Slashdot Mirror
US Election's Only VP Debate Tonight: Weigh In With Your Reactions
Tonight's debate between the two largest American political parties' candidates for vice president of the United States takes place at Danville, Kentucky's Centre College, starting at 9 p.m. Joe Biden and Paul Ryan will face each other on stage, and are expected to talk about issues "including the economy, foreign policy and the role of the Vice President," according to C-SPAN, which will feature a live streaming view of the event. (Criteria from the Commission on Presidential Debates
means you won't hear tonight from other presidential candidates' running mates (like Cheri Honkala, Jim Clymer, and
James Gray, of the Green, Constitution, and Libertarian party tickets, respectively). If you'll be watching the debate tonight, please add your commentary below. It would be helpful if you start your comment's title with a time-stamp (to the minute), too, for context. (Like this: "9:08: $Candidate just intentionally mis-repeated the Q on taxes.") And Yes, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight.
Update: 10/12 01:18 GMT by U L : If you don't have flash, you can use rtmpdump and mplayer to watch (incantation duplicated below, in case the site is slashdotted).
Via Don Armstrong an incantation to watch the debate without flash:
rtmpdump -v -r rtmpt://cp82346.live.edgefcs.net:1935/live?ovpfv=2.1.4 \
--tcUrl rtmp://cp82346.live.edgefcs.net:1935/live?ovpfv=2.1.4 \
--app live?ovpfv=2.1.4 --flashVer LNX.11,2,202,238 \
--playpath CSPAN1@14845 \
--swfVfy http://www.c-span.org/cspanVideoHD.swf \
--pageUrl http://www.c-span.org/ | \
mplayer -xy 3 -;
The problem is, while the spotlight is on the national stage, real change happens from the bottom up. That means running for, and voting 3rd party at the city, county, or even state level.
For example, if you're interested in digital freedom, and curtailing "IP" laws, participate in and/or donate to your local Pirate Party (and many states do have such an organization). That's just one of the many numerous smaller political parties out there that might better represent your views.
If you're wondering what the immediate effects of doing such a thing are, since "IP" is a federal thing, the answer is that there are no immediate effects. But the extra help and/or money increases exposure. And like small businesses with an interesting product, getting the word out is the most important part. Only once people start hearing about it is the brand image important.
Sound too much like a business? It's because parties really are run like businesses, except as they don't make a profit, they're non-profit. But if you think non-profits aren't run like businesses internally, you've got another thing coming.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
The role of Vice President has changed quite a bit over only the past couple decades. Vice Presidents take an active roll in policy implementation and even decision making. They also do quite a bit diplomatically and even a bit of PR.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
a.k.a. the Republican and Democratic parties. They will never allow a third party to debate; if they happen to meet the criteria, they'll simply increase the threshold(s).
Except in 1992, when Ross Perot was running for president, and there was a 3-way debate vs Bush and Clinton? http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5532
They didn't add the 15% support threshold until 2000. Presumably they added it because of Ross Perot.
He also started a new (unauthorized!) military action, after years of complaining about unauthorized military actions.
Going to Libya I might have possibly been able stomach, if it hadnt been for the utter hypocrisy of it all and the declaration that "UN approval is enough".
The conservatives routinely reject scientific logic, bending toward religion, oil, war and the rich. President Obama has completed treaties, enacted historic Health care changes (Emergency rooms for all you'd rather have?), rejuvenated the Auto industry, enhanced the vision of America all over the world and kept the Second Depression from happening.
Are you serious? You can't think of a single issue on which Obama and Romney differ?
How about taxes? Romney's official plan is a 20% across the board cut, at a cost of $500B/yr, which will be paid for by *handwaves furiously*. Obama's plan is ditch the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and bring capital gains taxes about halfway back towards where they were under Clinton.
How about healthcare? Romney's on the record saying things were alright pre-Obamacare, and he wants to go back to that. Obama, obviously, wants to keep Obamacare on the books.
How about military spending? Obama is trying to cut it by $100B/yr, while Romney's proposal is to raise it by $200B/yr.
How about Medicare? Obama wants to keep it mostly as is, making small adjustments to keep it solvent. Romney wants to make it a voucher system that would force senior citizens to turn to for-profit corporations for their healthcare.
How about abortion? Obama wants women to be in charge of their own bodies, Romney is on record supporting a life-begins-at-conception amendment and has pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Considering that a few of the current liberal justices are getting up there in years, he would almost certainly be able to have abortion outlawed nationwide.
That's just off the top of my head. Sure, if you only care about IP law and drone strikes, the two candidates are identical. But there are lots of very important issues on which the two candidates couldn't be more different.
