Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Megan Garber writes that in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,' a juicy tidbit that is a source of delight for his political opponents but considered an irrelevant piece of youthful trivia to his supporters. 'But it's also a tension that will play out, repeatedly, in the most comprehensive narrative we have about Paul Ryan as a person and a politician and a policy-maker: his Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. Late Friday night, just as news of the Ryan choice leaked in the political press — the first substantial edit to that page removed the 'brown noser' mention which had been on the page since June 16. The Wikipedia deletion has given rise to a whole discussion of whether the mention is a partisan attack, whether 'brown noser' is a pejorative, and whether an old high school opinion survey is notable or relevant. As of this writing, 'brown noser' stands as does a maybe-mitigating piece of Ryan-as-high-schooler trivia: that he was also voted prom king. But that equilibrium could change, again, in an instant. 'Today is the glory day for the Paul Ryan Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. 'Yesterday, it saw just 10 [edits]. Today, however — early on a Saturday morning, East Coast time — it's already received hundreds of revisions. And the official news of the Ryan selection, of course, is just over an hour old.' Now Ryan's page is ready to host debates about biographical details and their epistemological relevance. 'Like so many before it, will be a place of debate and dissent and derision. But it will also be a place where people can come together to discuss information and policy and the intersection between the two — a town square for the digital age.'"

Comments

If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[crazyjj]

Then I'm pretty sure that what Paul Ryan did in high school can be too.

But seriously, I'm a lot less concerned with what Paul Ryan did in high school that what he has done since. I'm not sure what Romney was thinking on this one (excite a base that was ALREADY excited, that would have come out to vote against Obama no matter who you chose?). But he just gave the Democrats an incredible gift. Because he didn't just excite the Republican base, he also just excited the Democratic base (and scared the hell out of the independents, and conceded Florida). Many Democrats were disenchanted with Obama and probably wouldn't have come out to vote for him again in the fall. But stacking him up against an insane-right-wing Ayn Rand ideologue who wants to abolish Medicare and Social Security to give tax cuts to the wealthy is a pretty fucking great way to motivate them. I'm not sure if this is some form of political suicide or just incredibly bad advisers, but either way--speaking as a Dem--thanks, buddy.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[dtmancom]

Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[paiute]

The fact is - it is an ABSURDITY created BY the Obama camp, to make appear as ridiculous those looking into the REAL dodginess in his his background.

Newt Gingrich - member of the Obama camp? The levels of double dealing and obfuscation continue to fold back upon themselves like a pastry chef preparing baklava.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The Choom Gang reference is not in Obama's wiki entry. Are you suggesting it should be?

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[h4rr4r]

Why would it be? That would have been checked before he registered to be a candidate.

I still don't understand it anyway, since the constitution says natural born and I would assume that covers anyone that was became a citizen by birth. I for instance was born outside the US, but because one my my parents was a US soldier I was a citizen by birth.

Wiki quotes the Congressional Research Service to say;

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term âoenatural bornâ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship âoeby birthâ or âoeat birth,â either by being born âoeinâ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship âoeat birth.â Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an âoealienâ required to go through the legal process of âoenaturalizationâ to become a U.S. citizen.[1]"

Which seems to agree with my analysis.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[h4rr4r]

Baklava? Are you some sort of communist?

I think you mean like a pastry chef making freedom crescents.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.

It is a Constitutional issue only because he is black. Nobody gave a shit that McCain was born on a military base in Panama or that Romney's father was born in Mexico when he tried to run for President. But Obama had to have been ineligible. It is a double-standard and it is racism. And it is also factually incorrect. So fuck you for bringing it up again.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[bedroll]

You're right, Obama's place of birth gives us an excellent opportunity to examine areas of Constitutional law that are commonly misunderstood. For example, where he was born means absolutely nothing because the citizenship of his mother is not in question. So, like George Romney - Mitt's father, who was born in Mexico - President Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born. The rest is racism and xenophobia.

