
You mean like a parity error?
Why do Eric Schmidt and Warren Buffett endorse Obama? Because he is for growth-oriented, social democratic capitalism. Growth through innovation, educating your populace, with a safety net, and did I say education?
McCain's capitalism revolves around military contractors and, what I am not unafraid to call plain old imperialism. It is also based on monopoly capitalism - like the monopoly Verizon has over the local loop. Exploiting low-educated workers to the last penny.
The choice of Obama is obvious, unless you're of the worse-is-better school.
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.
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.
Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
You mean like this?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
As for accuracy...
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
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.
I do really wish that we would move past the single-vote plurality system when voting for federal office (President, Senate, House). I like approval voting for its simplicity and its moderating effect. I love the idea that it might be possible to elect a true compromise candidate instead of violently swinging from one extreme to the next.
But that's not what I want the most (nor is it all that likely to happen any time soon).
What I want the most is for the US to finally welcome international inspectors to watch our elections. We expect emerging democracies to admit inspectors, so we really should eat our own dog food. Would it be painful and humiliating? Quite possibly, for the first few years. But it would be a nice step toward shedding our reputation as a nation that says, "Fuck the rest of the world, we're the US-of-goddamn-A." Oh, and it might actually drive improvements to our voting system, just maybe.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
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.
Bankrupted by an out-of bounds banking industry that was totally deregulated and ten times larger than the Iceland GDP i.e. the real Icelandic economy. These banks were counter parties to many Wall street institutions that pushed their toxic sludge bonds on the Icelandic banks. Totally not related to their welfare system.
Nice try though.
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 first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Which, in 2012, will be December 17.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Don't worry, it would be worse if it was an idiot lawyer.
I disagree.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
[sarcasm]As opposed to Bush, who, as we all know, was a great respecter of the Constitution.[/sarcasm]
Obama is an expert on the Constitution to a level that is hard to even define...He taught Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. So it's not unreasonable that he may have criticisms of the document, the same way any expert may have criticisms of things under his area of expertise.
But I do not think that he has anything like the arrogance and disrespect for the law and the Constitution that has been shown in the last 8 years, and having anyone imply that with a straight face makes me laugh.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Nice try.
But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.
Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
You are forgetting about the american dream. The dream that one day YOU will be elite, the rich, the powerful. Eat dirt today because tomorrow you will be eating cake. And of course, if you are eating cake tomorrow, you hardly want to share that cake or have it turned into bread for all. No, eat dirt today, because tomorrow...
It is the american dream. If you were cynical, you might see it as a near perfect ploy to keep the masses content. Not that dissimilar to how certain religions do it. Suffer life now, the after-life will see you rewarded. Never mind dear suicide bomber that you are pisspoor despite millions in support to the palestines. Your reward awaits you in heaven, never mind that your leaders life in luxury in the west (check were the palestine leadership lives, and for instance how many millions old beard face had and where he houses his wife)
The american dream tells americans that they too can one day have it all, and since one day they will have it all, why should they then share it or ask those who have it now to share?
Make no mistake, the american dream is the ultimate enslavement tool. Because the truth of course is that NOT everyone can make it, no matter how they try because a capatalist system needs its homeless to allow for the superrich. The american dream at best is an lottery, but one where the winners can buy the winning tickets.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's funny you pull mention his talking-point on waterboarding, because John McCain in fact voted against a ban on waterboarding. So his stance is maybe not as clear as you think.
Denmark does have a surplus on oil trade however, we drill less oil per citizen than the US does. If the American spend as little oil as Danes did, the US too would be an oil exporter.
I voted, but as in the last few it wasn't for my candidate of choice, it was against the candidate I couldn't abide by winning.
My candidate would not become a whore to Corporations, would effectively ban lobbying by groups (of ANY kind).
Would respect the Constitution, even the parts they didn't like.
Would only sign single issue Bills.
Would endeavor to clean the garbage and deadwood out of the US Code of Federal Regulations and our nations Laws.
Would abandon our current taxation system and go to an end user consumption tax for ALL revenue other than import duties.
Would respect my privacy and not spy on me or my countrymen.
Would balance our budget and generate enough surplus to begin paying down our debt. (see above)
Would work with Congress to issue appropriate letters of Marque and Reprisal to eliminate those who threaten us, and bring our troops home as quickly as prudent.
Would begin an immediate effort to eliminate all Federally funded Energy programs which have not produced based upon their historical record, and transfer that funding to new programs with promise to reduce or end our energy dependence.
Unfortunately, my candidate does not exist
Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
I find it telling that statisticians have long noted the correlation between education levels and political leaning. It is fact: smarter, better educated, and better informed people tend to vote Democrat. Find a Republican in the AAAS or NAS. Why do you suppose that is? The better educated stand more to lose, since they tend to be wealthier. (I have a feeling that there's a golden amount of wealth that allows us the luxury of investing in the future, without the pathology of being obsessed with accumulating money.)
I also find it telling that most everyone saying anything negative about Obama has referred to him using his middle name. This echoes the standard content of the message: "He does not look like us, therefore he must be evil." They don't tend to address actual policy issues, but simply try to instill fear/hatred/uncertainty/doubt based on rumours.
Could we, as a society, maybe move beyond that?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
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
That being said, I have been heavily involved in the academic institution for a while at the College level. I wouldn't say the correlation between Higher education and democrat has much to do with the democrat platform being any more sound than the republican one. Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more. You are also mocked in your career if you are a PHD and a republican unless you are a poly-sci instructor. Democrats also are in favor of looser policies for research and development.
Another thing you need to remember, just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior. It just means I am really good at focusing all my attention on a subject.
Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.
Remember the whole causation correlation memo that is constantly thrown around here.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Also:
- States and localities are supposed to be prepared for and handle the first three days, while FEMA's charter (at the time) was to mobilize the big stuff (financial aid, rebuilding, food restocking, etc.) that comes in after that time.
- The fed was PROHIBITED (by The Posse Comitatus Act) from coming in without permission from the state's governor - which was withheld. So the fed mobilized as much as it could meanwhile, bringing some of it up to the state line and handing off some others to Non-Governmental Organizations (one of which was the Salvation Army) to bring in. (Then the NGOs were blocked from entering by the state and local authorities, too.)
(One tinfoil hat theory is that the NGOs were deliberately blocked in a political move to increase the suffering and thus the administration's embarrassment when it was blamed on them.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way