Correct. There's a difference. If Romney wins, there will almost certainly be a war with Iran. If Obama wins, there may not be. That is literally a life or death difference to many, many people who would live or die according to that choice.
-Gareth
Jabs and accute politicking aside, the two men offer very different ideologies and views on life. Whereas Joe Biden says "privatization" like it is a bad thing, to Paul Ryan "government's control" is the worst curse.
Having grown up in the USSR with first-hand experience of government's control of economy, I would've preferred Ryan even if he did not look so persuasive and hands-on and even if Biden has not shone his uber-smile in such unsettling manner all the time.
Last, but not least, I still remember Biden's sequence of idiocies (no, not gaffes) from 4 years ago...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Romney's promised to repeal Obamacare, but I don't think he actually wants to.
Romney has an even better plan!
He promised to repeal the Health Care Act, but keep just the good parts that everyone likes (preexisting conditions/covering children/etc).
Consistent with his general budget plan of cutting taxes for everyone 20%, increasing military spending and remaining revenue neutral or even positive.
Magic.
Well that's just Reagan vs Carter all over again. Iran knew Carter wouldn't bomb them if they didn't release the hostages. Reagan pretty much promised to. Iran released the hostages the moment Reagan was elected.
Umm. Didn't they release the hostages because the US, under Reagan, agreed to sell them weapons through proxies?
It's simple Milton Friedmann economics inspired by Ayn Rand. You cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and that magically fuels the economy. Never mind that it's got a proven track record of failing everywhere it's been used (read up on the WTO's Friedmann-conditioned loans to third-world countries).
It's an idealistic vision for how economies work that is very appealing to people with money or people who think they're going to be rich one day. In reality, in really bad economic times the rich just sit on their bank rolls and wait for things to get better because they can afford to. If the economy runs out of bargain hunters as capital dries up, you end up in a feedback loop as the economy spirals downward. Hence, trillions in government stimulus spending.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You should listen to Romney speak, he kind of gives it away:
- Eliminate public mandate on health care
- Eliminate food stamps
- Eliminate NPR
- Eliminate school lunches
- Eliminate all tax deductions for everyone
- Eliminate health care for veterans and everything that doesn't fall under medicare
- Reduce the eligibility for medicare
- Leave all education and health matters to the individual states to pick up the bill
- Lower taxes on the top 5% of the companies and investments that are considered job creators (the ones earning 250M+)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Now, we should remember that Al Gore "invented the Internet", and that Bush thought it was a "series of tubes".
...except of course that Gore never claimed he invented the Internet
I live in CA. It will go to Obama. I will once again vote for the leading 3rd party since that is the best way to make my vote count. Sadly, when people call me to ask me who I want to vote for, "neither" or any 3rd party answer is taken as "undecided".
Yes. Contragate. The hostages were released the day Reagan took office, which means the Reagan team was negotiating with America's worst enemy behind the back of proper diplomatic channels during a campaign, and whipped up the drugs for arms for Iranians deal.
And shortly after Reagan created the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5CKO400_7M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY
Need Mercedes parts ?
"He had filibuster proof margins in both house and Senate for 2 years,"
Look it up. No he didn't.
Need Mercedes parts ?
The big one for me is this:
Romney/Ryan: Their faiths say that abortion is wrong and they want to change the rules so even if you aren't a member of their respective religions, you have to live by those rules.
Obama/Biden: Their faiths say that abortion is wrong, but they do NOT want to change the rules; if you are not an adherent of their faiths they won't try to force you to live by those rules.
What sickened me - I mean, absolutely sickened me - was when Ryan actually dared to try and say that his religious freedom was somehow threatened by the fact that abortion is legal in the US. How is my being able to have an abortion in any way, shape or form restricting his right to worship however he wants?
Yeah. By not forcing me to live by his religion's rules I'm somehow reducing his freedom of religious expression. He actually believes that. He actually said that. And people actually agree with him.
I won't say that the democrats are all about personal liberty either, but holy shit, at least 90% of their platform isn't basically the Christian version of Sharia.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I used to think that, until the Iraq War. That disaster made me much more partisan. I really think hundreds of thousands of people died because Gore (barely!) lost that election.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Saddam was a butcher that killed his people in peace and war - the Iraqi government is still finding mass graves of Iraqis killed by his regime. The rulers of Iraq's future, his sons, were more violent than he was - he had to restrain them. Think of that - mass murderer Saddam Hussain acting as a restraining influence, and what that would mean for the future of Iraq. The number of people that died from terrorist and insurgent violence under coalition occupation until the reconstitution of the Iraqi government and return of sovereignty to it was no worse than Saddam's long term average. As it is, the mass killing by the government of Iraq is done because Saddam was removed from power, although terrorism is still killing a few thousand people a year in Iraq. If Gore had been elected, and hadn't removed Saddam from power, as was US policy developed under President Clinton, Saddam would still be killing today. Would you feel better if he was still in power and still killing?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Biden did a good job reminding everyone that the mess we are in now didn't exactly happen by accident. As he noted it happened precisely because guy's like Ryan voted to put two major wars, the largest tax cut in history and the largest increase to Medicare in history on the public credit card, while leaving Wall Street so unregulated that credit default swaps sold like hotcakes.