As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders. When Biden was picked it wasn't particularly important to note that he's a gaff machine, except in the personal context of how others will judge him. Either way, if it is verifiable and people are interested in the information as a part of his profile then it should meet the minimum standards for inclusion in Mr. Ryan's Wikipedia page.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

That is another good point. You can't tell us how serious the deficit is, and then include tax cuts. That makes me awefully sucspicious of the motivation.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[sinij]

If you want to vote Republican ticket because of Ryan's Plan - make sure to read it. Ryan's Plan does include privatization of social security (no specifics on how, mandatory 401ks or 'contracted' to Goldman Sachs?) and turns medicare into voucher system (who will provide individual affordable healthcare coverage to sick and poor out of this population remains unclear). It also includes a lot of tax cuts to corporations and top 1%, Romney for example would pay less than 1% taxes under Ryan's plan. Last but not least Ryan's plan does not at all addresses defense spending - so no cuts there whatsoever. Fundamental problem with Ryan's Plan is that as far as fiscally conservative plans go - it isn't one. Even if you take his "closing tax loopholes" projections at a face value, any and all savings are channeled into tax cuts, not reduction of deficit. Last but not least - austerity measures that are bound to lower GDP (just look what austerity did in GB), debt/GDP will continue increasing under Ryan's Plan due to hit to GDP and no corresponding reduction in debt. In closing, also make sure to examine Ryan's voting record - every Bush tax cut, every expense, TARP, bailouts were voted YES. His rhetoric aside, fiscal conservative he is not.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Dyinobal]

You know the republicans keep spouting this 700 billion dollar cut but does anyone actually know what was cut and why? I did some research and found a pretty well written post on reddit about it, and it has sources (amazing). To me it doesn't seem that bad, it certainly seems better than medicare turning into a coupon program. 60% off your next tumor ha!

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/y4afe/a_breakdown_of_the_gops_latest_talking_point/

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[crazyjj]

Yes, except Medicare is open to all seniors over 65. His "replacement" is open to everyone too--everyone who can pay the difference between their voucher and what their insurance actually costs, that is:

If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support [i.e., their voucher], the senior would pay the difference.

Oh, got a pre-existing medical condition that makes your insurance cost more than your voucher? Tough luck, grandma.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[RoccamOccam]

I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Trepidity]

In theory government revenues don't need to be a linear function of tax rates, but in normal ranges they typically are. If you raised the top rate from 33% to 99%, you wouldn't see a tripling of revenue, but if you raised it from 33% to 34%, likely you would get more revenue; and if you lowered it to 32%, likely you would get less revenue. The Laffer Curve is not empirically supported, if that's what you're thinking of.

And, in general, I don't think lowering revenue when you already have a deficit problem is a good way to go. If we're running surpluses, then sure, cut taxes; but we aren't.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[spiffmastercow]

How is that a lie? His plan is to "privatize" Medicare for those under 55. That will, in effect, destroy the Medicare program. It might create a new program of some kind (though I'm guessing it's more of an every man for himself kind of deal), but it would most certainly destroy the existing one.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

What? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Using terms like "liberal" or "conservative" makes me think that you are trying to score political points instead of dealing with a serious issue. We spend more money than we take in. So it makes sense to increase the amount of money we take in, and reduce the amount of money we spend. Is that not, just plain logic?

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[omnichad]

Such is the fate of politics. Screw informed debate. Let's just get some passionate fanatic people to follow us wherever. It's much easier that way. I wish republican/democrat debate within house/senate bill votes and the presidency were based on actual thinking and not just pushing an ideology that one has become a fanatic of.

It's not popular to try. You really have to blame the voters for this. The political candidates almost HAVE to act this way to even have a chance of getting elected.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Dr. Evil]

"be the adult in the room ..."

" more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than..."

Why do condescending posts with weasel words like these get attention in U.S. politics?

As an outside observer, Romney demonstrated that he's a dangerously ignorant and unqualified in how he pre-campaigned in England and Israel. He doesn't even have any power and he already embarrassed the country twice. He's not even qualified to be an aide to an ambassador.

Good leadership would be for him to hang his head in shame, forget national leadership and stick to positions of domestic politics.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[omnichad]

People believe what they see on the "news." Fox News has the legal right to lie. I know the public should have more skepticism of the press, but it isn't wrong to expect journalistic integrity. I think the law should be revised to make someone very afraid of reporting anything that isn't true.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you took 35 seconds to parse the sentence, you'd realize that the GP was talking about George Romney running for President DESPITE being born in Mexico.

