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 -;
Joe Biden and Paul Ryan speaking in the same room? Yeah, I'd rather not.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Why is a story about the vp debate here but you didn't have a peep when the presidential candidates first debated? Anyhow I don't see how this is news for nerds. Stick to tech topics please.
Will they be talking about Apple or Microsoft or anything of interest in technology? Come on guys, what's this becoming CNN?
Next thing you know we'll have Anderson Cooper or Rush Limbaugh writing articles about how best to clean your hard drive. And no, if Rush were to do that it would be NSFW.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
They will surely be debating the finer points on Windows or Linux being better for government computing.
Carbonite Backup Solutions is extremely relevant to technology
It is always humorous to watch the political fanbois go at it from the sidelines. Seeing people become so impassioned about which set of crooks are going stuff the shirts this time around is a devil's belly laugh. As has been said so many times, when the boot of government is on your throat, it makes no difference if it is a left boot or a right boot.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
I'll be playing Logical Fallacy Bingo against my friends. I personally expect it to be a fast bingo game.
Is this one where he talks about when his wife & daughter died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GwZ6UfXm410
His humanity is the opposite of Robomittens. /stupid onions.
$Candidate intentionally lied to the public
You might want to check this out. Don't blame me if you have a hangover in the morning.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Vice presidential candidates are meaningless.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
And for Freezing Hans Solo too?
I prefer backblaze myself.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
watching is just a waste of time. We already know pretty much all there is to know about the candidates is not like they will disclose some new information.
I know already who I am voting for as I am sure most of you already made a choice.
Go watch honey booboo
Windows in the Government? Naw, it'll never happen. It's too newfangled. I hear Ultrix 32 is the latest shiznit over at the IRS.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Does anyone pick the president by the VP they choose? Do they think, "I like the other guy more for president, but I'm voting for this guy because he will be a better VP"?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
we get rid of the "INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT" requirement of 15% by the polls to be included in the debates. This is just so messed up. How are they suppose to increase poll numbers without being able to get into the debates? It is almost catch 22 for third party candidates.
Personally, I think they should change laws so the top six vote getters of the last election, by party and independent status, automatically get ballot access nationwide let alone automatically get into any debate to be seen by more than 50,000 expected viewers.
Commission on Presidential Debates
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).
This is one of the major issues preventing any real change from happening in the US federal government, simply because new ideas are being suppressed by the incumbents.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The stranglehold that the so-called two party system has on the public is unbelievable but somehow these dogs have figured out a way to fool the man on the streets that they have a real role in their future.
Your future, as a citizen, in politics is one of getting fucked by the man and hoping the next administration will at least give you a reach around.
No matter who wins this debate, or the election, Americans have lost.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
If you stood them side by side, I'd have to guess Biden is the MS guy and Ryan is the Mac guy
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Question straight to the heart
Number Two.
That's what they are. Both of them.
while we argue over 3 deaths in a foreign country, 45 people were murdered in this country today
It is my understanding that Biden is a die hard vi user, who looks down his nose at shitheel emac fairy faggot cocksuckers.
I come to /. because there isn't a nerds section in Google News.
They both suck big wet ones and so do their masters.
For those who are wondering which time zone, it's starting at 9pm EDT (UTC-4).
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Are you smarter than an Ayatollah?
Looks a bit like the Jack Nicholson Joker...
Yankees vs Orioles and Tigers vs A's tonight
who gives a shit about a debate for a job that has no constitutional power
well under the ryan plan tech will look at your health care history.
And soon under that plan DNA testing will be used to pre load on to the pre-existing condition list.
I think "Bob" is winning the debate.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Can I mod this article "-1 Flamebait"?
Is Biden taking this debate seriously? Why isn't he taking his opponent seriously?
I don't understand his attitude. If he disagrees with Ryan shouldn't his reaction be concern? Why is this man smiling?
Doesn't Biden give a damn?
I admit I didn't watch the debate with an open mind GANNAM STYLE. I have a view of Ryan as a negative for Romney because he's been caught lying too many times WOP WOP WOP.
I've already dismissed Ryan after his 'truthiness' in this OH WOP speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw9uJtBrAw&feature=related
OH WOP GANGNAM STYLE. Then there was the messup with the reporter where he admits tax cuts are the magic fix and his handler has to cut the interview short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDdw20LFFlc
WOP WOP WOP, but mostly it's that I can't imagine him single PSY's song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60MQ3AG1c8o
Does choosing a candidate based on whether they can mime to a song, make me a bad person?
Ruling Party douchebags pretending there's a difference between their brands.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I just need to comment on Biden' disrespectful manner in which he is handling this debate. He is rude, interruting, laughing during Ryan's floor time. President O'Bama this man is n idiot and a poor representative of your office and the office of VP of these United States. I would say this to his face on the air. I am embarrassed that the world is seeing this man's immature and unprofessional handling of the debate. If I were the president I would dismiss this embarrassment of public office.
Biden discussed nuclear bomb making.
The rtmpdump works beautifully! I probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere near these debates without it, whether I wanted to or not.
One thing I've always wondered about is the apparent logical inconsistency of political opinions.
Lots of people here have noted the equivalence of Republicans and Democrats - self-serving corrupt parasites who sell favors to special interests, in total disregard of the welfare or wishes of the people. They're the same - either side will screw the people.
Yet whenever the president comes up it's "Your guy is worse than my guy". Obama is a man of the people, but Romney is a financial predator, Romney is a financial genius while Obama is a profligate wastrel.
Can anyone identify an issue - not an opinion or a general feeling or a policy goal, but an actual issue - for which Obama and Romney are on opposite sides? Something for which Obama would veto and Romney would pass, or vice versa? (Note: It's not health care.) Does such an issue exist? Is there any concrete way to differentiate between candidates?