Weak minds seem to also have weak memories, yet for the GOP in 2012 it's all so convenient.
What I liked best about the Romney/Ryan plan was just how by magic it's going to solve all of our problems and all I will have to do is pay more for health care coverage so that I can enjoy watching Mitt and friends laugh all the way to the bank. It makes one wonder if the magic was so potent, why didn't Mitt run for a second term in Massachusetts? I guess a few new wars have to be added to the mix to make it all work out. Just like last time.
Obama seems to mostly push things in a better direction.
Huh? trillion dollar deficits EVERY year in office, drone "kill list", assassinated ambassador, muslim extremists taking over EVERYWHERE, extending patriot act, DOMESTIC use of surveillance drones, etc.
wake up dude...
Can we please put this deficit nonsense to bed. Bush waged two wars using "emergency appropriations" to keep them off-budget and, at the same time, passed a huge tax cut with a nine year sunset to keep it out of the ten-year accounting cycle and gave away a few trillion more in corporate welfare to pharma with Medicare Part D. He said it would pay for itself because tax cuts stimulate investment and job growth, but it didn't; instead, it created a trillion dollar hole in the budget representing all the government spending that not even Bush would cut. Repeat: Bush cut revenue by trillions and was unable to cut spending to make up for it. So why would Obama or Romney suddenly be able to? Someone please explain that logic to me!
So Obama walks into office, moves the wars into the budget, and spends 800 billion to stave off a depression. Every year since then, he has reduced the deficit; but suddenly republicans think that Obama should magically slash all the "waste" from the budget that not even Bush was willing to touch because for some reason it's only irresponsible for democrats to run deficits. Repeat: Obama has decreased the deficit, during a recession, every year that he has been in office. The US government, with the exception of part of the Clinton administration, has run a deficit every year since about 1960. The deficit exploded under Bush, who managed to increase it by more than any time since World War II, yet it is Obama's responsibility to turn it around over night? That is called the Two Santa Claus Theory; when republicans are in office, it's spend, spend, spend, and use accounting tricks to hide how bad it is and then, when a democrat gets into office, it's suddenly all about debt and deficits and getting spending under control.
Romney/Ryan are proposing more tax cuts; they want to reduce revenue even further. Why? Because, clearly, the problem with the Bush tax cuts and the reason Bush ended eight years with negative net job growth is because he didn't cut taxes enough! But don't worry, their tax cuts will be revenue neutral because they'll close "loopholes," but not the mortgage interest deduction, which is the second or third largest loophole in the tax code (depending on how you count it). No, they're going to do it by eliminating things like PBS, which comprise around 0.0001% of the budget. Capital gains? No, that loophole should remain because we can't "double tax" investors. As if you don't get double taxed when you pay sales tax after your payroll and income taxes. You tax actions and behaviors not money; money is fungible, you literally cannot tax the same dollar twice.
Seriously, watch the VP debate, the tax plan of Paul "Mr. Numbers" Ryan, the "intellectual leader of the GOP" and Mitt "I'll say anything to get elected" Romney, is: "Trust us, the math works out, but we're not going to give you specifics." Uh-huh, just like when you ran for governor and said "trust me, I filed my taxes as a Massachusetts resident," which you totally did, retroactively, after you were caught lying. Oh, but we're not supposed to talk about Bush or your tax returns--that's all in the past... except for when Ryan invokes Ronald Reagan and JFK in the debates; no, that is being serious.
Obama isn't perfect, nor is Biden. I'm not a democrat (or a republican), but I am so sick of this completely disingenuous nonsense about the deficit. I know, I know, you'll never go broke betting on the stupidity of the American electorate, but this is just basic f-ing arithmetic.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
You won't read anything about Biden not being engaged tomorrow. So far he's making Ryan look like an amateur and he's not letting Ryan get away with lying.
Biden is crushing it.