Yes, I know that "he" is a bit of an ambiguous pronoun, that's why I'm giving you an extra 5 seconds to look it over. Heck, you could have Google'd it yourself.

You really would sound less like a fool if you hadn't gotten so outraged over your own mistaken reading.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[rolfwind]

Of course, having passed more of his budgets through Congress than Obama has (who can't even get Congressional Democrats to vote for his ideas in bill form), Ryan has had to be the adult in the room and actually consider the effects of things on the deficit and future entitlements.

Sigh, no.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote

From both articles:

White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.
"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

He’s right about the rejection. After Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal on Feb. 13, 2012, House Republicans put it up for a floor vote.

The result: 414-0 against.

The same thing happened a year earlier in the Senate. That vote: 97-0 against. Democrats didn’t support the plan because it has been supplanted by another deficit-reduction plan Obama had later outlined. Republican leaders demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint, according to The Hill.

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it," he said.

Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: "That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points."

Basically the votes were taken to score gotchas against the president. The one in the house by erasing all the details and just "basing" it on his big numbers. Of course no one would vote for that.

This VP pick shows that Romney is more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than he is interested in short-term political gain from a couple of poll points in a swing state or two. Ryan was by far the best serious candidate for the VP job.

Paul Ryan:
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
VVoted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011) Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011
)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, whether or not someone is a natural-born citizen is more complicated than that. George Romney is an edge case of one sort. His parents were both U.S. citizens, but he was born in a foreign country. A study of the way that "natural born" was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that such might have in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution disqualified him from serving as President (but the argument is inconclusive). Barack Obama represents another such edge case. Since only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen, if he had been born outside of the U.S. he would not have qualified as "natural-born" as the term was used by the Framers. It is even ambiguous as to whether or not he qualifies as "natural-born" by the understanding of the term that the Framers would have held (it is ambiguous, there are sources which support such an argument, but they are not conclusive). The final example of an edge case for whether someone qualifies as a "natural-born" citizen is Marco Rubio. Rubio was born in the U.S., but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time. Again, looking at the writings about what "natural-born" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that he would not be considered "natural-born" by the definitions of the time, but once again, the writings are not conclusive and it is not clear whether he would have been viewed as a "natural-born" citizen or not.
All of these cases are why I wish that the case of whether or not Obama was a "natural-born" citizen had gone to the Supreme Court and that the Court had ruled on it. This is one of the rare cases where it would have been useful for the Court to offer an opinion on what defined a "natural-born" citizen that went beyond the narrow parameters necessary to decide the case. Basically, the "birther" issue has brought out the fact that the term "natural-born" does not have a clear legal definition today.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Dodgy G33za]

So let me get this straight. The richest country in the world can't afford free health care for all of its citizens?

But many other countries, such as the UK, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Cuba, can.

I dunno how the intricacies of your society work but from where I am standing (in Australia) I would say something over there is seriously fucked.

Maybe you just like to keep the poor people in your society poor. That's fine. Maybe you should have let the south win the civil war though, just to make it a bit easier.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[DrXym]

Sorry but no. No amount of evidence would convince them that he was born in Hawaii. Not in 2008 and not now. Obama had already released information about his birth and there was plenty of circumstantial evidence that he was born in Hawaii such as an announcement in the births column of a local newspaper. Was that enough? No the birthers proclaimed, it was all forgeries! So they shifted the goalposts and demanded the long form cert. When that was delivered eventually (probably by an exasperated Obama) that too was decried as a forgery.

The problem here is that birthers are conspiracy kooks. No amount of evidence will change their minds. Evidence is not something to be taken at face value. Instead it must be demanded, and if by chance it is supplied it must be marginalised and denied and new evidence demanded. It's a tactic common with other denialist causes - 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists etc.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[MozeeToby]

There's more doubt about McCain being constitutionally a natural born citizen than Obama.

Obama was born in Hawaii, even ignoring the fact that his birth certificate was shown I find it hard to believe that someone had the amazing foresight to put a fake birth announcement in the paper on the off chance he would want to run for president someday.

On the other hand, McCain was born in a Panama, at a navy base hospital. What, exactly, McCain's citizenship status would be is a matter of some legal debate, because of various laws in place at the time and enacted later that would effect it.