Another aspect is the image of the man versus the actions of the man. Obama has continued and extended most of the odious practices started by Bush. Attacking Libya, assassinating an American citizen, voting telecom immunity, increasing drone strikes, running up the deficit - types of actions which were roundly decried when Bush did similar, but Obama seems to get a pass. Are we voting the image or the actions? Ethics is supposed to be absolute - are there different versions for red and blue states?
Everyone yells how great things will be when *their* candidate gets elected. "We can do so much to change the world, but first we have to get elected".
Quick question: if Obama will be so great once he gets reelected, why can't he do some of that great stuff *right now*? This is his employer mid-term review. How about showing us what he can do in the 3 months running up to the election? Sort of a "try before you buy" kind of thing. Ryan's a congressman - how has he voted in the last 3 months? What legislation has he proposed in that time? (Romney's hard to judge with this, usually it's a congressman running for president.)
A president cannot instigate many changes, that's true. He can't unilaterally pass legislation, for instance. However, a president has the power to stop bad things from happening. Like when the president told the Justice department not to oppose challenges to the Defense of Marriage act. He can veto things, he can suggest legislation, and he can negotiate for outcomes. He can tell the executive branch what to do - why can't he just tell the TSA to stop violating our rights?
(Oh, and incidentally: if he tells the military to do something, they *have* to do it. He doesn't need permission from Congress to close Gitmo.)
The information available about each candidate is noise and randomness. Each issue is a labyrinth of mis-quotes, mis-information, and nuance. Did Obama double the deficit? Or is it the debt? Or did he double it, but it's Bush's fault? Or was it the Democratic Congress? Did Romney pillage the retirement funds of Bain companies? Was it just one company or all of them? Was it actually Romney or the company owner? Was Romney even aware? Should (or shouldn't) either of them be held responsible?
Candidate choice appears to be an emotional decision. It certainly follows no discernible logic.
The only realistic reason for voting one way or the other I can think of is this: vote the incumbent out. We know for certain that "his way" isn't working. If we vote for him again, nothing will change.
Maybe that's the rule we should follow - if things aren't fixed, vote the incumbent out. That sounds more in line with the ideals of democracy.
Regardless of the R or D after the name, how about we just vote the incumbent out?
Where the answers are made up and the points don't matter!
i watch on ip0ad
In the colonial Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my vote does not count. I'm not far from Plymouth Rock, the place where pissed-off subjects of King George landed after betting their lives that there was a better way to civilize.
I have voted for Republican candidates in the past but I'm done with them. GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld fucked us hard. That bastard Romney came here to my state, where he doesn't fucking belong, and fucked us over. Now he's attempting to take over the Oval Office on the grounds that what he did to Massachusetts should not be done to the USA. He should be swimming with the fish in Boston Harbor.
If there was a candidate who ran on the platform of tearing off Romney's head and shitting down his neck, he'd get my vote.
I'm Alien Being and I approve this message.
where is federal reserve/monitory policy question?
What does it mean in body language terms to repeatedly tick the table whit the index finger, Biden is over doing it. Like reaffirming what he is saying. May be there is something else with that gesture, this is /. so I'm assuming someone will know (and that someone will answer to FTFG).
Ryan looks really calm about everything, he for sure know about non-verbal communication.
Why in the world would I watch a show who's only purpose is to lie to me?
I feel like Obama was put in the drivers seat just when the car we're in has come under attack by drug cartel because some idiot drove us into a warzone, so now when he's trying to get us out of there, the previous driver is in the passenger seat complaining about following the speed limit and all traffic laws and grabbing at the steering wheel and brakes. and the passengers in the car are saying..why aren't we going anywhere?! we're so mad we're going vote the original driver back in..
I think the defining issue is ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. If you watch Fox, they've tried all sorts of talking points to try to kill this issue and they keep trying new angles:
Remember, 'taxing job creators'? As if taxing rich peoples personal income will cause their companies to fire lots of people.
Remember 'dividing American?' i.e. claiming that singling out rich people for more taxes is dividing American!
Remember '53% vs 47%', the flip of dividing America, where they claim the majority are against the minority who don't pay direct fed taxes... that one died when it was pointed out a lot of the top 1% don't pay any taxes at all.
Remember 'the haves and the soon to haves?' i.e. you'll be rich soon, and then you'll get to pay less than 13%!
What about 'Robin Hood on Steroids'? The latest one, the 'income redistribution is bad', as if taking their tax cuts away from them is some sort of highway robbery!
You can see just from watching Fox, what the Republicans feel their defining issue is. It's tax cuts for the rich.
But like the last time, the missing subject?
Civil liberties... Oh well, gotta keep that prison population up to pay the rent...
At about 9.48 PM Eastern Time, Ms Raddatz characterized the Romney Tax cut plan as a 20% across the board cut
This is a major fail
It is a 20% cut in the top marginal rate, which is very different.
Perhaps she just mis spoke, but this is a major sleaze thing by Romney - by saying everyone gets a 20% cut, he is hiding that a 20% cut in top marginal rate is overwhelmingly tilted to the wealthy
It reminds me of the Live Polling bit on the Onion.
he also out-spoke Biden. The fact is, that Ryan worked hard to not say anything. He spoke about balancing the budget, but would come up with nothing. He spoke about troop pull down, but continued to ignore the fact that Afghanistans were replacing our NATO troops, etc. etc., etc.
OTOH, Biden really just kept saying the same thing over and over.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Except for #1, the debate participant rules (http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process) do look biased in favor of the ruling parties:
2) Mathematical chance of securing a majority of the Electoral College votes. This doesn't take into account the possibility of say a three-corner fight where nobody gets the desired number of votes.
3) 15% popular support. Why is this set so high when a majority or significant plurality of Americans don't vote?