Don't worry, in a few hours the punditocracy will be lampooning Biden for smiling too much, or the wrong way, or having the wrong facial expression; anything to avoid addressing the actual content of the debate. The press is either at your feet or your throat and as the polls shift towards Romney, so will the press. They hate fact-checking politicians because it can cost them access, but they also hate transcribing lies, so instead they'll talk about Paul Ryan's hair or the performance of the moderator.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Wrong
The Democrats took control of the entire congress two years before Obama took the white house.
Obama and Biden were in the Senate and their party was running it starting a year before the 2008 meltdown. Both of these men voted (along with every other democrat) to block the Bush administration from doing anything to stop the reckless home mortgage mess that was rapidly piling-up at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two government home loan institutions at the core of the 2008 meltdown).
The democrat's had an approximately 2-to-1 majority in the House and a super-majority (fillibuster-proof) in the senate for the almost the first two years of the Obama administration (not 4 months) and they used that control to ram-through health care and the stimulus bill. They chose NOT to use that power to do anything about Gitmo, or the wars, or getting people back to work, or nation-wide high-speed internet or a new "smart" power grid, or immigration reform, etc.
Obama had more control of the government than any Republican president since Lincoln. Lincoln had that level of control at the end of the civil war because Americans at that time were as willing to self-identify as Democrats as Germans in 1946 were willing to self-identify as NAZIs
When Reagan was president, the Democrats had the House by 2-to-1 margins and the they held the Senate by narrower margins for most of his time. Reagan was a real leader, however, so he worked across the aisle with Democrats to get things done even though those Democrats had announced their desire to make sure Reagan only served one term. George H.W.Bush (41) worked with Democrats who controlled congress even though they used that process to force him to break a campaign pledge and lose re-election. After Clinton lost the congress to the Republicans, he was able to reach across the aisle to work with the GOP and get things done. Lyndon Johnson reached across the aisle to work with republicans (even though the democrats had the majorities) on a number of things like civil rights, nasa, etc. Nixon and Kennedy, similarly worked across the aisle to get things done.
Obama has famously not worked across the aisle. He has called Republicans up to the White House purely to insult them and then kick them out (he did this rather famously to Paul Ryan, the chairman of the house budget committee (now VP candidate). Any time he has been challenged to compromise and get things done his response has been some version of "I won, you lost". With that sort of arrogance, we will have four more years of trillion dollar deficits and gridlock if the man is re-elected. He will refuse to work with congress and he has given them every reason imaginable to gum up the works. The man behaves like a stupid teenager.
Don't blame the republicans and complain that they are obstructing him... EVERY party causes trouble for its opponent, and the opposition gets worse if the president goes out of his way to tweak them instead of constructively trying to work with them and give them some input. Do you really want to pretend that Pelosi and Reid were supportive buddies of George W Bush?!?!?!!? During the eight years of Reagan, the Democrats did everything they could do to beat him, including things that should have lead to convictions on charges of Treason (Teddy Kennedy funneled classified info the the communists in Nicaragua, for example) but Reagan never whimpered and whined about people not letting him have his way.
Who does FDR think will give me more bread and circuses, b/c that's how I vote. Where's my free stuff?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
For the lazy (note "filibuster proof" means 60 votes in the Senate):
111th U.S. Congress
Senate: 58% Democrat, 42% Republican (although Democrats had 60 for about 4 months, if you count the independents and blue-dog Dems who didn't always vote along party lines)
House: 59% Democrat, 41% Republican (although there is no filibuster in the House of Representatives)
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Translation: You're mad that the ARRA actually built things, rather than just handing out money to a handful of lucky Americans.
Sure, we could have just bought 2.4M spoons, and had every new "worker" go out, find an empty plot of ground, and spend their hours digging holes and filling them back in.
But if you want to actually build stuff, you gotta buy some actual backhoes. You've got to buy cement, and lumber, and steel, and nails, and wiring. The value of the things that actually got built by those jobs has to be accounted for.
And let's not forget that $288B of the ARRA's price tag actually did exactly what you're suggesting: handed money back to people in the form of tax credits. This was Obama trying to make the bill "bipartisan", giving the Republicans some of what they said they wanted. Result? Zero Republican votes in the House, two-and-a-half in the Senate.*
Obama's own economists told him that these tax breaks would have little stimulus effect, but the Republicans demanded that they be included in a bill that they had no intention of voting for anyhow.
There's also a lot of other "just give money to people" provisions, like unemployment benefits, food stamps, WIC, TANF, etc. These transfer programs incur very low overhead. There's $80B in direct giveaways under "aid to low-income workers, unemployed, and retirees," the aforementioned $288B given away in tax credits, and a couple of other nickely-dimey programs that amount to handing deficit money to people in the hopes that they spend it.