My point is, it was never brought up during the campaign because everyone who is honest with themselves knows that there's no conceivable difference between someone born in one place versus someone born someone else. Being born within the borders of the US does not grant you automatic super-patriot powers. As long as you've been a citizen for a hellava long time and have shown loyalty it really shouldn't matter. (Of course, more likely, no one brought it up because attacking the citizenship of a war hero is probably a terrible idea from a PR standpoint).

Personally, I always thought the natural born requirement was silly. Why don't we just change the requirement to being a US citizen for 35 years and put it in line with the age restrictions. If someone wants to move here at 20 and run for office at 55 I say why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to? If you're willing to believe that someone is willing to plot for 35 years to throw down the US by the ridiculously unlikely plan of being elected president, why do you doubt that someone wouldn't be willing to brainwash their child into doing it instead?

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[rilian4]

Giving people an option to take their money out of Social Security is the right thing to do. Getting rid of socialism in the government can only improve government and the economy. Freedom will win out every time. If one could wave a magic wand and get rid of the incumberance of medical insurance, we'd immediately see a drastic reduction in medical expenses. In a truly free economy w/o insurance to prop it up, the medical industry would have to drastically reduce costs as no one can pay what they charge now.

The answer is not more insurance, that makes the problem worse. The answer is to get the 800lb government gorilla off of our collective chests and let us be free.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Trepidity]

You seem to have misread my comment, by arguing against the example I'm already conceding. I do think that very large changes in tax rates may have nonlinear changes in revenue, which is what you seem to also be arguing. One example is that raising the top rate from 33% to 99% would likely not increase revenue.

What I am arguing, however, is that smaller changes generally do in fact change revenue in the way you'd expect. If a rate is currently at 33%, then raising it to 34% will increase revenue, and lowering it to 32% will decrease revenue. The decrease in the rate from 36% to 33% under Bush decreased revenue by essentially all accounts, whether you ask the CBO or independent economists or anyone else.

It's only if you make very large changes that you may see other effects, as in the raise-to-99% hypothetical. But since nobody is proposing that, those aren't the relevant cases. In the case of changing a tax rate by single-digit percentages, there is no Laffer-curve magic.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[sqrt(2)]

This being a nerd oriented site I would think people would be smarter than this. You are spreading an untrue urban legend derived from a misunderstanding of how computer software works. Those layers were caused by Adobe's PDF software. An expert from Adobe confirmed as much.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

An American GI here, I have experienced the healthcare in Australia and England, all I can say is if the health care in those countries is dubious then the health care in the US is atrocious. Why is it most Americans that criticize the health care in Europe, Canada and Australia have never experienced it first hand and just take it for granted ours is better?

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[shutdown -p now]

How can Paul Ryan be a Neocon when he's Catholic, just like the most famous Democratic president JFK? Never mind the Vatican, American Catholics tend to be middle of the road in most things, including evolution and birth control except when it comes to abortion.

Rick Santorum is Catholic, and he's decidedly not middle of the road in many things, not just abortion.

"Catholic" is really too broad a brush to be meaningful. There are people who self identify as Catholic but don't really practice their faith much, there are hardcore traditionalists, and there's everyone in between.

Don't they lock those things?

[smoore]

Why hasn't it been reverted to the preannouncment page and locked for editing with the addition of "prospective VP candidate for the Republican party? Seems like the best and only proper solution.

Re:Don't they lock those things?

[baegucb]

Well, I live about two miles from Paul Ryan. I've never voted for him or met him. The two major bills he's had passed involved repealing some minor tax on arrows, and renaming the local post office. He does have a lot of support from rich outsiders and local rednecks. Janesville back in 1992 had a KKK rally, and there are people who ride town with Confederate flags fling from their pickup. If you go to www.gazettextra.com there are the usual Tea Party shills, trolls, and astroturfing going on since the failed Walker recall started. Well, maybe since Obama got elected.
I consider Ryan as a nice guy personally based on his local rep, but a Palin clone who knows grammar.

interesting problem

[Trepidity]

I'm tempted to say that these kinds of articles aren't where Wikipedia works best. Articles where the majority of the editors are partisans, rather than scholars or knowledgeable enthusiasts, tend to attract a lot of heat and not as much improvement (I made the mistake once of trying to edit something that was in the Israel-Palestine crossfire).

On the other hand, it's quite possible that Wikipedia has the least bad coverage. It's Paul Ryan article is contentious, edited by partisans on both sides, and may or may not end up in a great state, but every other summary of Ryan I've been able to find so far is worse. Most are either pure attack pieces, or pure hagiographies.

Re:interesting problem

[cashman73]

Not sure if I'd agree on that. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it allows a large number of editors to add information to the same place quickly. While there's certainly a lot of vandalism, particularly in the first few days of breaking news, things do stabilize and there is a wealth of well-cited information about such topics. Just look at articles about Hurricane Katrina, the Virginia Tech Massacre, or the recent Colorado shooting. It's also interesting to note that the article about Barack Obama has achieved "featured article" status (supposedly the highest level of quality on Wikipedia), and the articles about Joe Biden and Mitt Romney are both at the "good article" level of quality.

Should have been locked

[smooth wombat]

This is a situation where the page should have locked to prevent the edit wars. Granted, no one knew who the VP pick was going to be, but as soon as humanly possible, the page should have been locked down and only selected individuals allowed to edit it for completeness, not remove things which, while not necessarily relevant, give a broader picture of who the person is.

Wars?

[rossdee]

Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why? Do they want us to get us involved in more wars?

At least Obama has got us out of one unnecessary war started by the previous Republican administration, and is slowly scaling back the other one.

Tell the Republicans that if they want to lower the deficit they should cut back on the defense budget and stop getting us into wars.\

And the rich people don't need more tax cuts.

I hate campaign season.

[TheSpoom]

The smart people have already looked at the real platforms of the candidates and know for whom they're voting. That leaves those who are too lazy to do any research; these are the ones swayed by stupid bullshit like how

Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser'

as well as attack ads and other campaigning that can be best summed up by "my opponent will destroy this country," even though a rational, objective thinker would realize that neither major candidate will likely do so.

The rest of us? We're not the targets of this late-stage campaigning so we're completely ignored. I'll be fast forwarding through the political ads like the rest of you and wishing it was already November 7. Hell, I can't even vote (yet) so this really just feels like being forced to watch a bunch of idiots fighting from the sidelines.

Everything is fair game

[rickb928]

Since this is the era of the politics of personal destruction, anything is fair game.

Of course, it's dysfunctional, but we aren't going to change this soon. Our political process is too polarized now.

And of course, issues really don't matter to the side that sees them as a liability.

Re:Paul who?

[vlm]

...write half a sentence about who the hell this "Paul Ryan" guy(?) is supposed to be?...

A paragraph for each. I'm not going to vote D or R, so you can trust my analysis is non-partisan and pretty accurate guide to people who aren't paying attention:

Barack Obama = Vote for change, then change nothing. He would have made a pretty decent pre-neocon somewhat left of the road republican more or less in the image of Tommy Thompson back in ye olden days. Just another crook from Illinois. Basically a leftish conservative using the traditional definition of conservative not wanting to change much of anything. Despite being "commander in chief" has a strong historical record of doing whatever his masters tell him to do (D leadership, 1%ers, wall street). You can't trust him, he has bad ideas, but he never does anything, especially not if he promises it or campaigns on it, so that's OK.

Joe Biden = Probably the closest thing in national govt to a 99%er. Poorest member of the senate (still rich, but he's not rollin with the 1%ers). Babbles a lot. Most likely of all the candidates to have a twitter tag like "shitbidensays", because he's got the largest collection of memorable quotes (both good and very very bad). Fundamentally seems to be a good guy at heart (unlike the other 3 who are all crooks) but in practice a bit too lefty for my tastes. Fairly conservative, just another elderly hippie reliving the great society programs of the 60s. If he could be jolted out of the 60s and into modern era he'd be a pretty good leader, maybe not the best, but not bottom of the barrel like the other 3. You can trust him, but he's got an obsolete outlook on the world.

Mitt Romney = Gordon Gekko come to life, 1%er to the core. Another power hungry rich crook. Apparently wants to surround himself with bootlickers and quislings aka neocon Rs. Doesn't seem to have much of a message other than "I'm a 1%er now lick my boots, proles" alternating with "I'm not Obama". The hardest core evangelicals who run the R party are all in a tizzy about him because they now have to vote for what they consider a cult member, he's not "religiously pure" enough for them. You can't trust him and he's got big ideas, most (all?) of which are bad ideas.

Paul Ryan = 1%er wannabe bootlicker quisling originally from my home state of Wisconsin but left decades ago to become a wash DC insider so he really doesn't represent anyone other than whoever pays his re-election bills. Pretty much interchangeable with all the other 1%er bootlicker quislings. Wants to portray himself as a budgetary expert. In the traditional definition of liberal = wants to change things, he's the most liberal of the bunch. He hasn't actually done anything or stood for anything other than PR stuff (and he's "from my state" so I should know). In that way he's kind of a mystery man. The 1%er Manchurian candidate. You can't trust him and he's apparently got no ideas at all of his own.

I would anticipate Biden is going to crush Ryan in the veep debate just on general mental horsepower, which will be entertaining to watch.

Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote

[skids]

#0: local elections.

But seriously, if the vote were as meaningless as you dropouts like to make it out, why is so much energy being spent to deprive people of it?

Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote

[circletimessquare]

You forgot:

11. Don't vote, thereby assuring the guy you like least wins

If a frw more assholes had gotten off their asses in 2000 and voted, we would not have invaded iraq and we would not have a horrible deficit. al gore is not g w bush. and if you think they are the same person, or that their parties are the same, you really are a giant fucking moron

All politicians are brown nosers ...

[drnb]

As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders.

All politicians are brown nosers, even Obama. Witness the years of sitting through Rev Wright's sermons even though he severely disagreed, sitting there merely because Wright was the local "king maker" and getting elected to the Illinois legislature without the Rev's support would be impossible.

Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote

[circletimessquare]

if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy. alienated and self-disenfranchised losers like yourself is what they DEPEND on happening, einstein, they put out propaganda and make political moves they KNOW will make zero heart, low iq fuckups like yourself wallow in self-pity and helplessness and withdraw from society. because you are WEAK and they know it

this is you, psychologically, and all other pathetic loser who rationalizes not voting:

Summary

In the learned helplessness experiment an animal is repeatedly hurt by an adverse stimulus which it cannot escape.

Eventually the animal will stop trying to avoid the pain and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation.

Finally, when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness prevents any action. The only coping mechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending energy getting worked up about the adverse stimulus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

THAT IS YOU PSYCHOLOGICALLY. KNOW THYSELF, LOSER

what deranged bullshit rationalization you have too: "I don't vote and I encourage everyone to not vote. When voter turn out is under 10% then perhaps you thick, dim-witted motherfuckers can finally pull your heads out of your ass and help us make a democracy that works and actually represents us."

what!? LOL

"i won't play with you, and that will force you to change your policies because you want me to play with you"

this is what you really believe?!

NO, RETARD: what happens is the plutocracy laughs even harder all the way to the bank: you've bowed down and submitted to them meekly and completely! they don't fucking care about you, they will never care about you, they are glad you won't participate and fight for beliefs, they depend upon your weakness! fight for what you believe, or roll over. you choose to roll over, with this bullshit low iq zero social skillset rationalization. fucking pathetic!

seriously, you and other self-disenfranchised morons to me represent the lowest scum of the earth. at least the plutocracy is evil. at least they honestly stand for something vile that you can fight. pathetic losers like you just represent zero willpower, complete cowardice, and utter lack of any human spirit or desire to fight for themselves. a fungal growth of useless loserville. you have done nothing but be deserving of zero respect. a perfect, meek, self-disenfranchising slave

a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society. i cannot adequately express how much i disrespect and loathe your thinking, because your thinking and bullshit rationalizations represents the end of free society

Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote

[Hatta]

if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy.

If you do vote, you also reward the corrupt plutocracy.

If you abstain: You allow evil to prevail by default
If you vote R: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
If you vote D: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
If you vote third party: You get laughed at.

What does one actually do that hurts the plutocracy?

a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society.

What part of voting == fighting for your beliefs?

I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?