You missed 9:04
about Libya - disclaiming knowledge about requests for more security by the consulate.
So, from July 7, 2009 - February 4, 2010 the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. My recollection is that for most legislation, there was a cloture vote, which meant that every piece of legislation had to be supported by every Democratic Senator (hardly a monolithic group) in order to get passed. After Scott Brown was elected, and the Senate was split 59-41, the cloture votes stopped the legislation the Republicans wanted to block.
I watched most of it, and the entire time I kept thinking that Joe Biden should stop beating up on that poor kid sitting next to him.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Gitmo is still open because you voted in Republicans into the House:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/?page=all
The fix is to stop voting in these GOP morons.
The stuff they couldn't block, like killing Osama Bin Laden, he did. When they held the Presidency, they didn't even try to get him. He was too useful as a bogeyman.
He muddled through Health Care Reform in exchange for no rich people taxes, I'll give you that.
To me the biggest triumph was the Republican 'lets kill Americans bill' (akak National Defense Authorization Act). He was supposed to reject it, and GOP/Fox would label him as being a terrorist sympathizer. Instead he rejects it 'because it isn't tough enough', and then gets them to put in safeguards against Americans, and rules it shouldn't be used by his administration.
So the Republicans didn't get their talking point, and now if you vote Republican, you're voting for a party that WILL USE this law they pushed through against Americans. He turned their bill into a poison pill against them.
Skillful politics, but he would never have had to do that if you hadn't have voted in the Republicans into the House.
> Weigh In With Your Reactions
Haha! 134 idiots responded.
135, shit.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
But not a word about lasers!.. Much less sharks...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I caught ~20 minutes of it while driving home from work tonight. It did seem like Biden was more aggressive than the usual M.O. for this administration and Ryan was surprisingly calm. Considering how far outside the mainstream Ryan's ideas fall, I figured he would be more passionate about it. It seemed like the moderator didn't do much to stop them from addressing each other directly, yet it didn't seem to phase Ryan much.
That said, what I heard was towards the end. Attitudes of the candidates may well have changed along the way.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I hope Paul Ryan was using birth control after that raping from Biden. I think Romney was in full clench just watching.
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.
The only thing I left with that is new was that Biden is a rude, interrupting asshole. Outside of that.... meh... nothing to see here... same stuff from both
That was the commercial break.
I don't know how much experience most of you have with drug addicts, but to me, it seemed that Ryan was just a bit too bright eyed and chatty. Exactly like a tweaking meth-head.
This tech board is mostly moderate, and thus likely to be more Democrat than Republican. So astroturf here points people to vote for the third party, rather than the Republicans. It's to try to split the opposition vote.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/27/1010778/-BREAKING-Leaked-Rove-email-singles-out-Daily-Kos
1. Main mission: Infiltrate all liberal web sites, posing as disaffected liberals with liberal-sounding user names, icons and signatures. (Reference Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, FDR, Smedley Butler, Bill Clinton, etc.)
2. Express. Disappointment. With. Obama. (Whining pays double!) (jk!)
3. Push primary challenge. Push third party. Push Green. Push Socialist. Push write-in voting. Push non-voting to "send a message."
4. Effective memes/talking points:
"Obama is a DINO."
"Obama is no different than a Republican."
"Obama has sold us out."
"It feels good to vote your conscience."
"It feels good to stick to your principles."
"Don't be trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils."
"We need to punish Obama and the Democrats by not voting."
"We'd be better off with a Republican in the White House."
"Obama is a war-mongering, torturing, corporatist shill."
I simply cannot emphasize this point enough: No meme is too extreme or radical. "Obama is worse than Bush!" "Obama is a war criminal!" Remember: the reader thinks he is reading the opinion of a fellow liberal. It's all about peer suggestibility, people. Keep expanding the Overton Window. The more you push a radical notion, the more likely a slightly less radical notion becomes acceptable. Someone else said it this way: "The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it."
So take it over the top. Absolutely nothing is outside the realm of plausibility. "Obama is an alien from the planet Negron." I like it!
This time the Democrat was the hot one, the alpha male while the Republican stayed calm and cool and occasionally counter-punched with clever quips.
Yeah, there was more to it than that. But that's what seems to matter most to the viewing audience.
My favorite part of the debate was when the fact box at the bottom said, "Approximately 12.1 people remain out of work"
After tonight, approximately 13.1 people will remain out of work...
I think watching any American in a public space is simply funny...
To understand the game being played here, read Karl Rove's memo, or the (now hidden) Advantage Consultants website (they provide bloggers to flood discussion sites like Slashdot with talking points):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/27/1010778/-BREAKING-Leaked-Rove-email-singles-out-Daily-Kos
http://web.archive.org/web/20110622211824/http://advantageconsultants.org/
Karl Rove talking points:
"Obama is a DINO."
Search on [obama dino] and you'll see the comments posted.
"Obama is no different than a Republican."
I'm sure you've read this one endlessly on Slashdot.
"Obama has sold us out."
Another popular one here.
And so on.
The resemblance is uncanny in this debate
The fact that Obama is not perfect,doesn't mean he's the same. I fear Romney would be much more likely to get us in a war in Syria or Iran; he might decide we need to stay in Afghanistan, might repeal Obamacare, and might change the tax code to make it less fair; also, he might push/allow for more government intervention in private life, and allow more corruption and incompetence. So, not the same.
I think you need to check your news sources, dude. The information is out there, but you're not going to get it from NBC, ABC, CNN or any of the other yahoos
lol! Did Obama double the deficit? Or the debt? It is not a matter of opinion, unless you descend into the alternate reality of conservative media. And of /course/ traditional media has to be biased. How else could conservatives coddle their feel-good universe?
Two words: epistemic closure.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Am I the only one who though Biden lost hard? He was obviously angry and emotional, but his arguments were almost completely defensive, arguing why Ryan was lying or wrong, but very little criticism of the Romney/Ryan platform. And much of what he said seemed incoherent. Ryan on the other hand kept his cool, made compelling and reasonable-sounding (though possibly completely wrong) arguments. Biden was a cornered animal fighting for his life. Ryan was the fearless hunter who knew he would win in any case.
And I'm almost always a reliable Democratic voter.
That said, I don't believe the Romney/Ryan position. Cutting taxes may help the economy, but will disproportionately benefit the rich. Big stock portfolio? It grows with the economy. As the money trickles down, the rich keep their share before the rest of us ever see it. I also don't believe there's enough loopholes to pay for it, so it will increase the deficit in order to hand cash directly to high income earners. I do like the idea of economic growth to inflate our way out of the Social Security/Medicare/Medicade problem, but will congress really not increase payments under those programs as the economy grows? And the slash and burn attitude Romney had towards federal discretionary spending will /hurt/ the economy, possibly more than the tax cuts will help.
In the end, I think Obama is right. We're in a pickle and we'll have to endure both tax cuts and spending cuts to get out off it. If we focus those on the rich, the poor and middle class will continue to spend and at the very least they won't slow growth too much.
I still think Biden lost hard though. The only question is whether he did worse or just almost as bad as Obama. I had to do a lot of thinking to decide why I wasn't considering voting republican. I wish I'd voted for Hillary 4.5 years ago now though.
Can anyone explain how the Romney tax plan works. We've all heard it doesn't add up, so I'll just summarize that below. What I'm looking for are explanations of how it makes sense. I heard Ryan not explain it. He talks about "broadening a base" via eliminating deductions. What does that mean?
Summary of the tax plan (taken from Romney website):
1) No AMT, no estate tax
2) No tax on Dividends, INterest or Cap gains.
3) cut maximum tax bracket by 20% from bush maximum: that is to say 15% on ordinary income.
4) Eliminate "most" deductions but keep home mortgage deduction.
Other bullet points (taken from Romney web page).
1) wont lower revenues
2) upper income earners wont pay a smaller "share". (unclear)
3) won't raise taxes on taxes on middle class. (presumably in aggregate).
Clear areas lacking explanation:
Consider that top teir earners pay most of the tax in the US right now and that they earn most of their income from Cap gains not Ordinary income like wages. If you remove the tax on cap gains, then they pay only a few percent on their combined income. This will drastically reduce not just their "share" but strongly imapct total revenue.
Note that lowering deductions barely affects this analysis. Even if you set the ordinary income tax rate at 110% on the wealthy, the fact that nearly all their income is cap gains means they still pay almost no tax. Furthermore since there is no estate tax, this situation does not correct itself at death.
SO how can this meet the claims about revenue neutral, not lowering the share of the upper income earners, or not push more taxes on the middleclass.
I'm looking for explanations not anti romney propganda. And what does "broadening the base" mean if there's no cap gains tax?
thanks!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I love slashdot. I just can't stand it participants.
Obama has for years claimed:
Rendition, when ever he wants
Torture, when ever he needs
Murder, when ever he likes.
Yet, did Obama order any of these against Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan?
No.
Simple calculus.
Obama got no Penis.
Poor poor Half-breed Boy Obama got not Penis.
And just Who in his unelected government will take a bullet to the head to please him?
Not a single Fucker in Obama's Unelected Government will take a bullet to the head for Obama.
What a LOOZER from LOOZERVILLE this Biden and his Gay lover Obama.
Just now Obama is sucking Biden's dick to help ease the pain.
I was unable to watch (at work), but did SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, TPP, US Six-Strike come up at all and Biden's best friend Chris Dodd of MPAA fame come up at all? Or were both parties in agreement that it wouldn't serve either's interest to discuss these things (in public)?
Well, that'd be the oft-repeated claim by the Romney/Ryan camp that the US Navy is at its smallest size since WW1.
Are they such complete retards that they think that's in any way a valid comparison? That somehow what the US Navy looked like in WW1 matters?
After WW1, the US had over a dozen battleships. The US Navy has 0 Battleships now. They rely heavily on Aircraft and well, Aircraft Carriers.
The parameters of war-fighting have changed. Considerably. Blind comparisons like that one from the Romney camp rely heavily on rhetoric, but are empty on substance.
If they want to make an argument about the insufficiency of the US Navy to conduct some operations, they can do so with specifics rather than pointless comparisons.
That they do so, however, is an indictment to their character, and like Paul Ryan says, shows how little they really have to say. Thanks Mr. Ryan, thanks. You gave yourself enough rope to dangle from the yardarms.
*Does the USA have to act like a 3rd world country, trying to always resolve things using the Military? The USA has other Federal Departments and NATO that can resolve most problems and save 2.7 Trillion Dollars & millions of lives without using the military. The Republican Party has a mind set that Republicans would be in power if there was a war with Iran. Just like the Bush/Cheney era mentality of waging wars so that Bush/Cheney would be in the White house for a second term total 8 years.
*Did you all watch the news where U.S.A Ambassador Chris Stevens compound/building in Libya was blown to pieces with a rocket/bomb? What if there was an extra 42 Marines? What if those 42 Marines was in the building guarding Ambassador Chris Stevens then the total death toll would increase by 42 extra died Marines. TERRORIST ACTIVITY IS NOT CENTRALIZED, TERRORIST ACTIVITY IS ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST.
*How is Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan going to reduce 20% of TAX for (Corporations, Billionaires, Millionaires) & have revenue neutral without paying down the Federal Deficit?
*Bush/Cheney TAX CUT caused an increase in the Federal Debt so what do you think reducing an extra 20% of TAXES will do Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan plan?
Good Question!
I'd also like to know how this might affect the tech sector.
1) I note the following a few companies that are doing well (Apple I'm looking a you) have massive foreign earnings accumulating. Is this income or cap gains? If cap gains then is there is the possibility they would repatriate this to the US allowing higher dividends to share holders. They might also use their discretion to book more profit in the US if the max tax bracket was 15%? On the other hand, their a multi-national company so they would only do that if stockholders demanded it--they have no obligation to the US. They might even use it as leverage to get more favorable rates from other countries.
2) many start ups thrive on options. But with options come cap gains taxes. Look at Zuckerberg having to sell stock to pay for the options taxable value. Would this change how startups are financed?
The two main parties are so close to being the same thing, and religiously avoid talking about things that really matter, like loss of our freedoms, like the hideous expense of trying to run an empire in a post imperialistic world, like how it's the big corporate gambling and beer lobbyists who pay for the Presidential debates through their joint "non-profit" corporation, and thereby get credit for giving equal amounts to both parties, so you are guaranteed a corrupted party no matter which one you vote for, like how in the old days before capitalist cronyism took over from honest capitalism, when the League of Women Voters used to insist on moderators that would ask real questions instead of the softballs that the two parties get to specify in their written contract with their lobbyist sponsors, before the debate dates are even set. How about that. They work together, mainly to make sure that no third party even gets heard of. The sponsors don't really care which of their puppets gets in or stays in power.
Vote Libertarian, Vote Green, Vote Flying Yogis, anything but mainstream. Don't even look at their mind rot, and someday we will be free again.
Only look at the platforms of the sincere alternatives. Don't waste you honest mind on corrupt politics.
You guys know that they choreograph the matches and the outcomes are predetermined, right?
Does anyone pick the president by the VP they choose? Do they think, "I like the other guy more for president, but I'm voting for this guy because he will be a better VP"?
LOL, no. These debates aren't for swaying people's opinions. The people already have their horse picked out going into the debate. They just want to see "their guy" bash the other guy so they can be cocky and post taunts on Facebook at what a moron the other guy and all his supporters are.
The requisite 15 minutes of Hate has now been extended out into an hour or two, minus commercial breaks of course. Politics these days more and more resembles mainstream wrestling; some of the minor details like words spoken in a certain moment may be spontaneous, but the whole of it is theater, basically a live TV performance. Any verbal gaffes or logical inconsistencies occurring in the heat of the moment due to the real ignorance and stupidity lurking and carefully concealed beneath his fake smile and plastic demeanor, can easily be explained away by an army of aides and speechwriters as "misspoke" or "taken out of context" or "whatever", and twisted and turned and spun this way and that for as long as it takes until the public simply intellectually gives up, or becomes bored/confused and moves on to more important things like Lohan's fight with her mom.
The Nazis would have been exceptionally proud of what we've become.
Paul is a flaming idiot. He's taken bits and pieces of economic theory and moulded them to comport with his own agenda. Economic theory has the benefit of peer review and scientific method. Paul eschews all of that. His routine is to take the first two or three concepts from some economic theory and veer sharply in the direction of whatever point he wants to make (logical connectives be damned). When he's most honest, he's just 150 years out of date; when he's most dishonest he's just completely out of touch with reality.
He's actually worse than Romney in that respect. Romney's just flat out lying and no one knows his agenda. Presumably, Romney might be amendable to rational thought if he were to ever be in power. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is genuinely far out in right field. He's so far gone the stadium lights can't even locate him. Only Paul knows where he is at any given moment, and you can bet that's where he intends to stay.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
You can see it write large on Ryan's wife's face:
http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/10/11/AP655688226697.jpg
"And I'm almost always a reliable Democratic voter."
Nah, you work for Advantage Consultants, or another of those turf groups. Of your 20 comments, the longs ones are all Rove talking points, the short ones, one line fillers.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110622211824/http://advantageconsultants.org/
http://slashdot.org/~pseudorand
"I just donated to Obama to enter to win dinner with him. Why? So I can give him a piece of my mind."
" took the Colorado TCAP (no child left behind equiv tests) and said they were pretty difficult"
"1) The 99%/1% stat describes inequality in the distribution of wealth, not income. The government they're petitioning has some leeway in addressing income inequality through tax policy, but the only way to address distribution of wealth inequality quickly would be to violate the protection of private property."
etc etc.
The trouble with turfers is they have no substance beyond their single issue. So comments in other fields are always empty short filler.
Dont ask, dont tell.
In Canada, you essentially vote for a party. Due to strong party discipline and the indirect way the Prime Minister is selected, it doesn't matter much who you actually send to Parliament, but rather which party he/she represents. In the US, the candidates actually matter a little.
Also, two parties are not sufficient for a healthy democracy. Suppose a politician of your preferred party does something corrupt while in office. When election time comes, do you vote for him/her anyway? Or will you vote for the opponent, whose values are the opposite of yours, just to toss the bum out? Politicians know that in a two-party system, they can get away with a lot of crap and still get re-elected.
Two party can very quickly come to a very comfortable situation where they "exchange" seat but lose nothing as they both got a handhold of 50/50 of the seat of power (either at the same time spread over the states, or alternatively with presidential seats). Basically they are more or less chumy and don't dispute any hard point, jsut sound bytes.
Now when a third party comes in the situation changes. The incumbent can naturally let itself be corrupted by the 2 other party, the kow towing of the two other party means they have to compromise, and before that he HAS to rise to enough proeminence and thus there is at least an intermediate state where it is pointing the HARD stuff in political campaign forcing the 2 big party to go away from sound byte. Furthermore once there is 3 party, and the 3rd party fuck it up let itself corrupted, then a FORUTH aprty can spring up and rally the votes. Meaninf there is a constant flux and nobody can assert itself and more importantely no two aprty can fully ignore the folk will as they are doing in the US. Not for very long. But in the US ? it is kettle and pot, and unless democain and repucrate fucks it up royally leading to a revolution or are shown to be eating babies, then nothing changes. Sound byte for election followed by royally ignoring the populace and putting in DMCA, Patriot acts and so forth.
That was the commercial break.
You LIE!
There were no commercials!
I prefer this version
Lack of air conditioning?
So it does make one wonder just how many will die should a guy like Romney who thinks global warming is a joke takes charge of the EPA and efforts to save the habitability of only planet most of us live on.
http://browneyedgirl65.com/2011/07/10/fdr-predicts-modern-republicans/
Here is FDR in 1936 laughing at Romney in 2012:
Let me warn you and let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion that says “of course we believe these things. We believe in social security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die [laughter, applause] we believe in all these things. BUT, we do not like the way the present administration is DOING them! Just turn them over to us. We will do ALL of them. We will do MORE of them. We will do them better! And most important of all, the doing of them will not. cost. anybody ANYthing!” [much laughter, much applause].
I believe VP Biden stated that the US would not intervene with Syria because (1:06:03 in the debate) because it was 5x larger and 1/5 the population of Libya? Did I hear that right? I thought I knew a bit of geography and this kind of took me back. So I checked...
Syria - - - - - - - - - Libya
185,180 - - - - - - 1,759,540 Total Area (sq km)
20,178,485 - - - -6,310,434 Population
source : http://cia-world-fact-book.findthedata.org/compare/57-105/Syria-vs-Libya
I couldn't find a date but I don't think it could be that outdated. According to this Syria has about 1/10 the size and 3x the population. I wonder which source he used? Is VP Biden just making stuff up? What else could just be pulling out of his hat like that?
__
Much more likely? Romney has already promised many campaign contributors he WILL go to war. He has appointed all the previous Bush neocons to his "defence" policy transition team.
So your strawman is from Spain - pity the guy you were actually replying to is probably from somewhere else.
Biden was wrong about the point of threat and Iranian nuclear breakout. With high velocity artillery and high quality, highly enriched U235 (HEU), it means a half industrialized nation can be nuclear arm state, right now. Even in 1942, HEU gun based nukes were considered comparatively trivial, and did not even need testing like plutonium implosion based bombs.
The fundamental problem facing our nation right now is materialism. People value money and ease of life over freedom. We need only look to recent history--and current events in other places--to have reason to choose freedom over material wealth. But that's not popular now. Our Founding Fathers--and the nameless men who died under them--must be spinning in their graves. This is not the freedom they died for.
This mindless tirade against "the rich" or "the 1%" is just that: mindless. It's a tool used to manipulate the masses. And I'm nowhere near being part of that "1%". The question is, who is pulling the strings?
I don't care if cutting taxes benefits "the rich": it benefits ME by letting ME keep MY money in MY pocket and letting ME decide what to do with MY money--not the government. It also gives the government less money to spend--and we need less government, not more.
This "1%" movement is emotionally driven. It's about materialism. It's about enforced equality, about forced redistribution of wealth, about "fairness". People just want to be as rich as "the rich". They care more about that than about FREEDOM.
Freedom is our most valuable possession as citizens. Freedom includes the right to own property and seek wealth. Freedom means that some people will have more than others. That's how life works. Life is not fair.
People would rather cede control of their money--and, ultimately, their lives--to the government and let the government even things out between them and "the 1%." It's easier than taking responsibility for oneself.
Elections aren't about principles or values anymore. They're all about "what will you do for ME during the NEXT TERM." They're about, "Will he MAKE things 'better' in the next four years?" with "better" best defined as "making my life easier."
We are spoiled in this country. We have had it easy for so long, and we take our freedoms for granted to such an extent that we are willing--even wanting--to hand them over for the sake of empty promises. We need to do more interviews with immigrants who came from communist countries, who escaped the Iron Curtain, and heed their warnings. We need to listen to how much they value the freedoms we enjoy here in the USA, the freedoms we are trying to give up.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
That quote could be applied to any election in which the incumbent President were a Republican--or just any election, period. That quote boils down to, simply, "We want to help you, too! We will just do it better than the incumbent! So vote for me!" You're being disingenuous.
It seems to me that the Republicans are more candid about the costs of welfare spending. The Republican platform leans more toward small government than does the Democrats'. That's not to say that the Republicans have done everything right, or that they will in the future. GWB and the Republicans have done many things I disagree with. But I think there is a more substantial difference between the parties than most people will admit. The problem is that the focus on short-term, "what will you do for ME" issues obscures the deeper principles.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"The only agenda I have is to be treated like a human being." Your sig is so ironic. You advocate good treatment of human beings, yet at the same time you advocate destruction of human life.
If banning abortion would be a decision based on religion, then why not legalize murder? After all, Christianity is against murder, and we mustn't have laws against things which Christianity declares wrong.
"Because your right to do whatever you want ends when it interferes with my right to life."
Then a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body ends when it interferes with an unborn baby's right to life.
The only way to justify abortion is to devalue human life. And, of course, without religion, there is no reason to value human life--humans are just bags of randomly-generated organic goo. Therefore, murder is just as justifiable as abortion. Survival of the fittest, you know.
Of course, you conclude by equating Christian values with Islamic law. It's hard to be much more intellectually dishonest than that.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"Yes it does!"
"No it doesn't!"
That's all it boils down to. It's all about short-term economic growth, about "What will you do for me in the next four years?" Nevermind the deeper principles at stake, like "Make them give their money to the government so the government can give some of it to me (in the form of services or benefits)! Feed me, government, feed me! Peep, peep!"
I don't care if tax cuts also benefit "the rich": I want to keep more of my money in my pocket. I want the government to have less of it to spend foolishly and wastefully. I want to have the freedom to make my own decisions.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
You have a very simple minded vision. those jobs that were created meant more than 1 year's employment. The money spent was re-spent many times. The labor of some person was harvested for the benefit of the GDP with that money (as opposed to giving them money for free). And it maintained bussiness enterprises as functional, preserving other jobs. It helped jumpstart new industries like green power.
More importantly, cities can't deficit spend (have to use bonds). Hence in recessions when revenues fall, cities have to lay off. Which makes the recession jobs spiral worse. In cities where the tax base doesn't fall in a recession (property tax) then this also take smore money out of the disretioanry economy and bussinesses fail. Stimulus money is thus a way for the tax payers to loan the city money (the feds rpovide it, and future taxes pay it back).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Joe Biden is not trying to get elected to any position where he would write laws!
Yes, that's the basis for the Helpless Bystander Fable. The problem is it's the liberal version of the GOP's "no one could have predicted" excuse for their inaction in the face of Hurricane Katrina. A false argument that insults the intelligence of the listener.
How is it false? Let us count the ways...
1) The filibuster could have been ended when the new Congress was sworn in with a new set of rules for the Senate, which only requires a simple majority. The GOP was already setting filibuster records when the Dems first took back the Senate in 2006, so they cannot claim they were shocked, shocked! at continued abuse of the filibuster. Obama was running around promising a public option and the Employee Free Choice Act with only 51 Democrats in the Senate, yet he's suddenly a helpless bystander with 59 or 60 Democrats? Bitch please.
2) The filibuster could still be ended via the Nuclear Option, which only takes 50 Democrats + Biden. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional one. So all it would take to amend the Senate rules is a majority vote, with Biden casting the tie-breaking vote if need be. They could do it in the next five minutes if they wanted to.
3) Reconciliation bypasses the filibuster, and could have been used to pass most of the 2008 party platform, with a serious jobs bill to boot. It could have been used to end the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich while keeping those for the middle class....but the Democrats chose not to use it.
4) The Bully Pulpit. If you can think of a bigger sword for the GOP to fall on than obstructing a serious jobs bill in the face of a depression, by all means call up OFA and suggest one.
5) The one and only time you hear about the filibuster or the "60 votes" nonsense is when some liberal idea is being killed. It wasn't an issue for passing telecom immunity, where Reid even ignored a hold from a member of his own party. It wasn't an issue when it came time to reconfirm Bernanke to the Fed, when the supposedly ironclad 60 vote requirement disappeared.
It was all a commercial.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The Health Insurance Profit Protection Act is not only not the first step towards single payer, it's the first step towards ending Medicare. Because it provides no government based platform to be expanded upon, the way Social Security did in the 30's. Because if vouchercare is good enough for a low income person of 64 years of age, it's good enough for a low income person of 70 years of age.
That was really scary, it was apparent to me that as far as understanding how trivial it is to make a nuclear weapon out of weapons grade uranium;
the current administration is a "Beavis and Buthead" team.
At least Bidden go Cornholio on TV, with all of the laughing to himself, I wasn't sure what was going to happen.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Could not stand to watch the debate.
Biden was condescending, rude, disruptive, immature. A total dick.
Biden acted like a jerk.
You alluded to this, but I think it's important to stress that the idea of a "filibuster proof majority" is mainly used as a distraction. As in "blame my opponent for not preventing me from blocking that bill".
If there are 60 Dem and Dem-friendly Senators, and only 59 vote for cloture on an issue you care about, you should assign more blame to the GOP's 40 Senators (100% voting against your interest) than the Democratic + Independent Senators (2% voting against your interest).
First of all, they're optional and don't carry the force of law. It's just a road map for the next year (and next 4 years). Appropriations bills are what fund or defund specific things.
Second, the House and Senate need to agree. Currently the Senate has a Democratic majority and the House has a Republican majority.
A budget resolution is not a law. It doesn't fund or defund any agency or program.
of whatever it is that this guy's smoking.
We shouldn't let anyone tell us we're so incompetent we can't have a better, cheaper and universal health care system in this country. Other countries do it and we can too.
Nulla consectetur, tortor sed volutpat porta, felis arcu laoreet nisl, sit amet tincidunt dui mi sed tellus. Morbi sem nunc, mattis non varius vel, mattis a augue. Nulla euismod, purus ut varius porta, risus neque sollicitudin augue, et placerat lectus sem ut augue. Vestibulum leo diam, placerat quis egestas in, aliquam non lorem. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nunc vestibulum dapibus convallis. Curabitur dolor nisi, tristique in consectetur vitae, lobortis sit amet quam. Pellentesque ac nunc vitae mi dapibus imperdiet non ac libero. Maecenas lacinia commodo neque in vulputate. Nulla a ante urna, ut tempor velit. Etiam sollicitudin, nulla ut vestibulum tristique, elit ipsum venenatis lacus, quis placerat justo elit eget ipsum.
Ut risus augue, varius eget condimentum non, cursus quis nisl. Aliquam convallis bibendum aliquam. Suspendisse urna metus, porta id posuere nec, eleifend et ipsum. Nulla facilisi. Aenean augue arcu, dignissim rhoncus tempus a, malesuada sit amet elit. Nam porttitor pellentesque nulla. Morbi tincidunt rhoncus erat quis eleifend. Curabitur non justo metus, pretium cursus nisl. Nam fringilla eros eu erat hendrerit hendrerit.
Vestibulum non massa ipsum. Nullam ipsum lacus, malesuada quis molestie nec, pellentesque eu ante. Etiam fringilla est sit amet felis pharetra malesuada non sed nisl. Nam hendrerit tortor sed leo bibendum ultrices. Nulla viverra faucibus odio ac mattis. Sed vitae facilisis risus. Quisque a felis et quam feugiat dapibus. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus at arcu non velit hendrerit molestie. In iaculis sem dolor, at sodales diam. Mauris gravida placerat pulvinar. Curabitur eu odio eget orci varius convallis. Nulla vel urna sed felis porttitor gravida. Sed in sapien turpis, in lacinia nunc.
Aliquam erat volutpat. Aliquam ut nunc dolor, vitae ullamcorper velit. Morbi sed arcu id erat semper lacinia quis ac ligula. Cras in turpis nulla. Phasellus accumsan placerat congue. Nullam venenatis porttitor ante vitae ullamcorper. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec accumsan massa in tellus rutrum nec tristique mi rutrum. Proin feugiat nulla sit amet velit vestibulum rutrum. Maecenas a augue ligula, at sollicitudin orci.
Vestibulum elementum ultricies magna, vel consectetur urna eleifend vitae. Aliquam non nunc risus. Sed dignissim, metus ac hendrerit convallis, quam est tincidunt leo, in tincidunt turpis erat in nisl. Vestibulum lectus dui, eleifend non tincidunt ac, vehicula ut est. Suspendisse potenti. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec at tempor arcu. Quisque hendrerit purus vitae tellus fermentum condimentum quis vel nisl. Phasellus vitae tellus est, vitae consectetur risus. Nullam augue eros, porttitor nec convallis et, bibendum euismod urna. Donec laoreet vulputate sem, ut ultricies lorem auctor a. Fusce sit amet tellus massa. Fusce rutrum lacus eu nisl dapibus ut feugiat felis venenatis.
Solely with your choice of username, that is. :)
Look kid, when somebody points out that the US economy is not in fantastic shape just now it's not fair to cherrypick Spain, Greece or even fucking North Korea when more than half the worlds population live in places where the economy is growing.
What we have here is somebody projecting an image of boom times while your economy is struggling (hence the guy above writing "Americans like to be lied to so they can keep their precious illusions intact"). It's being done just to make people happy and win votes and has nothing to do with reality. So that's Romney, and maybe Obama too, but either way it's a lie.
The posts above are the stupid kneejerk reaction to somebody pointing out that lie. It was pointed out in a pretty blunt way but still the reaction of deflecting things to places that are experiencing what the USA went through in 2008 (plus more in some cases), really has nothing to do with Romney pandering to a feeling that everything is going to be fine without anyone doing anything. I agree with gweihir but would have substituted "voters" for Americans to be both more accurate and avoid the over-patriotic backlash from people turning their brains off the second they think somebody is insulting their nation. Your news and entertainment monopolies are more to blame than apathy on the part of citizens - you are being trained to be apathetic and xenophobic. All you guys can do is get your parents to look after your kids as much as possible so the next generation is less of a writeoff.
People say Gary Johnson, and his VP James (Jim) Gray, shouldn't be in the debates because they have no chance of winning. And yet the debate is all about standing and not substance.
People forget that Johnson is polling at 6%, except they know it's less than the 15% required. Of course, that's no different than Ross Perot, who was at 6% pre-debate too, back when only 5% was required. Perot took far more than 6%, or 15% for that matter, as a result. And like Perot, Johnson-Gray will be on the ballot in all 50 states, just like the Libertarians have been for all recent elections.
But most of all ... keep this in mind as an American. Perot didn't win, but what changed? The rhetoric between Democrats and Republicans dropped significantly thanx to Perot. The issues started coming out. The Republicans swept the 1994 Congressional election on a new platform pushed to a point very similarly to Perot's Constitutionalist Party. And Clinton was then forced to work with a new government, after increasing the debt while passing taxes on anyone making more than $20K.
Why are Americans so afraid to let Johnson-Gray in the debate? Maybe it's because it might expose the two parties for what they are. No different, pushing debt, Romneycare v. Obamacare, stupid non-sense. That's what is mind boggling. Especially since Johnson is taking away from Obama as much as Romney, the first Libertarian to do so, because Obama is actually a right-winger on civil rights.
Johnson was no one 2 weeks before the Republican primary for New Mexico's governor in a state that votes 2:1 Democrat. He was no non-sense, fiscally conservative, socially accepting Republican of yesteryear, before the Libertarians broke away. He doesn't waffle on civil rights, including marriage equality. He always came out in full support of regulated drug use even as a Republican. And when allowed in polls and to state his views, people love him.
Jim Gray is a judge who has lambasted the federal government on continued erosion of our civil liberties, especially under Obama. He too really puts the President and Romney to shame as well.
America needs a Handiman ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP69507fTKY
Only a complete dupe without any semblance of critical thinking would be so fooled as to believe there is any democracy left in America, any rule of law for the new class of citizenry: the government and corporate elites - who don't get rules and regulations like the rest of us.
The fact is, both Rmoney and Obamanation were more or less equally funded by the same corporatist interests via Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan / Citibank et al. They are both for war. They are both for the NDAA indefinite detention without charges - the evisceration of everything that is America. It's a one party system, a one horse race. By the way, these corporate interests have funded into the front of the race these two "candidates" with bailout money they got. Sick huh?
The only solution is self education - bypassing the corporate media propaganda system (google Amber Lyon CNN to see just how fake the news is) - and peaceful non-compliance.
Obama lost and may lose the election because of the mean spirited snarky condescension on his face as Romney talked. The issue is not Romney's truthfulness, but his demeanor. People do not like Obama as much as they thought they did. He gave us the chance to turn the page on the pigment impediment and we took it. But he wasn't the dude from the hood who made good, shooting hoops in the yard. He was from Harvard. Neither are leaders. They do not inspire.