Given that the ARRA basically followed your source's "hand out money" plan for about half its budget, by The Weekly Standard's reasoning, the other $400B spent on scientific research, weatherizing buildings, energy efficiency, upgrading the electrical grid, building roads, and a laundry list of other things... all that may as well have been flushed down the toilet.
The point is, the ARRA did so much more than just put people to work. It invested in scientific research, improved the energy efficiency of homes and businesses, modernized health care records and information services, sent young men and women to college, and a bunch of other things that will pay long-term dividends.
* I'm counting Arlen Specter's vote as half a vote, because he switched to the Democratic party a few months later.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word ut of Romney's mouth.
Especially about this. When Romney ran for senate against Ted Kennedy he said he was pro choice. Now, somehow, he has become anti-abortion. Has he had a religious conversion in the meantime? Has abortion somehow become less safe than it was in 1994? Has something fundamentally changed about abortion that would cause someone to change their views as he seemingly has? Did he undergo a personal experience where he had to reforms late his stance? Did his wife have one? Did someone close to him have one that he is aware of? What, other than him needing to pander, changed to make him anti-abortion?
Further, during the debate last night, Ryan said that it would be the policy of the administration to seek to limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or protecting the health of the mother. He avoided saying whether or not they would seek to change the rules - he started talking about how his religious freedom was being impinged upon because abortion is legal.
There is no way that they will not try to put anti-abortion justices on the bench. None.
Romney has proved he is willing to say whatever his audience wants to hear and then he will angrily deny that he ever had a different position when called on it. Because of this, I am just left to assume that literally the worst things he has said in public or on camera are true and that is his agenda. If he had actually showed a shred of principle at any time in his public life, if he actually had a consistent platform or, a least showed some reason other than "so religious fundamentalists will vote for me so I can be president" for his views on so many things to change, I am going to ignore any of his more moderate versions of his platform and go with the ones that are considered the worst by me, that he has promoted.
Obama hasn't always done what he said he will, and he has changed his public opinion on things, but at least when he does he can point at a reasonable process by which a reasonable person can change their mind. And we have also had 4 years of him actually being in power to see that in fact, he isn't doing anything particularly crazy like some conspiracy theorists have suggested he would. He may be a pandering politician but at least it's not nearly as blatant and at least I have some reason based on his track record to believe he won't start doing batshit crazy stuff in term 2.
Also, if Romney/Ryan get elected, do remember that they will also likely then have a republican house and possibly a republican senate. Obama being re-elected will likely have a minori house and the senate is close to a toss-up. Romney will be in a position to vastly more damage imposing his agenda vs. Obama, who will have a more hostile legislative body than before (which was already pretty hostile!)
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I see you have email.
Don't forget: You also have a browser.
You can do useful things with a browser.
(like fact check political emails)
Ah, the 'executive orders' email. The number of people that take these emails as gospel just astounds me. This 'Executive Orders' baloney was forwarded to me by my dad. I never ever read a political email and just assume it is factual. And indeed, they are almost always not. This one certainly falls in the 'pants on fire' category.
So far, Obama has issued 138. That is less than 'W' and from a brief inspection everyone else all of the way back to Grover Cleveland (if you average the per term numbers for those with multiple terms). For example Bush issued 173 the first term and 118 the second for an average of about 145.
A couple of links for you:
American Presidency Project - Executive Orders
Snopes article
Actually you are both wrong. He is talking about eliminating budget for CPB. CPB uses its budget for NPR and PBS. Eliminating CPB would ultimately kill NPR and PBS. http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/
The 911 attacks were a result of eight years of capitulations by Clinton.
That's simply an outright lie. The Clinton administration actively pursued bin Laden. In 1996 the CIA created a special group tasked with tracking bin Laden. In 1998 Clinton ordered a Tomahawk strike against bin Laden's training camps. In 1999, the Clinton administration directed the CIA to train and equip 60 Pakistani commandos to take out bin Laden, but the plan fell apart after a military coup in Pakistan.
Clinton tried to take out bin Laden but never succeeded. But there's no evidence that the Bush Administration ever pursued bin Laden or even took much interest in him before 9/11, even with the warnings of an impending attack, and they dropped the ball after 9/11. They were too interested in Saddam. Of course, in the end, it turned out that Saddam no longer had an active WMD program. The reason? Airstrikes ordered as part of Operation Desert Fox had destroyed Saddam's weapons programs and with the sanctions in place, he was never able to get them started again. Those airstrikes, by the way, were ordered by Bill Clinton.
Biden was in congress as was Obama........they helped create the mess.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes