Barack Obama Retains US Presidency

Fox News, NBC, and CNN have called the U.S. election for incumbent Barack Obama. Of the so-called 'battleground states,' Obama carried Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, which, along with all of the solidly Democrat-leaning states, was enough to push him beyond the 270 required for victory. You can check this chart to see the full list of states that have currently been called, and by which news networks. The NY Times has an excellent interactive map showing all election results updated in real time, as does CNN. It's currently projected that the Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats will retain control of the Senate.

Comments

Excellent

[isorox]

No more

Re:Excellent

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

Ok, honestly, I wish people could try to be a little less partisan. Both men were good men and would try to serve this country. Sure they both have selfish motivations for some of the things they do but, seriously, who the hell wouldn't in that position???.
Let's all agree that, though Obama may do things differently than you personally think he should, he's going to lead America as best he can.
I'm generally conservative/libertarian in my politics and most of my friends align in that direction. I infrequently use Facebook and when I looked this morning I was disgusted with the ridiculous epithets and flat out doucheiness of a LOT of people who call themselves "Christians" or at least moral people.
Obama is a good man. I would lead a bit differently than I but he's NOT a "Baby Killer", the "Antichrist", the "Nigger in the White House", or any other hateful and decidedly unchristian thing so many morally ugly people are saying about him.
He's your president. He's your supreme leader. He's under tremendous pressure and stress to serve America and her interests. Speak of him that way or shut the hell up.

Re:Excellent

[caseih]

Please mod the parent up. I remember back during the Clinton days in a red state the amount of vitriol and extremely vile and vulgar things said about Clinton. Then in the Bush days, particularly in the second term, it happened all over again. Remember the stupid "miserable failure" campaign to manipulate Google's search? If I recall at the time many slashdotters thought it was pretty clever. Some people went so far as to claim Bush would hold onto power somehow (watch the same things will be said of Obama now).

Now again we see the same crap uttered by those who voted for the other team.

It's this behavior that's destroying America as much as any party or policy. It's time to stop it. No, just because the majority of Americans voted a different way then I did, it doesn't mean democracy has failed and the country is going to self-destruct. And no, just because the majority of Americans *did* vote the way I think they should have doesn't mean that those who didn't are somehow less important than I am.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

>Both men were good men and would try to serve this country

Please tell me you're kidding. Mr. Romney has not denied bullying a classmate and shaving his head or transporting his dog on a vacation in a way most would consider abusive and was a professional corporate raider. While Mr. Obama is really not who I would prefer in office (I am a small-c conservative), Mr. Romney has shown a shocking lack of human decency in a variety of ways.

If anything, this election has shown that nearly half of the the United States is not just financially bankrupt but ethically bankrupt as well.

Re:Excellent

[ridgecritter]

Thanks for your thoughts. Increases my optimism about our country a bit.

Re:Excellent

[WGFCrafty]

Unfortunately one of the candidates disagreed. Exactly 53% of people were more equal than the subversive, lazy rest of the lot.

Re:Excellent

[amiga3D]

Given the train wreck we can all see coming I believe the best thing that ever happened to Romney is getting defeated. I feel nothing but pity for the President as the next 4 years will ruin his legacy.

Re:Excellent

[pitchpipe]

So which is it? Did you take drugs you shouldn't have, or did you not take drugs you should have?

Re:Excellent

[SQL Error]

In contrast, there was 9/11 - sure, most people think it was the Saudis, but there are too many questions unanswered, like the lack of debris, lack of video, lack of an airplane at the Pentagon

Lack of debris? Lack of airplane? If you believe that, I'd seek a second opinion if you said the sky is blue.

Re:Excellent

[Black Parrot]

>Both men were good men and would try to serve this country

Please tell me you're kidding. Mr. Romney has not denied bullying a classmate and shaving his head or transporting his dog on a vacation in a way most would consider abusive and was a professional corporate raider. While Mr. Obama is really not who I would prefer in office (I am a small-c conservative), Mr. Romney has shown a shocking lack of human decency in a variety of ways.

If anything, this election has shown that nearly half of the the United States is not just financially bankrupt but ethically bankrupt as well.

It astonishes me that this election was even close. As a small-l liberal, I don't have much higher opinion of Obama than you do. But Romney is a phoney even by the low standards we hold politicians to. Seriously, a 260,000,000aire putting on a flannel shirt and going to a steel works for a photo op telling the employees that he's one of them and feels their pain???

The only reason I can imagine the Republicans nominated him is in case anyone was paying so little attention in 2001-2008 that they still hadn't figured out that the Republican party is plutocratic rather than conservative.

In his defense, I suspect that the dog-on-roof thing was mere cluelessness rather than wickedness. He really comes across as a 13-year-old boy who never grew up.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Mitt Romney is not a good man. His campaign was too dishonest for him to possibly be a good man. I don't care that he had some selfish motivations, his complete lack of integrity is without doubt to me.

I'm not calling him a crazy Mormon Polygamist, I'm not even calling him an evil Corporate CEO, I'm just referring to how he conducted himself in this election.

Heck just his remarks about the size of the US Navy being smaller than it was after WW1 was enough for me to recognize the fundamental lack of honesty in the man. Nobody who understands a single thing about the military would be fooled by that, and yet he stood by it even after he was given an explanation as to why it was so terribly flawed.

I'd list his mendacious conduct in detail further, but that's already been done enough.

You want to show some REAL integrity? Give up on the notion of being non-partisan to the point where you can't even call a man out for being the most dishonest man to run for President since Ronald Reagan.

Re:Excellent

[Phroggy]

Perhaps you can point some of your Christian friends to this quote:

First and foremost, my Christian faith gives me a perspective and security that I don’t think I would have otherwise: That I am loved. That, at the end of the day, God is in control—and my main responsibility is to love God with all of my heart, soul, and mind, and to love my neighbor as myself. Now, I don’t always live up to that standard, but it is a standard I am always pursuing.

My faith is also a great source of comfort to me. I’ve said before that my faith has grown as president. This office tends to make a person pray more; and as President Lincoln once said, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go."

Finally, I try to make sure that my faith informs how I live my life. As a husband, as a father, and as president, my faith helps me to keep my eyes on the prize and focus on what is good and truly important.

-- President Barack Obama

The allusions to Matthew 22:37-39 and Philippians 3:14 are what makes me believe his sincerity.

Re:Excellent

[guises]

They didn't vote for Romney, they voted republican and Romney was the name next to the (R). Even saying that they "voted" is kind of a stretch, it implies a decision with at least some consideration behind it. People have their favorite brands, and for some people that brand is republican.

Re:Excellent

[fearofcarpet]

It is easy to look back now and say that they are both good people with the best interests of the country in mind, and that is probably true. But elections and candidates are not mirror images and there are not two equal sides; this election was Dreams From My Father versus No Apology. After John McCain corrected an audience member that called Obama an Arab, the response from the electorate was a net negative; Obama supporters were mad about the comment and McCain supporters were mad that he looked "weak." That was the exact moment that truth-telling became a liability in the eyes of political advisers and name-calling whisper campaigns came back into fashion.

This year, the Romney campaign decided that intellectual honesty and demonstrable facts are no longer important in presidential politics and almost managed to win the White House with that strategy. All politicians lie at times, to various degrees, often by omission, but the Romney campaign correctly observed that the resulting sound bites are a net positive, e.g., the first debate.

Neither man is Hitler, but during the post mortem, which will be all about demographic shifts, business cycles, and the "ground game," everyone will pretend not to notice Romney's flaming pants. Nixon would have been embarrassed by the GOP campaign this year (including all the talk about "legitimate" rape and the complete abandonment of science and observation.) And it's our fault because, over the next four years, we will let the Obama administration lie to us and equivocate over everything from regulatory reform to drone strikes while FOX News tries to drum up another faux scandal. People will put their partisan blinders back on and pretend that it's ok when "our guy" lies--and besides, Romney was so much worse.

I'm happy to see Obama back in office and I'm relieved that there won't be a republican in the White House to acquiesce to this bat-shit crazy House, but I don't buy the argument that Romney would have done a good job as president; he would have tried, but he is a self-obsessed moral relativist that is too comfortable with lying to be the figurehead of (what is still) the most powerful nation on Earth. He further damaged political discourse, further legitimized the fringe, ultra-right-wing of the party, and did nothing to discourage the hate-filled name calling to which you refer. Childish name-calling serves no purpose and denigrating the president just further polarizes the country, but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.

Re:Excellent

[aztracker1]

I didn't vote for either.. I'm part of the roughly 5% who voted Libertarian... Full run.. every race that had a libertarian, that's who I voted for.. I have very little aside from disdain for the current (R) and (D) candidates... I don't think either one of them would do anything but strip more personal freedoms and civil liberties in either rubber stamping almost everything that seems to come from congress, or via executive order that simply ignores the law.

It happened under Bush, it spread further under Obama...

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

THIS, this right here, was why everyone on the right side of the aisle did a "Anybody but Romney!" song and dance for the entire primary, as they KNEW that Mittens for so damned spoiled and THOUGHT he was clever and just wouldn't STFU and instead his "Richie Rich" persona bled on through.

I knew the man was dead in the water before the primary even ended, when he did his "I'm a normal guy!" speech when he talked about having to go through late HS and early college with "a truly ugly car" and someone said "Uhhh...that "ugly car" was a BRAND NEW LUXURY CAR that rolled straight out of daddy's plant and into your garage Mittens" and that was when I knew this guy was DOA, when even his "I'm normal!" story ends up involving luxury cars handed out by daddy? Yeah they were fucked, the LAST thing you run in a bad economy is a Grey Puopon spoiled little rich kid.

What is truly scary is...this is it folks, this is the BEST the parties have to offer. Kinda sad isn't it? Man do we need a new system, something where we can have multiple parties like they have in EU, gotta be better than this "Coke VS Pepsi" races we have here.

Re:Excellent

[Tastecicles]

oi! Santa does exist! He's a Trademark of the Coca Cola Company.

Re:Excellent

[Tablizer]

Crash a loaded jet into your house to test that theory.

Re:Excellent

[MightyMartian]

I think Nixon would be saddened to see what his Southern Strategy has morphed into.

One thing is clear, the Republicans have to recognize now that they have a serious problem. Yes, they've still got the House, but so weak, fractured and dominated by fringe special interests is the Republican Party that they could not even push over a President mired in economic woes, and whose major policy initiative (Obamacare) is still distrusted by over half of Americans.

To Republicans I say this. You will hear Tea Party and social conservative types blame Nate Silver and the other pollsters, talking about media conspiracies and so forth. It's time to tell Donald Trump to form his own party, time to tell the Tea Party that they're influence has been purely malign, a tumor on the Republican Party that is forcing poor compromise candidates who are then further shackled by having to try to find some way of convincing Americans they aren't social Neanderthals while still maintaining the support of these social regressives. If you cannot purge the party of these types, or at least put them back under the stone from whence they came, you will be denied the Presidency again in 2016. You have to decide what core conservative values are, and if you cannot align them with the national mood, then you're going to come back disappointed.

Re:Excellent

[fm6]

Actually, Obama is the Nigger in the White House. And that's a good thing. Having a black POTUS has caused all the racist scum to crawl out from under their rocks and remind us that our inner Nazi is alive and well. We were getting too smug about having defeated racism.

Re:Excellent

[fearofcarpet]

Well said. I am an independent, but I end up voting democratic in national elections just to stop the right-wing crazies from getting control. I want people like Reagan and H.W. Bush back at the helm of the GOP so that I feel like I actually have a reasonable choice and not an ultimatum.

Re:Excellent

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sure they both have selfish motivations for some of the things they do but, seriously, who the hell wouldn't in that position???.

A true patriot.

Re:Excellent

[Ash Vince]

Lack of debris? Lack of airplane? If you believe that, I'd seek a second opinion if you said the sky is blue.

Do you know of any footage or photograph showing airplane debris, particularly the tail which is hardly ever destroyed in plane crashes also showing the pentagon or the plane on its approach. It is fairly obvious that it really was two planes that were flown into the WTC but the pentagon being hit was always a bit suspect to many people since there were very few casualties (it hit an empty part of the building which was closed for renovations). Also, there was a well known conspiracy video at the time showing what appeared to be a small missile on approach to the pentagon.

For me the suspicious thing was always the lack of a visible air plane tail though afterwards and the fact that it helped the US military secure some budget increases that would never have happened without it (they were due some serious budget cuts instead).

Re:Excellent

[Jesrad]

Lack of debris ? Moreso lack of research on your part. Debris photos are easy to find, and many parts were clearly identifiable and were all consistent.

Re:Excellent

[ydrol]

Time to clean up your facefook "friends"...

Re:Excellent

[Nocturnal Deviant]

I didn't even bother voting...a polished turd...is still a turd....and they are both just polished turds. Whether one is shinier is a moot point.

This country has fallen so far.

Re:Excellent

[rikkards]

That plus I know someone who saw it happen. Trust me he doesn't work for any US govt org.

Re:Excellent

[swalve]

Listen you fucking idiot, there was a plane. I personally know someone who watched it go into the building with a bunch of his coworkers. The poor bastard was in tears when we talked later that day. Get your head out of your ass.

Re:Excellent

[baffled]

I am curious, do you believe Romney is not capable of helping the middle class and improving the economy solely because has always been rich? I hate to point out the obvious, but such a person would naturally have a rich person's notion of an "ugly car." I'm curious if you believe his personality dictates the decisions he would make, or if it's something perhaps you never thought out..? For instance, he's known for pushing universal healthcare in Massachusetts. Does this position follow your assumptions?

Odds are, anyone attaining status of Democratic/Republican Presidential candidate is very likely to be rich, or backed by rich people. This doesn't necessarily mean that person is more concerned with appeasing people of the same class. Such an assumption is likely to leave you disappointed in your options for most elections.

Re:Excellent

[baffled]

By that standard, every politician is a phony. The candidate's presentation before any class of the electorate is dictated by what renders the statistically greatest opinions. Most people have IQs floating around the 100 range and apparently by assuming a posture of "I am one of you guys" works best. I don't think you can become President if you're not a phony while campaigning.

Re:Excellent

[Teun]

So you really believe the Republicans will continue the last 4 years of blocking any progress?

Re:Excellent

[baffled]

Good thing our alternative, Obama, is not dishonest.

Except.. didn't he promise to shut down Guantanamo, end warrantless wiretaps, and restore habeas corpus? Perhaps your +5 Insightful is evidence Obama is a better liar than Romney.

Re:Excellent

[swalve]

The Pentagon isn't just any office building. It was designed, and further enhanced over the years, to protect against attacks like this. Further, the Pentagon is a large building in relation to the size of an airplane. Yes, from wing to wing and gear to tail, the plane is large. But the fuselage is much smaller, and on low quality video would look very much like a missile. It was likely going very fast, as jets often do. Unlike the vast majority of other crashes, these pilots weren't trying to reduce speed and minimize damage. They very likely pushed the throttles to 11. At those speeds, just a little extra speed adds a TREMENDOUS amount of energy to the crash. Which, when confronted with a building the size of 65 Wal-Marts, made of reinforced concrete and granite, means that you aren't going to have a fucking tail laying around like you do when a pilot is trying not to crash.

Yes, it's the size of 65 Wal-Marts. They average 100,000 sq feet, and the Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet. Picture 13 Wal-Marts end to end, and then wrap them into the shape of a pentagon. Then stack 4 more layers on top of that.

Re:Excellent

[gtbritishskull]

There are many excellent reasons to think that Romney would not be a good president (47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns) but neither the mistakes he made as a kid nor the way in which he transported his dog are things that an intelligent voter should use to decide on the next president.

Re:Excellent

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Obama is a good man.

If you define someone who carries on the Bush policies of drone warfare who targets more brown children than Bush ever did as a "good man"...sure, you're spot on.

http://www.kesq.com/news/Drones-color-Pakistan-s-view-of-election/-/233092/17287934/-/xehcmcz/-/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/drone-attacks-are-acts-of-terrorism-168-children-killed-in-america-s-drone-war-in-pakistan-photographic-evidence/30603

I would lead a bit differently than I but he's NOT a "Baby Killer",

Is it mincing words to call him a "Child Killer" instead of a "Baby Killer"?
I don't like either Romney nor Obama, but at least Romney doesn't have blood on his hands by way of a high tech Milgram experiment (droning, death "without consequence").

He's your president. He's your supreme leader.

Hogwash. Tell that to Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was killed without a trial and due process.
Sorry, just because he didn't push the button doesn't mean he isn't to be held accountable for the savage action. Your "supreme leader" is a traitor to the Constitution he has sworn to uphold, and does not deserve the respect you think he does.

Are "American interests" worth more than a human life of someone in a country that the US is not at war with ? (in Yemen, Pakistan, etc)

Re:Excellent

[AlXtreme]

Man do we need a new system, something where we can have multiple parties like they have in EU, gotta be better than this "Coke VS Pepsi" races we have here.

Although I understand the sentiment (and a lot of Europeans agree that FPTP isn't a way to hold an election) I'm reconsidering my own stance: The US system, with all its flaws and winner-takes-it-all mechanics, seems to me to provide a stronger leadership than that we see on continental Europe.

As you know over here we have many parties in our senate/house-equivalents, some big and some small, and all play their part above the ~1% voter threshold. Either they end up in the opposition or they end up in a coalition government.

The problem is that a coalition government often is far removed from what the majority of the public want: a lifeless compromise at best, but often with internal strife as any coalition party can derail the government and cause new elections.

It's a piss-poor way to lead a country during good times and it's actively detrimental in times of crisis.

"Coke vs Pepsi" might not sound so great, but it might be better than ending up with Coke, Mountain Dew and Ginger Ale all in a single can and shaken vigorously. Be careful what you wish for...

Re:Excellent

[epp_b]

Um ... hey guys?

I'm pretty sure he was actually expressing his relief regarding "no more" election coverage.

But don't that spoil a good argument about, um, election coverage ... aw, dang.

Re:Excellent

[AlecC]

I entirely agree. I want a serious left/right choice that people in the middle - the majority, unless America has a statistically improbably population - to have two credible candidates. When driving you want to steer a little to the left or a little to the right, not left lock to right lock. Politics should be the same: the lead candidats should be centre left and centre right, to allow the country to make moderate course adjustments, not hard left not hard right.

Re:Excellent

[Raenex]

By that standard, every politician is a phony.

There's a range of phoniness. For example, when Kerry in 2004 strapped on a ridiculous looking hunting outfit, that's at the extreme range of phony. When Mitt tries to look like one of the common folk by wearing a flannel or talking about how he loves cheesy grits in the South, it's in the same range. People are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.

Re:Excellent

[Attila Dimedici]

This was the last election with a hope for restoration of rule of law in the U.S.. The American people chose a President who believes in rule by edict.

Re:Excellent

[rmdingler]

Indeed. Blindly toeing the party line. I'm a Bill-of-Rights keep-your-religion-out-of-my-politics conservative, but as sagely postulated above, Romney is hard to like even with the bar as low we set it for politicians. Obama is clearly more worthy of the public trust. Perhaps the losses in House & Senate races by the Akin-like braintrust is a sign the apocalypse has been delayed.

Re:Excellent

[Attila Dimedici]

Yeah, Romney has no decency. I mean look at the way he told that guy who worked for him whose daughter was missing to get back to work, the millions of dollars Bain handled everyday was more important than a daughter...No, wait. He shut the company down for a couple of days and encouraged all of the employees to go to New York to organize a search for her. I mean Obama is so much more caring. He looks after people like they were his own family...Of course when you look at the way he takes care of his own brother, it makes you wonder if there is anybody he cares about.

Re:Excellent

[argStyopa]

Well, at least we've set bitter, blind partisanship aside.
Thanks for your objective, entirely non-biased comment.

Re:Excellent

[Attila Dimedici]

Heck just his remarks about the size of the US Navy being smaller than it was after WW1...

He did not say it was "smaller than it was after WW1", He said it had fewer ships than it did right before WW1. And Obama's answer was that the Army has fewer horses and bayonets than it did then. One might expect the CIC to know that the Army has more bayonets than it did before WW1.

Re:Excellent

[Boronx]

The guy never thought about the future consequences of what he was saying. Nor did he give a thought to what he said 5 minutes ago. What else didn't he think about?

Re:Excellent

[wed128]

I think your reply should have been aimed one post up...your parent post agrees with you.

Re:Excellent

[Boronx]

Romney was incredibly dishonest about everything this year, in this election. The guy doesn't think we should examine what he says, apparently, just listen to the feel-good words. Well, we don't have much to go on other than that. If you got a memory longer than 5 minutes he starts to look ridiculous.

Re:Excellent

[IceNinjaNine]

I am curious, do you believe Romney is not capable of helping the middle class and improving the economy solely because has always been rich?

Trying to identify with the middle class (as Romney appeared to attempt to do with the 'ugly car' remark) was disingenuous. In addition, the man made some bones by slicing and dicing companies and outsourcing jobs. Why should Joe Bob average trust this guy again? In addition, some people called him a "flip flopper".. I call him a blatant liar. Then again, they're all liars.

And don't even go the 'competitiveness' route.. we're competing with countries that have no respect for their people, and who will quite literally liquidate them for gain. Somehow it's okay that a woman goes blind in China at the age of 30 after soldering keyboards all day long so that we may buy them for seven dollars, but it's not okay to fly to Cuba.

As far as "getting tough" with China, I doubt that either Romney or Obama has the balls to call them on currency issues.

Re:Excellent

[dkleinsc]

I'm not even calling him an evil corporate CEO

I'd call him that. Here's how Bain Capital typically made money:
1. Buy a controlling interest in a business that's going through a rough patch.
2. Break that business's contracts with employees (including pensions) and suppliers.
3. Use the extra cash from step 2, and borrow whatever else you need (in the name of the business, not Bain) to pay back Bain their entire investment in the company and then some.
4. When the business goes bankrupt, lenders and employees have to take the loss, while Bain already made its investment back.

In other words, he legally stole millions of dollars from ordinary people and other investors. And his skill at doing that was Mitt Romney's key reason why he thought he was qualified to be president of the United States.

Re:Excellent

[Boronx]

Well said. What's more, after running the most dishonest campaign of my life time, I've yet to hear any criticism from any Republicans on that ground. It reminds me more than anything of the time before the Iraq war. A certain percentage of Americans simply didn't care if the Bush Administration was making the whole WMD story up.

Re:Excellent

[Type44Q]

Both men were good men

No, they are politicians. I don't know what world you live in but a quick glance at either of their track records quickly confirms that those two concepts, at least in their cases, are mutually exclusive.

Re:Excellent

[ceoyoyo]

"In his defense, I suspect that the dog-on-roof thing was mere cluelessness rather than wickedness."

Hm... doing stupid stuff because you're clueless doesn't seem like such a good defence for an almost president of the most powerful country on Earth.

I'm Canadian and someone posted on Facebook yesterday that she didn't remember seeing so many posts when Canada voted. Yes, but when we voted we weren't deciding who gets to be in charge of the button for the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. We're all very glad you guys didn't choose the guy who is too clueless to take care of his dog.

Re:Excellent

[sanosuke001]

I honestly wish they would hide all personally identifiable information from running for office; don't allow anyone to state their party affiliation, no personal meet-and-greets, dark rooms with voice changers for debates, then lets see who wins when people would actually have to decide by way of merit who wins.

Re:Excellent

[Vintermann]

Both men were good men and would try to serve this country.

Of course, you're allowed to put your treshold for "good man" wherever you like. But personally, I'd like to not include leaders who claim the right to extrajudicially assassinate their own citizens.

Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a terrorist, but Obama felt it wasn't necessary to prove that in court. As far as we're concerned, he was simply a political extremist who (unlike most similar political extremists) was able to make his arguments in English on YouTube. Anwar al-Awlaki's son Abdulrahman, who was 16 years old, wasn't even that. He still got murdered by a targeted assassination two weeks after his father was.

They were both American-born American citizens.

Romney, of course, has no objections to the president's extrajudicial killing program, and it's a fair bet he would have continued it if he got the chance.

Re:Excellent

[sanosuke001]

I voted non R or D as well but saying that you only vote for Libertarian because it's not an R or a D is the same crap that everyone else who does for R or D says. Make an educated decision and choose who would be best for the job; not who you feel is running with the party you connect to more.

However, I'd like to assume that you chose Johnson because of his platform and I commend you for doing so; but please, don't say you did it because he wasn't blue or red. (I love how blue and red and gold are colors of rival gangs)

Re:Excellent

[Danathar]

The only thing propping up each party is it's opposition to the other.

If either party had total control of everything for an extended period (10 years) it would be a disaster.

Democrats should FEAR the destruction of the Republican party. Without somebody to point fingers at people realize the emperor has no clothes.

Same goes for the Republicans.

Re:Excellent

[angel'o'sphere]

The army has no more bayonetts since a decade or two as thy are banned weapons since ages.
Perhaps when you look at a youtube video about US forces in Iraq or Aphganistan you check wether the soldiers have baonetts ...

Re:Excellent

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Be better than that guy.

Re:Excellent

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Funny, I remember the same thing being said 4 years ago.

Re:Excellent

[LordLimecat]

I knew the man was dead in the water before the primary even ended

Despite nearly winning the popular vote? Thats some clairvoyance you had there.

Re:Excellent

[hey!]

There's a difference between pillorying somebody for something they actually did and doing it for something you imagined they did. Seriously, death panels? Birtherism? Being a secret Muslim? Plotting to take away everyone's guns? It's not only contemptible, it's alarmingly paranoid. This kind of shaky grip on reality goes all the way back to the notion that the Clintons plotted to have people murdered in Arkansas.

Not that there weren't cheap shots taken at George W. -- like painting him as stupid, which he wasn't. Or rumors that he was back in the bottle. But the real gripes people had with Bush was that he invaded Iraq under false pretenses and that his administration's response to Katrina was incompetent and his personal response was almost incredibly tin-eared. Those are things that unquestionably happened. The biggest gripe people had was that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 occurred on his watch, which is unquestionably true, although it had been brewing for some time and other players (Alan Greenspan, Wall Street in general) had a big role in creating it. Still, the perception was that the crisis occurred because of regulatory policies that were consistent with Bush's philosophy of government, and I think there is some justice in this. He should have, by his own philosophy, let the banks fail; but he was unprepared for that eventuality and didn't have the stomach to let the economy collapse in order to maintain his laissez-faire principles.

In this election, the Republicans have only themselves for the failure of their ambitions to capture the White House and the Senate. It was their *own* BS, not other people's BS that sank them. Akin and Mourdock torpedoed their own senate campaigns by making remarks only someone who is unaccustomed to talking within earshot of people who disagree with him could make. I'm not one who usually criticizes people for changing their minds, which in moderation is an admirable thing, but Mitt Romney's rapid and radical shifts in position were so clearly motivated by expediency he handed Obama a trump card in this election. Romney played the economic discontent card, and Obama played the "can you really trust this guy?" card. That might not be pretty, but anyone with any sense would play that card if their opponent was foolish enough to hand it to them.

"Balance" means giving equal scrutiny to *facts* on either side of an issue, not equal scrutiny to conclusions. That's not balance, it's false equivalence. You can decry pettiness on both sides -- and I'm with you. Liberals have just as much capacity for hypocrisy when they smell blood in the water as conservatives. I got myself pilloried on DailyKos a few years back for objecting to the sexist treatment of Carrie Prejean there, so I've experienced it firsthand. Hypocrisy is something it takes more integrity to guard against than most people have. But just because all sides engage in it doesn't mean that all politicians are equally good or bad, or that all criticisms of politicians are equally unfounded.

Re:Excellent

[Alomex]

That is exactly the point. People expect politicians to lie, yet Romney told such whoppers that he will forever have the distinction of being the first presidential candidate where the other side could actually run a successful campaign on the basis of highlighting his lies.

Re:Excellent

[Alomex]

as thy are banned weapons since ages.

They are most definitely not banned. Current models in use in the USA rmed forces are the M9 Bayonet and the OKC-3S bayonet.

Re:Excellent

[omnichad]

Coke v. Pepsi when half the country can't even taste the difference.

Re:Excellent

[omnichad]

I voted Libertarian for President simply because the two big candidates were both such big disappointments. It was the only platform that looked well thought out and reasonable. Despite having an (R) lean on a lot of things, I found it hard not to vote (D) this year just because Illinois is in such a financial mess and they're the ones willing to work at it.

Re:Excellent

[Alomex]

Libertarianism is borne out of stunted development, when people do not understand why they need to share their toy with Jimmy.

It's borne out of unsophisticated positions that cannot see far enough to realize that a modicum amount of an active threat of power by a democratically elected state is the only thing keeping us away from a Lord-of-the-Flies Life-of-Pi barbaric reality. Or if you want a real life example, Somalia, Sealand or Europe in the Middle Ages.

Re:Excellent

[aztracker1]

Mainly I wanted to send a message that it is time for a change... You can't do that while voting for the major two parties... It isn't that I felt that the D or R candidates were particularly poor choices, only that it takes about 15% of a population to create a movement that gains notice. I feel at the more local levels, very little is gained from voting libertarian, aside from a very conservative fiscal policy and a very liberal interpretation of civil rights/liberties.

Re:Excellent

[thoth]

I knew the man was dead in the water before the primary even ended, when he did his "I'm a normal guy!" speech when he talked about having to go through late HS and early college with "a truly ugly car" and someone said "Uhhh...that "ugly car" was a BRAND NEW LUXURY CAR that rolled straight out of daddy's plant and into your garage Mittens" and that was when I knew this guy was DOA, when even his "I'm normal!" story ends up involving luxury cars handed out by daddy? Yeah they were fucked, the LAST thing you run in a bad economy is a Grey Puopon spoiled little rich kid.

I first thought he was doomed when Ann Romney talked about how poor they were as students, having to live off their investment income. WTF?! yeah, drawing enough interest off your investments to LIVE is being poor. STFU, they have no way to understand the difficulties 99% of the citizens have having to juggle an actual family budget.

Re:Excellent

[MachineShedFred]

What legacy? His single legislative achievement is a health care bill that nobody likes. Conservatives hate it for reasons too numerous to list here, and Liberals hate it because it isn't single-payer. And, even to get this bill that nobody likes, he had to spend all his political capital and give up the House of Representatives to the opposition party in the midterm election.

Re:Excellent

[umrguy76]

They didn't vote for Romney, they voted republican and Romney was the name next to the (R). Even saying that they "voted" is kind of a stretch, it implies a decision with at least some consideration behind it. People have their favorite brands, and for some people that brand is republican.

Saying that someone who didn't vote your way didn't put any thought into it is modded +5, Insightful? Wow

Re:Excellent

[swalve]

My bad. I misread.

Re:Excellent

[dcw3]

Wish we had a vote for best post of the month. You'd get mine, and for the record, I voted Romney.

Re:Excellent

[gamemank]

5% would be nice. Even being liberal, I really hoped for it and expected it. But Johnson only got 1% of the vote. Where were all the libertarians yesterday?

Re:Excellent

[TheGratefulNet]

IF the R's in the congress and senate would have allowed some of obama's ideas to go thru, it would have been a better test of his honesty.

but, since they were, from day-1, all for 'if obama wants it, we do not!'.

you can't quite blame obama, fully, for the fact that the R's only wanted to stop any of his ideas.

if you want to blame, blame the R party for acting like spoilt children. we lost 4 years due to their terrible-two'isms.

and yes, I really do see R's as children. they don't fully understand what they are really asking for and they are so easily fooled with talk of sky wizards. children's level of world understanding, not adults.

Re:Excellent

[dcw3]

there was 9/11 - sure, most people think it was the Saudis, but there are too many questions unanswered, like the lack of debris, lack of video, lack of an airplane at the Pentagon

You're a complete troll, an illiterate, or just a jackass. If I cared enough, I might refer you to my wife for psychoanalysis.

Re:Excellent

[TheGratefulNet]

typical lying top CEO type.

ALL those psychopaths care about is getting richer and more powerful.

they simply do not care what it takes to get there. absent of morals.

which is 'funny' since the party of R is 'so close with god'.

(cog. dissonance causes head to asplode)

when I see romney, I see a used car salesman stereotype. DO. NOT. WANT!

Re:Excellent

[Tyler Durden]

I remember back during the Clinton days in a red state the amount of vitriol and extremely vile and vulgar things said about Clinton. Then in the Bush days, particularly in the second term, it happened all over again

I was fine with Bush Jr. right up to the point where his administration essentially lied us into the Iraq War. After that - vitriol earned.

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

While there have been rich people in the past that have truly changed history and helped the poor and middle class, Teddy busting the trusts for one, instead of saying "Yes I'm rich, I'm rich because I had advantages you didn't have, and what we should be doing is making sure that everyone has an equal shot" he gave us the ugly car speech, the 47% crack, hell go to YouTube man, when Richie Rich THOUGHT there weren't any cameras around the guy turned into Thurston Howell the third!

And if you want the poor and middle class to believe you? You DO NOT lie your damned ass off and flip flop every other second! Mitt that candidate could have ran against MA Mitt and they'd have had nothing in common! Instead of saying "I'm sorry, I know some in the party believe in this but I don't" he flip flopped on healthcare, abortion, taxes, you name it you can find two polar opposite statements both coming from the same guy's mouth.

So I have a question for you: Why in the FUCK should we trust a guy that talks like Thurston Howell, hides his money in the Caymans, gutted and outsourced companies, and who reversed his own position at least once on every damned subject?

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

There was a commercial in the 80s shown nationally that had one rich fop in a limo pull up to another fop in a limo, roll down his window and go "pardon me, but do you have any grey puopon?" and since then the brand has been tied to rich foppish snooty clueless dweebs, picture Thurston Howell the III.

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

Ya know, that's the one thing I'll miss about this campaign, old Mittens and Ann talking their "folksy" stories that were so fucking 1% that they hurt. The ugly car, the "I'm unemployed too!" cracks, it was so obvious they were both born with platinum spoons in their mouths and have never had to think for a single second about budgets or money that it actually made for some good foppish humor.

Re:Excellent

[Hatta]

Both men were good men

No, neither of them are good men. Both of them would have presided over a government that has long since exceeded the bounds of its constitutional authority. In other words, they would both be criminals.

Obama is a good man. I would lead a bit differently than I but he's NOT a "Baby Killer", the "Antichrist", the "Nigger in the White House", or any other hateful and decidedly unchristian thing so many morally ugly people are saying about him.

But he *has* murdered US citizens without any due process.

He's your president.

No, he's a thug selected by a process controlled by the powerful for the interests of the powerful. Legitimate authority comes from a mandate from the masses, not a farcical media ceremony.

Re:Excellent

[Hatta]

Now again we see the same crap uttered by those who voted for the other team.

Have you considered that maybe they're both right? We have had nothing but contemptible, corrupt, crony capitalist candidates for decades.

No, just because the majority of Americans voted a different way then I did, it doesn't mean democracy has failed and the country is going to self-destruct

If you haven't noticed, the country has been self destructing for the past 30 years at least. Democracy has already failed by failing to provide us with any actual choices.

Re:Excellent

[Hatta]

It is easy to look back now and say that they are both good people with the best interests of the country in mind, and that is probably true.

Nonsense. If they were good people with the best interests of the country in mind they would have engaged in a discussion of drug reform. You might be possible for a prohibitionist to be a good person. But nobody who refuses to even have a conversation on this very serious issue can possibly be a good person.

Obama promised to address all petitions on his website that got over 25,000 signitures. Over 70,000 people asked him why Cannabis couldn't be regulated like alcohol. His response didn't mention alcohol once.

How can you see something like that and consider Obama a good person? If he were actually a good person, he would have answered the question we asked.

but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.

Exactly, you know with complete certainty that Obama will repeatedly lie to us, and yet you still allow that he's a good person. WTF? Explain yourself.

Re:Excellent

[Jawnn]

You are right. Why the Republican party backed this loser is the mystery. Look at the votes, broken down by demographics. The only group that voted for Romney in large numbers was old white men. Let's hope that the old white men continue to "lead" the GOP for many years to come.

Re:Excellent

[amiga3D]

I think you fail to understand the difference between Anarchy and Libertarianism. Libertarians believe in rule of law and taxes. They also, unlike so many in today's society believe in personal responsibility. Sadly, because of that one belief they will never garner more than a fraction of the vote since we now have the majority firmly supporting a Nanny State. It wont last forever however so get ready for real anarchy when the economy finally crashes. Let all these entitled folks run out of bread and it'll get ugly quick.

Re:Excellent

[Phroggy]

yes, because nothing proves your sincerity by knowing what's written in a fantasy book.

The question of whether the Bible is a fantasy isn't at issue here. The issue is whether the President honestly believes it, studies it, and tries to live according to its teachings, or whether he's just pandering to the masses by telling them what they want to hear. His choice of words here suggests an intimate familiarity with the text that wouldn't be there if he were merely pandering.

A large number of people have been mislead into believing that President Obama is either an atheist or a Muslim. Many of the people who voted against him did so primarily because of these lies. Lies and deception are unhealthy in a democracy.

If you're an American who believes Christians are stupid and dangerous, I hope you were not similarly mislead, and exercised your right to vote for someone else.

Re:Excellent

[amiga3D]

Another fiction. Republicans do not believe in a free market. The idiocy part is right though.

Re:Excellent

[amiga3D]

The poll workers are all democrats and republicans so the libertarian votes end up going to whichever party can snag them fastest.

Re:Excellent

[amiga3D]

No, I'm sure they'll help President Obama finish off the economy.

Re:Excellent

[steelfood]

He further damaged political discourse, further legitimized the fringe, ultra-right-wing of the party, and did nothing to discourage the hate-filled name calling to which you refer. Childish name-calling serves no purpose and denigrating the president just further polarizes the country, but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.

I think you are putting too much of the blame on Romney himself. Sure, he's an ass. He's out of touch. He'll say what he thinks the people listening would like to hear him say. But that's true of most, if not all politicians.

You have to look at the context. Of all the Republican candidates, he's one of the very few who didn't start spewing outright lies. He didn't question Obama's religious faith. He didn't bring up the legitimacy of Obama's birth. He ran on a platform of issues, on who would be the better president and leader, which is more than what every other candidate did, except possibly for Herman Cain (who, for very obvious reasons, was forcibly removed from the primaries).

Sure, he's an etch-a-sketch. He doesn't understand the common person. He's a bully and a douche. But he doesn't play the way Cheney and Rove do. He doesn't insinuate or create faux controversies. There may have been mud slinging, but it was mostly mud and not crap. All in all, it wasn't nearly as horrible a race that challenged the integrity of the process as the previous two were. His choice of VP was almost laughable, but that's a different thing altogether.

That Romney is the best the Republicans can do is telling of the Republican party in two ways. Firstly, it's filled to the brim with looneys, and the decent, halfway intelligent individual is very difficult to come by. Moderates within the party are becoming extinct.

Second, the constituents are the cause of this shift. The spate of defections by moderate Republicans to the Democrats over the last six to eight or so years is more than telling. The party's base has shifted to the extreme. Even Romney had to roll over for the far right in order to win the primary, and then he had to roll back over towards the center to have a shot at the general election.

In the end, it's the constituents who want to hear that Obama is a muslim, and not born here, and a commie, and all that other stuff. They want the other side to be demonized, to be made inhuman, so that picking their preferred candidate will be a no-brainer. They want their beliefs validated. And that's the most worrying thing of it all.

Re:Excellent

[amiga3D]

Didn't you see how he saved the country from the GWB depression and stopped the wars and closed Guantonamo? Where ya been the last 4 years? If nothing else he turned the military loose to kill Bin Laden, gotta give him props for that.

Re:Excellent

[CannonballHead]

In general, and as a Christian, I agree. Except with the "Baby Killer" part.

I cannot support abortion. And, frankly, the lack of doing anything on the part of those who even campaign as a pro-life/anti-abortion stance is disappointing and disturbing.

Re:Excellent

[strikethree]

LOL, he is crazy. You do have to admit though the World Trade Center towers falling looked a bit odd for structures that failed. They should not have dropped perfectly like that if they were falling purely due to structural failure.

The only sensible explanation is that they were too heavily damaged and were about to become a serious danger to the folks in the surrounding buildings so they dropped them on purpose to save lives... but how do you explain something like that to a frothing-at-the-mouth mob? You do not. You call it structural failure and let the conspiracy nuts run wild. And who knows, maybe we were just lucky and they fell perfectly because of perfect damage across both towers. ;)

Re:Excellent

[scot4875]

do you believe Romney is not capable of helping the middle class and improving the economy solely because has always been rich?

No, I don't believe he wouldn't have been capable. However, I do believe that he has absolutely no perspective to appreciate what experiences the vast majority of Americans have gone through. When your solution to financial difficulties is "borrow money from your parents," you clearly have no idea what reality is for most people.

--Jeremy

Re:Excellent

[jez9999]

Sorry to Godwinize here, but... Hitler provided some very strong leadership. It aint always good.

And what about if you have a political agenda that neither Coke nor Pepsi are interested in supporting? How are you supposed to get it done?

Re:Excellent

[Magius_AR]

Why should Joe Bob average trust this guy again?

I totally agree that the man can't identify with middle class America. But "flip flopper" is actually a good thing. Romney clearly had to shift alot of his beliefs during the primary to make himself more palatable to his base. It's a shame the system works this way, but it does. For me, actions speak louder than words though -- his ability to work together with Democrats in Massachusetts is a _huge_ selling point for him. Obama has failed to connect with the other side at all. I'm tired of the "unwilling to compromise/do nothing" government. We're never going to get solidarity with Obama -- he's too ideological, too polarizing. He's all but declared war on corporate America at this point, both in policy as well as speech. Whereas Romney would have been more an an unknown, I expect more would have gotten accomplished.

Obama is terrible with economics -- just terrible. It's hard to get much worse. I mean, for someone who claims to support the middle class and the poor, was he just not aware that Obamacare was a massive tax on that exact segment of society? The people without insurance are primarily the poor -- so now they have to get insurance (incurring a massive expense) or pay a tax fee. And that's not even accounting for the impact Obamacare will have on business (thus leading to less jobs...). Altruism aside, that law was a major blunder from an economic standpoint. The stimulus was similar -- the vast majority of that money went towards tax cuts and tax credits, rather than shovel ready infrastructure projects. Obama just doesn't get it.

Re:Excellent

[tendrousbeastie]

Why are "47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns" excellent reasons that he (Romney) would not make a good president?

For example, why do his tax returns have any effect on his ability to make effective and efficacious executive decisions?

Are you sure that you don't mean that these things make you like him less?

Re:Excellent

[angel'o'sphere]

Seems you are right. The ban did not come effective (in fact I wondered why they even wanted to ban it, cant be more 'cruel' than a bullet imho) however e.g. the USA armed forces don't use bajonetts since 2010 anymore, germany since over a decade.

Re:Excellent

[guises]

This is funny. Here we are talking about how nobody really likes Romney and how they only voted for him because he's republican, and you get angry and defend who? Not Romney. You don't even mention Romney, you only say how much you don't like Obama.

Re:Excellent

[swalve]

A trusted friend watched it along with his coworkers.

Re:Excellent

[swalve]

You can't prove a negative. You can interview all the people you want who didn't see the plane go in. There are billions of them. But there ARE people who saw it, and that's the proof.

Also, where did the plane and its passengers go if not tragically into the Pentagon?

Re:Excellent

[Lemmy Caution]

The science and craft of political triangulation is such that popular votes are always going to be somewhat close. That, to some extent, is deceptive. If the popular vote was the way that elections were decide, both candidates would have campaigned quite differently.

What is surprising is how close the races in the "battleground states" *wasn't.* Only Florida was a squeaker - in all the rest, Obama won by a rather decent margin. Historically, the popular vote lead in this race is a bit larger than usual, and the largest for a re-election since Reagan.

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

The funny part is what did the "leaders" of the GOP say after getting curbstomped? "We need to go FARTHER RIGHT, that's why we lost!" yeah, you didn't make yourselves the "white rich old men" party ENOUGH, why you only turned off the poor, blacks, and latinos, I'm sure there are other minorities you can offend!

Re:Excellent

[Crosshair84]

Um, Romeny was nothing more than the White Obama. He only got people who would vote for a can of baked beans if it had an (R) next to its name, which of course wasn't enough to win. Their rhetoric differed a little, but their actions and policies are effectively the same. (Fun game, write down policies they supported and see if people can differentiate between Romeny and Obama.) Obama, like all black politicians I can think of, doesn't care one hoot about blacks. They know that they will vote for a black candidate no matter how dismal their record and how much their policies hurt blacks and minorities. Just look at Detroit and other places where blacks dominate the political scene. No jobs, failing schools, etc. If those politicians were white there would be riots in the street, but since it's black politicians they don't care.

Neither one knows what the problems are, let alone that the solutions are. Gonna be interesting when the bond bubble pops and Obama and congress are left standing their with their willies in hand.

Re:Excellent

[fearofcarpet]

Sorry if I wasn't clear; it was Romney's advisors that pushed him to lie, though he is a deft lier. What frustrates me is that the Romney campaign ran with a strategy of "the truth doesn't matter." They seem to have made a deal with the press where they would constantly retract statements made my Romney moments after he made them, so it's not really lying it's "mis-speaking" or whatever. They clearly articulated their goal of running hard-right to win the primary and then wiping the slate clean for the general, but they went so far beyond that and just started outright lying about verifiable facts on camera.

I don't agree that the republican party is filled with looneys, only that they are feeling empowered. Of course, it will become the party of looneys if they don't squelch the insanity and let sane republicans have a voice so that we can go back to benefiting from hearing at least two sides of every issue. Right now we hear the liberal version, which is a close approximation of reality with their own spin and then the conservative version, which is completely detached from the reality outside of the bubble that the fringe of the right wing lives in. (And no one else even gets a say because there are only two major parties.)

Re:Excellent

[fearofcarpet]

It is easy to look back now and say that they are both good people with the best interests of the country in mind, and that is probably true.

Nonsense. If they were good people with the best interests of the country in mind they would have engaged in a discussion of drug reform. You might be possible for a prohibitionist to be a good person. But nobody who refuses to even have a conversation on this very serious issue can possibly be a good person.

Obama promised to address all petitions on his website that got over 25,000 signitures. Over 70,000 people asked him why Cannabis couldn't be regulated like alcohol. His response didn't mention alcohol once.

How can you see something like that and consider Obama a good person? If he were actually a good person, he would have answered the question we asked.

but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.

Exactly, you know with complete certainty that Obama will repeatedly lie to us, and yet you still allow that he's a good person. WTF? Explain yourself.

I was deeply disappointed to see my beloved state of Oregon miss the opportunity to gown down in history as one of the three states that first pushed back against the insanity of cannabis prohibition. Obama openly admits to smoking (tons of) pot in high school (but don't worry kids he quit once he got "serious") and he looked right at us and said that he considered it a state issue and wouldn't prosecute people who were not violating state law. From what I've heard that has largely been the case in Colorado, where the feds are only going after dispensaries that violate state law (e.g., by being too close to a school), but in California they are using Eric Holder as an excuse to crack down on perfectly legal, legitimate, state-sanctioned businesses.

However, I do not agree that Obama's duplicity on this issue makes him a bad person. I hate myself for saying this, but I think he made a political calculation, Clinton-style, to appeal to the 18-29 crowed and to social progressives and libertarians. But those were demographics that "everyone" was calling a fluke in 2008, so he simultaneously tried to appeal to the brainwashed masses that think pot is bad, mmmkay, and who always turn out to vote. It turns out that the 18-29 vote was higher in 2012 than in 2008, so I think you will see a collective lightbulb flash above the heads of democrats who realize that putting legalization (and gay rights) on the ballot turns out young people.

The lying, however, I cannot stand. Obama does a very good job of keeping it at arms length, and letting his surrogates do most of the outright lying, which keeps him above the fray and makes him harder to dislike. It sucks, but politicians get judged relative to each other, and Obama is not as deceitful as most politicians, in my opinion. I do feel that, if he weren't in politics, that if he and Michelle were just a couple down the street, he'd be a good person; a nice guy. Like one of those stuffy people that seemed like they used to be a lot cooler before Harvard jammed a stick up their butt. I'm probably buying into the image that was spun by his handlers, but unfortunately perception is reality in politics. Romney, on the other hand, is like a cross between Thurston Howell, III and Sheldon Levine; the type of guy that smiles and shakes your hands, but then leans in and whispers something mean in your ear.

Re:Excellent

[Attila Dimedici]

The the Army has 419,155 bayonets in its inventory. From the same source, the Marines have 195,334 bayonets and plan to buy another 175,061 this year.

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry Crosshair, you could NOT be more wrong, Romney was a classic spoiled Richie Rich fop, just like the old Python "upper class twit" sketch. Just off the top of my head, and there were DOZENS on YouTube you can pick from BTW, there was the "ugly car" story where he talked about how he "had it hard in HS and college, why i had to drive this ugly car!" and then someone showed what his "ugly car" was, it was a BRAND NEW luxury sedan straight from the showroom floor, there was the "i'm unemployed too, snicker snicker" bit, there was his wife with her "Why we were so broke in college we had to live on our stock dividends, can you believe it?" bit, hell I could spent FIVE MINUTES on YouTube and find a couple of dozen more.

Romney didn't have a prayer because he was a Grey Poupon fop, simple as that. he had been rich since the day he popped out the womb and frankly had NO CLUE on how to actually relate to anyone that didn't have a couple of million in the bank, and how could he? he had NEVER been around a poor person in his life! He was rich, his wife was rich, he went to rich schools and hung out with rich friends, he was as clueless as Bush Sr with the scanner, he simply has had maids and servants and luxury cars and summer homes his whole life and just couldn't understand why his "little stories" completely turned off the electorate.

Oh and let us not forget the man flip flopped more than a bass thrown on the bank, you could find two completely different views on ANY given subject coming from him, just depending on which way the wind blew that day. Like him or not Obama has stayed pretty much in the same middle-left area the entire time, Romney wanted the job so bad he swung WAY the hell to the right during the primary, so far right that he was unelectable, and then tried to swing back to the center after the primary was over...it just didn't work, it made him look like a two faced rich boy saying whatever you wanted to hear to get the job.

So I'm sorry Crosshair, like 'em or hate 'em the two couldn't have been more different.

Re:Excellent

[Hatta]

However, I do not agree that Obama's duplicity on this issue makes him a bad person

It's not the duplicity. He is currently presiding over a government that imprisons harmless people. He is doing this willingly, and could free them today. He chooses to let these good people languish in jail. He's a tyrant.

Re:Excellent

[helix2301]

I was rather surprised at how close the election was I personally did not think the popular vote would have been a 2 percent margin. I believe our President will have another rough term he is still dealing with a struggling economy, and slow rate of change. President Obama is our president but strong negative support from American’s is something he is going to have to deal with over next four years, as almost half of the country did not want him as president for another 4 years.

Re:Excellent

[fearofcarpet]

However, I do not agree that Obama's duplicity on this issue makes him a bad person

It's not the duplicity. He is currently presiding over a government that imprisons harmless people. He is doing this willingly, and could free them today. He chooses to let these good people languish in jail. He's a tyrant.

He presides over the US government, but he is not a dictator. If Obama pardoned every, single drug offender in jail today, he would be immediately impeached for failing to discharge his duties as president, i.e., letting people out of jail who violated laws that are still on the books. Thus I call him duplicitous because he pays lip service to the issue, but does not take a stand in pressuring Congress to repeal the ridiculous drug prohibition laws. He could just as easily use presidential prerogative to stop enforcing the particularly egregious parts of existing law, but he is complicit by inaction.

Re:Excellent

[Hatta]

Nonsense, he has the power to pardon whoever he wishes. Besides, he's already failed to discharge his duties as president by murdering US citizens without due process, that didn't get him impeached. And even if you're right, and he would be impeached, a good man would prefer that over being responsible for an atrocity.

Re:Excellent

[RyoShin]

Do you happen to have a link for this quote? I would love to share the source with a number of my ultra-religious relatives on Facebook. (None of them think he's a secret Muslim, to my knowledge, but I'd still be interested to see their reaction to this.)

Re:Excellent

[Phroggy]

Do you happen to have a link for this quote? I would love to share the source with a number of my ultra-religious relatives on Facebook. (None of them think he's a secret Muslim, to my knowledge, but I'd still be interested to see their reaction to this.)

http://support.nationalcathedral.org/wnc/interview/

Re:Excellent

[cavebison]

who the hell wouldn't in that position???

Call me an idealist, but I prefer to expect a lot more out of those who run a country, in terms of character, ethics and vision, than one would expect from the average person.

Let's all agree that [Obama will] lead America as best he can.

Can you define what you mean by "leading a nation" and how this relates to what a President actually does?

Re:Excellent

[cavebison]

It's this behavior that's destroying America as much as any party or policy.

Yup, and a major part of the problem is the way you implement Democracy.

Particularly that voting is optional, and then you have an election on a weekday. What kind of madness is that? Half your voting population DOESN'T PARTICIPATE in this Democracy thing the U.S. touts all over the place. Not only that, political parties now openly, actively discourage people from voting, if it benefits them. Please tell me how the U.S. could possibly exhibit less respect for the Democratic system than that?

Because of the above, U.S. candidates need to spent OBSCENE amounts of money to campaign. Jimmy Carter recently mentioned how he was able to campaign on a shoestring at the time. Do you realise how much money would be saved if voting was *compulsory* in the U.S.?

So now, because of the now vast quantities on cash required to campaign, politics ends up in the pocket of big business. Now we have Citizens United, so they can make even bigger deals. Mark my words, wait till the next election, you will see some truly obscene amounts of cash flying around, and all the related policy problems will only get worse.

Things won't change until the U.S. makes voting compulsory and/or puts limits on corporate donations. Neither of those are going to happen though, because one kind of depends on the other.

Re:Excellent

[cavebison]

The allusions to Matthew 22:37-39 and Philippians 3:14 are what makes me believe his sincerity.

Really? The fact he's a politician, with great speech-writers, going after the biggest prize in the country doesn't come into it at all?

Re:Excellent

[cavebison]

he is a self-obsessed moral relativist that is too comfortable with lying to be the figurehead of (what is still) the most powerful nation on Earth. He further damaged political discourse, further legitimized the fringe, ultra-right-wing of the party, and did nothing to discourage the hate-filled name calling to which you refer.

I feel your pain. We have Tony Abbott here for that.

Re:Excellent

[Crosshair84]

We seem to be arguing past each other, you're arguing about his personal life, which I could care less about, I'm arguing about his policies he has supported in the past and would likely bring to the WH. While true that he flip flops constantly, like Mr Peace Prize winning Obama who then starts bombing countries all over the place and hands Libya to Al Qaeda, the policies he has actually backed are not much different than Obama. He passed Romenycare, which has been a predictable disaster in Massachusetts, he is just as pro-war was Obama has been, neither he or Obama have any clue what made the US into an economic superpower and neither seem to have any grasp on the fiscal train wreck that is coming, both favor high taxes on the people who create jobs and support even higher taxes on the poor via currency debasement.

As far as being president, it was black Obama vs White Obama and in that sort of race, the black Obama was going to win simply because of his skin color.

Re:Excellent

[hairyfeet]

Sorry Crosshair but it doesn't matter WHAT his policies were if he came off as a spoiled rich douchebag, and that was Romney in a nutshell. his "I like to fire people" bit, which is the WRONG MOVE in a down economy when people are scared of losing their jobs, his spoiled brat stories, his kissing the neocon ass by insinuating he would be willing to go to war with Iran, not to mention his "I served my country by running a company" bit which took a big old piss right on the vets...he was a fucking clueless PHB.

At the end of the day you could have the best policies and ideas on the planet but if you come off as "President Beltzer" in that old Groove Tube sketch "The president came out today and gave the cameras the finger, followed by telling everyone to suck his dick" well you just aren't gonna win. No matter what he has done in office Obama has stayed pretty much center left when it came to his speeches and wasn't giving us Bushism the entire campaign, whereas every damned time Romney opened his mouth he gave the press and comedians a week's worth of cannon fodder. Oh and don't forget the tax returns, Romney had his own Whitewater before he had even been elected, yeah that was smart, run a tax dodger for the highest office.

But I don't think it had a damned thing to do with race, although of course the blacks voted nearly 100% Obama because of race, i think it was because Romney was just so damned unlikeable. Hell even the people I knew that were voting for him hated his fucking guts, they just hated Obama more, NOBODY liked him because he came off as this spoiled rotten rich clueless prick which...well that is pretty much what he is. I haven't looked at his specifics but I DID look at Ryan's and he sure as hell wasn't anywhere close to Obama, being another damned randian, and when Romney couldn't even win his home state and in fact left office with a less than 30% approval rating? Obviously there was some serious flaws in his policies or he wouldn't have been so damned disliked by his own state. Compare that to someone like Clinton who if he wanted the job could be guv in AR this very minute, he left with crazy high approval ratings and is still loved to this very day.

Re:Excellent

[newslash.formatblows]

I'd be (mildly) interested to know where dipshits like this come from. I don't understand the whole conspiracy theory mindset - if it were something that happened in the era before cameras, maybe they could construct a reasonable alternative explanation, but it (the second one into the WTC) happened live on the morning news! How many people in NYC actually saw the second one (not via TV) as it happened? I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was a million, since the first one happening kind of called people's attention to the area. I guess this kind of clown just needs to feel like he's somehow one of the only ones who has been able to find "the truth" and is therefore smart.Sad.

Re:Excellent

[sysrammer]

Excellent comment, thanks. I too have wondered about the conventional wisdom today of FPTP voting. And my thoughts were along the lines that you have detailed. I haven't come to any conclusions.

One thing I've noticed: People like races. They'll race anything and anybody. Even watching cars or critters go around in a circle can be exciting, and vast fortunes attend to these events. All to see who's going to win.

So perhaps FPTP voting, winner takes all, applies to some human or cultural characteristic.

Re:Excellent

[robsku]

There was debris, quickly collected away. Where is any kind of airplane wreck? Surely they could have produced some material to show that there actually was an airplane.

Let's leave the rest of the "conspiracy theories" around 9/11 out, I haven't stated here what I believe of any other specific things, but what hit the pentagon was not an airplane or your government has some really weird agenda to actually try and keep it a secret that it was an airplane - lol.

It's trendy to be anti-9/11-conspiracy, but it's not useful to be stupid and blind - as usual, people debating most loudly of this are extremists which hold that everything that the other side claims is automatically false.

Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure whether I consider that a good thing or not; but at least somebody did something about the health care problems the USA has and maybe the conservatives will work a little bit with him now to improve it, rather than just chanting to repeal it like some kind of mantra.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Black Parrot]

Not sure whether I consider that a good thing or not; but at least somebody did something about the health care problems the USA has and maybe the conservatives will work a little bit with him now to improve it, rather than just chanting to repeal it like some kind of mantra.

No, the Republicans will spend the next four years obstructing anything and everything in order to make the government look dysfunctional and Obama look bad, just to improve their chances of winning next time.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not. And "at least somebody did something" is a ludicrous argument. What he gave us is worse than what we had.

That's like saying "at least the guy at Fort Hood did something."

80% of that law is stuff that just plain shouldn't exist, especially in a law that claims to be about affordable health care.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[jonnythan]

That worked super well this past 4 years. They won back the Presidency and gained ground in the Senate.

Oh, wait. That's the opposite of what happened.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've met some Republicans. They claim that the obstructionism is useful for stopping a more socialist agenda, but they too tire of a dysfunctional government.

I think their voices will get heard. I think there will be a handful of Republicans who will need to play nice to keep their seats, and it only takes a handful. I have some hope.

Moreso because, while I would have voted for Buddy Roemer had he been on the ballot, I was glad to see that all those millions of dollars weren't enough to get a sub-standard Republican elected. It may not have worked well, but the system worked.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[GrahamCox]

No, the Republicans will spend the next four years obstructing anything and everything in order to make the government look dysfunctional and Obama look bad, just to improve their chances of winning next time.

I'm afraid you're right. Nothing like lifting eyes to the horizon and trying to make a better nation. Instead just fiddle while Rome burns, and the empire fades away.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[nedlohs]

Really laws related to health care are the worst ones you can think of?

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[ircmaxell]

Have you actually read the bill? Because I find it REALLY hard to believe that anyone who actually has would say that it does anything about the health care problems the USA has. It's not a health care bill. It's a health insurance bill. One which does nothing to solve the existing problems that health care has (abuse, ridiculous spiraling costs, ridiculous GOVERNMENT regulations - aka Medicare's rules, etc). Not to mention fraud or malpractice abuse (false malpractice cases, which drive up costs significantly)...

Does that make it useless? No, absolutely not. But it does nothing for the healthcare problems that we face. All it does is put a band-aid on a gunshot wound. A band-aid that costs how many billion dollars per year (that we're already over-budget by)?

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Liberty.45ACP]

Yeah, improved health care. I can tell you that this "improved health" is already costing my family of 3 over $3000 per year more in insurance premiums.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Black Parrot]

That worked super well this past 4 years. They won back the Presidency and gained ground in the Senate.

Oh, wait. That's the opposite of what happened.

I didn't say it would work; I said it's what they would do.

I can also confidently predict that the Democrats will spend the next four years doing almost nothing, and getting outsmarted by the Republicans every time they do try to do something.

The behavior of political parties is an observable phenomenon. Ignore their marketing pitch and watch what they actually do, and you may develop an entirely new view of what US politics is all about.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

Karl? What are you doing? Get back on air!

- Rupert

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[artor3]

Obama is leading by 8 points in Nevada and 4 points in Colorado, both with ~75% reporting. Even if he loses Ohio, that's still enough electoral votes to win.

He's also (slightly) ahead in Florida, with almost all of the remaining ballots coming from the Miami-Dade county, where Obama leads by 25 points. So even if he somehow loses Ohio and Colorado, he'd still get enough electoral votes to win.

Even Romney were to win Ohio, there's simply no way for him to win the presidency. The math just doesn't work. I agree the news networks were too quick to call this one, but they got it right all the same.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Feltope]

Do some research, no they didn't.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[dugancent]

Obama could lose Florida, Ohio & Virginia and still win. That said, it looks like he will win all three.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[evil_aaronm]

So, Obama should've just ignored the fiscal and housing crisis and just let everything fail? And how would that have made the situation better? Look, R's won't admit it, but the country is better off than it was. I'm not an Obama fanboi, by any means, but any objective observer would say that this "train wreck" you mention is just hyperbole.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[frosty_tsm]

Just because some news stations called the election doesn't make it true, romney is leading in ohio right now..lol

Some news stations such as... Fox News?

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Joe U]

Just because some news stations called the election doesn't make it true, romney is leading in ohio right now..lol

Occasionally you should defer to those who actually do this for a living.
This is one of those times.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[xswl0931]

It did look strange when CNN called Ohio a win or Obama when the numbers showed Romney ahead. What they did is inlude projections from to be reported counties based on historical voting record.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[foniksonik]

Nope. Look at the details here:

http://www.politico.com/

Click on Ohio. Look at the grey regions. You'll see multiple counties that are large populations and have significant leads for Obama. Cuyahoga County is the biggest and is ~68% Obama w/ 220,000 vote lead. That overwhelms the remaining red counties. Add Franklin County and its a lock for Obama.

Mitt's just delaying the inevitable and looking bad in the process.

Ha, just heard he's finally scheduled his concession at 1am EST.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[xswl0931]

The Republicans filibustered everything. Their number one goal was to prevent Obama from getting a second term.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Mitreya]

but not to make Obama look bad. They should obstruct his "agenda" because it is the wrong direction for the country.

Yes, it would be bad form for the country to help veterans find jobs. I am sure every single one of the republicans that voted against this bill had also opposed the unfunded wars that created these veterans in the first place
Oh, wait...

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

as someone who has worked in cost containment for insurances paying for clients travelling TO the US from other countries, I can definitely say this is spot on. You guys get rooked beyond belief for the care received, to the tune of 2x to 10x the cost that would be paid in any other modern nation. I don't mean the amount the patient has to pay or anything, i'm talking about the amount at the end of the line that is paid out to the providers for the same care received.

People point to the costs of Malpractice insurance, or claims that the care is superior, but when it comes down to it a LOT of that is going straight to the pharmaceuticals industry and providers.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[fm6]

I consider a good thing, for purely selfish reasons. Right now I can't buy insurance. I can get a catastrophe-only policy from the state high-risk pool for more than I can afford. I can't buy a policy for day-to-day care at any price — I have pre-existing conditions. Nothing that has ever cost a lot of money to treat, but the standard insurance company business model is to only sell insurance to people who don't need it.

In a little over a year, the Obamacare health exchanges start up. In my state, I can have coverage for $250/month with a maximum out of pocket cost of $2K a year. Works for me.

On the election coverage tonight, I heard several people calling Obama a "communist", mainly because of this reform, which mostly keeps health care in the private sector. Idiots.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[fm6]

Yeah, but they maintained their purity of essence.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[foniksonik]

And my family of five is paying less. Anecdotally I win.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[aztracker1]

Yes.. help the veterans... kill our enemies.. the bombings will continue... I mean what could go wrong with systematic bombings in foreign nations.. It's not like England is still carrying a grudge 7 decades later or anything...

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Tastecicles]

This just in: Apple Maps shows Obama to take Chile.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Belial6]

It is sad that people think finishing a contest makes you look bad. I taught my child that when you play a game, you finish it. It is clear that Obama will win, but his second term won't start until January 20th. There is no reason to rush to declare the winner. If the official count ends on December 7th when the mail in votes are required to be counted by, what harm does it do? The good it would do is to maintain the legitimacy of the process. If Romney lets the counting finish, Obama will not lose a single day of his presidency. If Romeny were in the lead, he would not have lost a day of his presidency if Obama let the actual vote counting finish.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Sassinak]

Correct, it is a Health Insurance bill because the structure of the US healthcare system is rooted in insurance as the primary vehicle for most people to pay for medical costs coupled with a massive attempt to burden it with so many holes and weaknesses that its not as effective as it could be. So you have three choices...

1: Scrap it 100% and start over with a nationalized healthcare system (which will be a HUGE fight and doesn't solve all the problems either. But it would be a big step in closing the gaps)

2: Have a real rational action plan regardless of who earns less that fixes the problems (a dream that will never work).

3: Attempt to level the playing field by going after the insurance factor so everyone has the ability to be covered and keeping the existing system in place. (the only one that doesn't scream of "socialism", which for some reason this country seems to have a bug up its ass about and thinks its a dirty word.. (Medicare anyone? Medicaid? SS? Welfare? Government Scholarships/Grants? Public Schools?)

It does a lot for the current healthcare problems we have.. its not a band-aid on a gunshot wound.. to keep your analogy, its akin to a gauze patch over same said gun shot wound.. Better.. but its certainly not going to fix the big picture.. but mostly because there are many of forces that DON'T WANT IT TO CHANGE.

You think the health insurance firms that make trillions from this WANT this to change? (and lobby quite actively to not change by the way)
You think the doctors that get rich by simply over-billing insurance want it to change? (again, unions that fight this because they have to do the same level of work, but get less money because of better accountability)
You think doctors who go into medicine to make money first and heal people second want it to change?
You think the medical device and other services/product groups who are making billions/trillions on this want it to change?..

get real. Its a money game pure and simple and everyone wants it "better" so long as I don't have to pay for it.

I can certainly say as a world traveler that the US system is insane.. I've lived in Japan, Taiwan, the UK, Hong Kong, and France... and in general.. insurance is a supplement so everyone.. even the poorest of the poor can use to stay alive. Obviously if you have money and want to bump up quality and speed, you fork out some cash (insurance, direct payment, etc..).. its akin to First/Second Class Mail vs. Fedex. You want it CHEAP.. you go postal Service.. you want all the bells and whistles and can afford it.. you pay up. I know my retirement plans do NOT include the US for a lot of reasons.. but this is certainly one).

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Sassinak]

By the way, as a business owner, I have read it.. (all wonderfully dry 955 pages: http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf). And despite what a lot of people like to think, its nowhere near as bad as people want to think..

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[AmiMoJo]

The idea is that by mandating insurance companies give everyone healthcare they will be forced to hold costs down and do something about malpractice. It is a very American solution to the problem, where most European countries would just legislate.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Wow. Hope you didn't go to bed thinking your guy was going to win. You would have missed an awesome victory speech for one thing.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[shentino]

Experience does not guarantee superiority.

Personally I think you're more concerned about preserving the status quo and enjoying your seniority.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[shentino]

Yes, everything SHOULD have failed.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[sumdumass]

Actually, I don't think so. They were saying of Obama didn't take Virginia, he would have needed to win ohio. Of course things have changed and it looks like Obama took both now.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[sumdumass]

ABC 6 and CBS 10 from the Columbus Ohio market. why would I watch a national news network to find out about local coverage?

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[sumdumass]

One of the local news stations said that too. They were puzzled to how it could be called like that too until someone pointed out a few of the larger counties left to report went strongly democrat.

I find it odd that I was marked a troll and flaimbait for pointing that out though. Are Obama supporters really that shallow? Oh well, it doesn't matter.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[sumdumass]

I didn't miss it. I didn't miss what I think was an even better concession speech by Romney. It showed a sense of class the administration has been missing over the last 20 years or so.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[tehcyder]

It did look strange when CNN called Ohio a win or Obama when the numbers showed Romney ahead. What they did is inlude projections from to be reported counties based on historical voting record.

I think anyone could have just read out the latest numbers and left viewers to form their own (as it turned out erroneous) conclusions.

The whole point of having experts who can make accurate predictions based on all the information available is that they are experts who can make accurate predictions based on all the information available and not just news anchors reciting figures from an autocue.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[The Master Control P]

The Republican leaders met the day Obama was inaugurated and declared that their only priority was to make him a 1-term president, and they did it by doing everything they could to poison the political process in America for four years straight. In the last few days, they openly said that people should vote for Romney because they will stop at nothing to block anything at all from happening under Obama.

But a Democrat somewhere once did something bad, so what the Republicans are doing is completely justified. And clearly Obama is being unreasonably partisan by refusing to give the Republicans every single thing they want.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Straif]

Republicans passed several bills in the House, including several jobs bills, that had enough bipartisan support in the senate to pass easily but Harry Reid has refused to even bring them to the floor for a vote so how is it that the Republicans are the obstructionists?

The Senate on the other hand has refused to even propose a budget for more than 3 years when they are legally obliged to pass one every year, and before you try crying about filibustering by the Repubs, budgets only require a 51 person vote to pass and cannot be filibustered by the Repubs. Basically the Senate, under Reid's leadership has become the roadblock to any meaningful legislation being passed and it has less to do with Republican obstruction than just poor leadership on his part.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[swalve]

Well, yeah. It is pretty much the same plan the republicans wanted. Until a democrat decided it would be a good idea and they went all crazy.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[swalve]

Almost none of the provisions have gone into effect. And healthcare costs had been rising at double digit percentages per year. Maybe it does cost you more, but doing nothing probably would cost you even more.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[CrimsonAvenger]

It does a lot for the current healthcare problems we have.. its not a band-aid on a gunshot wound.. to keep your analogy, its akin to a gauze patch over same said gun shot wound.. Better.. but its certainly not going to fix the big picture.. but mostly because there are many of forces that DON'T WANT IT TO CHANGE.

One of the interesting things it does is convince business owners to switch more people to part-time status, since they don't have to do to Health Insurance for employees working 30 hour a week or less. Look it up sometime.

Another thing it does is (occasionally) lower the quality of insurance available (my wife's company had to drop one of their plans because it might fit the definition of "Cadillac plan". Shame, because that plan would have paid more of the costs of my cancer treatments....)

On balance, I still think the solution was to redefine Medicaid to make anyone under 18 eligible, and lower age of Medicare availability by two (or three, or five, whatever makes a good transition period) years per year that passes.

Which has two virtues - it gives everyone (including the insurance companies) time to adjust, and it would fit on one sheet of paper, rather than being a "you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" sort of law.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[cdrudge]

I can also confidently predict that the Democrats will spend the next four years doing almost nothing, and getting outsmarted by the Republicans every time they do try to do something.

If by outsmarted you just mean the House sits on anything and everything and never lets anything pass, then yes, you are right.

However I also predict that the Republicans will spend the next four years doing almost nothing, and getting outsmarted by the Democrats every time they do try to do something.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[LordLimecat]

Thats kind of their job. Its a system of checks and balances.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[nedlohs]

Conceeding doesn't stop the counting, or have any effect at all on who actually wins. So none of that is relevant.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[nedlohs]

Insurance is simply a ludicrious model for "day-to-day care". It's like having rent insurance that pays your rent all the time or grocery insurance that pays for your groceries every week. What idiot would sell such a thing for less than what your rent or groceries would cost in the first place? But with health care that seems to be the American expectation.

Not "catastrophe" or just rare event insurance makes sense. Rent insurance that you paid a small amount into each week and that pays your rent in some defined situations (the more likely they are the more it costs) makes sense.

Insurance on your car that replaces your car if it is stolen or wrecked makes sense, insurnace that pays for your weekly gas does not.

And then America couples this crazy "use insurance for expected events" system with the just as crazy "risk doesn't matter". If you wreck your car once a month you'll quickly find that car insurance companies will refuse to sell you insurance or charge very high rates - they need to in order to get more in payments from you than they expect to pay out (that is how insurance works after all). However, in health insurance that apparently is evil. If someone is far more likely to generate large costs (either in a specific case or just statistically) then it would be unfair to charge them more.

Other than "All medicine is banned except for leeches, if you have any form of sickness please attend the daily bloodletting via leech application at your local town hall" it's hard to think of a worse way of dealing with the issue of health care.

If you want some base level of health care then just have the government handle that without dealing with stupid insurance setups. I happen to think that would be better done at the State level, but I really have to assume that the supreme court judges have a better understanding of the consitution and so on that I do so I can live with Federal level. Making health care a money siphon to the insurance companies, that I have trouble accepting.

It's a limited resource you have to ration somehow. You can do that via the market so that money is used to determine the rationing and resource allocation or you can have a "free health care" type setup in which you will have waiting lists and so on in order to ration. You can have a mix. I see valid arguments for and against both. This insurance setup though, it's just stupid - are there any arguments for it at all?

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[fm6]

There are several things wrong with your understanding of how health insurance works. First off, it's not just about paying for unforeseen stuff. A typical insurance plan will pay for preventive care because it saves them money in the long run. And they negotiate with providers to get services for a lower cost. Somebody who doesn't have insurance does get these benefits.

And then there's the psychology of it. I've been nauseous for several months. I didn't go to the doctor because I've had nausea before and it always went away, and hey doctor's visits cost $150. Finally bit the bullet and went. Now, it's not one of those conditions that you need to catch early in order to avoid expensive treatment — but it might have been.

And when I say "day-to-day" I don't mean flu shots. I mean all the stuff that isn't covered by catastrophe-only policies. Like the endoscopy I had done a couple weeks ago that ran $2500 to find out if my chronic nausea is a symptom of ulcers (it wasn't). Or the ultrasound I probably should have, but it would probably just verify my doctor's guess that something's wrong with my gall bladder, so I'll just take my anti-nausea pills ($300/month) and see if not eating fatty foods makes me feel better. Or the colonoscopy I've been putting off for several years (standard for somebody my age) because what use is a cancer screening if I can't afford the hospital bill?

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[dcw3]

Yeah, yeah. We can dislike Fox for many reasons, but actually got this one right. Washington Post didn't call it until about the time Romney conceded.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[dcw3]

As one of the people who voted the other way, I congratulate President Obama, and wish him well. I don't agree with some of his agenda, but I would urge the right to not attempt to obstruct it. We've had way too much of that in Washington. If the right wishes to regain power in four years, their best bet is to let the president have his way, and if he fails, we can all say that didn't work. But to be obstructionist would only risk more of the same. Again, congrats to those who are all excited about the results...maybe we can work together this time.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[nedlohs]

I understand how it works, probably not perfectly but well enough. I'm saying it isn't "insurance" and so calling it that is silly, and it's a remarkably poor way to run a health system to boot.

If something is a diagnostic for some symptom then it isn't "day-to-day" that's an unexpected event and something it makes sense for insurance to cover. Of course the more things insurance covers and the more it covers them the more is will cost (see home insurance where there are various levels of what is events are covered and what the coverage actually is). Preventative care is different, under an actual insurance setup (rather than the one health insurance uses) that would be incentivised in some manner. Either by the cost being subsidized by the insurance (like installing a security system is on some house insurance - since it reduces the probability of a larger payout doing it reduces the insurance rates) or outright paid for if the insurance company thinks that will be cheaper in the long term.

And yes it's all about money. That's what insurance is. A sane system of health care isn't concerned only with money and hence there are more factors to consider than just "it will cost $X to do these preventative measures, and the will reduce the payouts for something in the future by $Y, if XX then we don't". But the US doesn't want that apparently and would prefer to use an insurance that isn't really insurance setup.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[avandesande]

The purpose of recessions is to shake out weak debtors and lenders so the market can correct and to prevent the mis-allocation of capital.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[fm6]

I'm saying it isn't "insurance" and so calling it that is silly, and it's a remarkably poor way to run a health system to boot.

I agree on both points. But it's the word we have and the system we have. Obama had to sweat blood just to get a few basic fixes in place, so don't hold your breath waiting for something rational.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[strikethree]

You are absolutely correct. The main problem with health care is the cost and nothing has been done to address that.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[mcgrew]

When Carter era inflation comes back @ 20% per year or more...

I thought I'd never see a worse President than Carter until Bush Mark II came along, but the inflation wasn't Carter's, it was Nixon's and Ford's. Carter's mistake was doing nothing effective to alleviate it -- in fact, doing nothing at all.

As someone already said (maybe in another thread), you DON'T run up huge deficits when you're in boom times. Then is when you conserve (too bad conservatives don't like conserving anything but their own cash) to ride out the bad times. When the bad times come, when revenues are down because nobody is earning any taxable income is when you borrow. Obama HAD to borrow, Bush did not. Don't blame Obama, the fault lies with the worst President in history, the guy who ruined the economy in the first place.

How long does it take to burn down a house? How long to rebuild it? It took Bush eight years to destroy this country, it will be a while before it's fixed.

As to "your retirement and your home", I'm ready to retire in less than two years and the Republicans want to get rid of the SS I've been working for since 1968. As to homes, look at all the homes that have been foreclosed on, thanks to that God damned Bush.

Unless you're being disingenuous because you earn more than $250.000 per year, you're a fool.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[mcgrew]

So what is the purpose of a depression? Because that's what would have happened had there not been bailouts. The assholes who ran these companies wouldn't have been hurt, normal people would have.

Re:Looks like ACA (Obamacare) is with us to stay.

[Joe U]

Nothing is 100% guaranteed except dying.

Personally, I think you're one of those people who decides, 'yup, the weather guy said this hurricane would be really bad, but I decided it wouldn't be...Hey why is my house floating away?'

well...

[halfEvilTech]

that happened faster than expected

Re:well...

[ricosalomar]

Word.

Re:well...

[MyLongNickName]

Not really. Two sources of data I user are electionprojection.com and electoral-vote.com. One is run by a liberal, the other by a conservative, but both are data driven based on several polling services. Both has Obama winning 303 electoral votes, Both sources have predicted correctly each state, and I see the possibility of two states going against their prediction (Florida, they predicted for Romney, Va they predicted for Obama). Based on the polls, this election has really been over for a couple months. So, only a media wanting a major even was predicting a long, drawn out affair.

Re:well...

[Gertlex]

But really! I was expecting Slashdot to have this news tomorrow at the earliest!

Re:well...

[localman57]

Also, to repeat it, for no apparent reason, 11 weeks from now.

Re:well...

[White Flame]

The polls are getting further and further removed from reality. People just aren't getting landlines anymore, and the populace in general grows more suspicious of marketing and identity theft regarding weird probing phone calls.

Re:well...

[jrumney]

Not really. Two sources of data I use

See, there's your problem right there. What are you doing using sources of data, when the TV talk shows have been full of highly paid analysts telling you their conflicting opinions to give the viewers a sense of excitement about the election?

Re:well...

[MyLongNickName]

Sorry, I will try to do better next time.

Re:well...

[MyLongNickName]

Kinda funny how those polls managed to get 49 or 50 states right as well as Washington D.C. That does not support you assertion that they are getting further and further removed from reality.

Re:well...

[White Flame]

While the polls still were able to show which side the vote went to, it seemed to me that the final tally ended up being a lot less close than the polls were indicating.

The OP said "that happened faster than expected", since the polls seemed to show it was going to be a long, uncertain night of tallying votes.

Re:well...

[MyLongNickName]

While the polls still were able to show which side the vote went to, it seemed to me that the final tally ended up being a lot less close than the polls were indicating.

The OP said "that happened faster than expected", since the polls seemed to show it was going to be a long, uncertain night of tallying votes.

Maybe kinds true, but not much. Of those who expressed they would vote for Obama or Romney, the polls showed Barack Obama getting 50.6% of the vote, Romney 49.4%. The not-final results are showing actual number 51.2% vs 48.8% nationwide. Some of this is attributable to "I see my candidate losing, so I don't vote." This phenomenon affects the pacific time zones quite a bit.

State by state in the "swing states", the polls were very accurate. The only ones predicting a long, drawn out affair are the media outlets that benefit from the viewership. Myself, I tuned out after I saw the first eight states or so go down exactly as the pollsters predicted.

So, kudos to the pollsters and the lesson learned for everyone is to trust numbers, don't trust spinsters.

But no fear!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, Republican friends, Mitt will just claim he wasn't actually running for President anyway.

Re:But no fear!

[westlake]

Don't worry, Republican friends, Mitt will just claim he wasn't actually running for President anyway.

It is often the little things that are most revealing:

Over in Chicago, the Obama campaign had invited 10,000 to fill the floor of the McCormick Place convention center. But here in Boston, Mitt Romney favored a more genteel soiree for an exclusive crowd.

Romney's election-night event was in a ballroom at the Boston Exhibition and Convention Center that could accommodate a few hundred. Most men wore jacket and tie; women donned dresses and heels

Outside the ballroom, waiters in black tie tended bar, and Jumbotrons showed the election results on Fox News. Downstairs, Romney's big donors assembled in private rooms for finer fare; guards admitted only those whose credentials said ''National Finance Committee.''

But the election results, even filtered through the rose-colored lenses of Fox News, were not promising.

Michigan fell to Obama, and then so did Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Obama was holding his own in Florida and Virginia, and things were looking grim for Romney in Ohio. The ballroom was as quiet as a library as the audience listened to the Fox personalities on-screen.

''Romney would have to draw to an inside straight'' at this point, pronounced Brit Hume, who predicted ''an awful lot of recriminations.''

Romney had spent nearly two years, and hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to convince Americans that he wasn't an out-of-touch millionaire unconcerned about the little people --- that he was more than a caricature who liked to fire people, who didn't care about the very poor or the 47 percent who pay no income tax, who has friends who own NASCAR teams.

He very nearly achieved it: Polls showed him neck-and-neck with Obama in the campaignâ(TM)s closing days. But his final day in the race showed why he couldnâ(TM)t persuade enough working-class Americans that he spoke for them.

On election night in 2000, George W. Bush hosted an outdoor rally for thousands in Austin. In 2008, Barack Obama addressed a mass of humanity in Chicago's Grant Park.

The very location set the candidate and his well-heeled supporters apart from the masses: The gleaming convention center, built with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, is on a peninsula in the Boston harbor that was turned into an election-night fortress, with helicopters overhead, metal barricades and authorities searching vehicles. Only a few gawkers crossed the bridge from downtown to stand outside.

At Romney headquarters, the defeat of the 1 percent

Tweedledee won !

[Taco Cowboy]

Tweedledum lost !

But is there any difference ?

I mean, Democrooks are as bad as the Republicrooks - and both are there to fleece the people and to ensure that their power is not challenged by the people.

The Bill of Rights be damned.

The Constitution also be damned.

As long as Washington D.C. is under the control of Demo-Republicrooks, they will continue to allow this charade to continue.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Black Parrot]

But is there any difference ?

Yes.

Now my turn for a question: do you pay the slightest attention to what our politicians do?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cheekyjohnson]

And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[An Ominous Coward]

In your opinion, do you think an Al Gore administration would have led us into war with Iraq?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Doctor_Jest]

Nope... Syria or Iran. Or Libya. But not Iraq. So, 6 in one hand, half-dozen in the other. I think Al Gore would've been just like Clinton was in Bosnia... shoot first, ask permission later. Why would there be any debate about this, considering Al Gore's pre-movie career policies and stated platforms?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[1u3hr]

In your opinion, do you think an Al Gore administration would have led us into war with Iraq?

Was his father pissed at Saddam? So, no.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

Both parties subsidize banks and farmers. If either candidate had promised to change support for the banks (ie, not staff his cabinet with bankers), then I would have voted for him. Alas.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

Really? You think Gore would have taken Syria or Iran?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Black Parrot]

We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.

Geez. Anyone can list some things that they don't like and both parties do. Do you seriously generalize that to no meaningful differences at all?

And there are also matters of degree. For example, I think Obama is a jerk (or criminal) for allowing the drone attacks to continue and even escalate, but at least he's not trying to rush is into a war with Iraq.

Your values may be very different from mind, but you can easily spot topics where the parties differ significantly, if you pay attention and think for yourself instead of joining in the knee-jerking.

Vote the worst bastards out, then start working on the next layer.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fustakrakich]

Why does everybody ask that? Of course he would have if he was told to. What makes you think he wouldn't? There no basis for that. What, you think Lieberman was an angel? I don't regret his loss one bit. As far as I'm concerned he stole all those votes from Nader.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sconeu]

If either DemoPublican candidate had promised to abolish the TSA, and to put some sanity into copyright, and otherwise respect the Constitution, I might have voted for him.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[elfprince13]

Incidentally, Obama tried to keep us in Iraq longer, before withdrawing on the Bush timetable after the Iraqi government gave him the finger.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[timeOday]

Here's a specific difference: 2 trillion dollars in additional defense spending. (That is equal to 4,000 times Soylindra). Good idea or bad idea?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

At lest we wouldn't still be stuck there a decade later. When Democrats go to war, they tend to strike surgically based on the advice of expert strategists who actually went to school to learn how to do these things. They don't tend to crow about mission accomplished before we've even gotten started.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

Fuck man, I would have campaigned for him....

Re:Tweedledee won !

[amiga3D]

You mean lie continuously?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

Yeah, there were a lot of good issues that Romney could have picked up on, but he kept pounding away saying how bad Obama was for the economy.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Kaenneth]

I'll take pizza and a movie over $6 a gallon gas on credit at 31.99% interest, but that's just me.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Gadget_Guy]

You seem to be mixing up Afghanistan with Iraq. It is understandable, because they speak foreign languages in both countries.

Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and 9/11. It was all about the imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

Geez. Anyone can list some things that they don't like and both parties do. Do you seriously generalize that to no meaningful differences at all?

Yes. Meaningful is not objective, but subjective. Those differences you speak of merely amount to either death by a knife, or death by a gun.

Either party is deeply toxic towards America with their own unique blend of anti-freedom, anti-consumer agendas.

A meaningful difference would be one that I could actually believe would result in a net positive for America. Not seeing it.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Electricity Likes Me]

Call me crazy too, but 9/11 was either a true false flag op, or the US government created an opportunity out of knowing there was an imminent attack on US soil.

Here I will blow your mind: there are no grand conspiracies. Bad people are bad people because they always find a way to make a profit by taking advantage of bad situations, and the world is kind of messed up like that.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Concerned Onlooker]

Good reminder. I don't think people remember that anymore. When they didn't find any then the Bush administration suddenly found an interest in human rights or claiming to be champions of the oppressed or whatever other excuse for invasion they could muster up. Except the fact that Bush made us known as a torturing state made that kind of laughable.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

Really?

I have not heard Obama saying that he wants to legislate women's vaginas and the choices they want to make with them because of some popular mythology.

It's something I take seriously, so please enlighten me. Explain one policy that was motivated purely by religious views. Socialism is not generally a purely religious platform either. You can be atheist and still be a socialist.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Omnifarious]

Actually, historically speaking in the past 30 years or so, Democrats have done a far better job of fighting wars than Republicans.

Democrats tend to listen to their military advisors and things. Republicans tend to want to act like they're re-enacting WWII, except with bigger penises and a sense of entitlement.

So I expect I would've been far happier with Al Gore's response. He likely wouldn't have stomped all over Afghanistan like an angry giant, then abandon it to run off and fight a war he, his father and their cronies had planned long before he got elected. A war with a completely irrelevant country that was no direct threat to us.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, he would have

1. 9-11 would still have happened (remember: because Gore contested the election in the courts, not all of Bush's team was in-place before 9-11 particularly at CIA where the Clinton/Gore people were still running things)

2. In response to 9-11, the American people would have demanded the action in Afghanistan... pressure no president of either party would have been able to resist. It's easy to forget how angry people were on 9-12... EVERY co-worker I had back then was angry Bush failed to drop nukes in response

3. The CIA and some of our allies told the president Saddam (who was shooting at US forces on nearly a daily basis, had previously pursued WMDs, previously used chem weapons on his own civilians, and previously tried to make nukes) was back to trying to make nukes. It's easy to curse Bush for believing this, but ask yourself if ANY president (no matter WHAT he says now) could possibly NOT act... if he failed to act and the result was a horrific WMD attack on civilians in the US (an obviously possible target in light of 9-11). A president who failed to stop such an attack after being warned by the CIA and our allies would have been driven out of office along with his entire party and his reputation would NEVER be recovered. All the people who hate bush for "lying us into a war" would instead hate him for ignoring blatant and explicit warnings not just from the CIA but also from our allies. Had Gore been in those same shoes the same would apply... unless of course all Bush's critics are just a bunch of phonies who hate along party lines.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Ultracrepidarian]

It's a shame we learned so little from Vietnam. Yes, I was there in '68.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

What do you call it when more than one bad person cooperates on an agenda that they both find mutually beneficial? Hint, it starts with a 'c'.

Whether or not there was a true false flag operation is highly debatable. No seriously, it is.

What is not debatable is that there are clear and ever present "grand" conspiracies by those in power. Government contracts, copyright protections, intelligence community tools, military industrial complex profits, bail out corruption, LIBOR manipulation, quasi-gerrymandering via voter suppression, red light camera manipulation, mortgage fraud, rubber-stamped-evictions-via-deeds-of-trust-abuse, and on and on, and on, and on.

If there was more than one person in the government that knew of an imminent attack and deliberately obfuscated, delayed, or otherwise covered up the facts to allow it, since it would benefit certain interested parties financially, or with increased power over people, it was a conspiracy.

Considering how massively successful the last 10 years has been in eliminating civil rights, increasing and strengthening Constitution Free Zones, "educating and training" the public to accept violent intrusions into the privacy and restrictions on their freedom of movement, and the siphoning off of ludicrous amounts of wealth to the hands of the few elite.......... ... ummm..... yeah.... I am going to stick with conspiracy.

Either that, or we are just really some unlucky bastards that kicked puppies and drowned kittens in past lives.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[timeOday]

So, lets spend nothing on defense and trillions on Solar Energy Cronies of the DNC?

No fair, my post used actual numbers and yours are complete baloney.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

You can only disprove an absolute statement that way. I am aware of exceptions so I deliberately chose the weaker statement with the word tend for that reason.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[naasking]

We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.

Even assuming I grant you the above, the difference is clearly between making food cheap and life entertaining vs. making your air unbreathable and gambling with your money to the point where you may not be able to afford to eat tomorrow. No difference you say? Yeesh.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Relayman]

We know now that Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and 9/11. But G. W. Bush included a false claim that Iraq was connected to 9/11 as one of the reasons to invade the country.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[quax]

As somebody who does not reside in the US I just may want to mention these little things called wars?

May not matter to the USians all that much, but really it would be nice if this could at least be an afterthought when you decide who's allowed to lead the most powerful military on this globe.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Nerdfest]

... that would be the appearance of safety. I don't think anything that has been done has actually added any significant safety.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[aztracker1]

Which one is which again? They've both voted in favor of tons of subsidies in both of those directions.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Relayman]

The military does not want or need the money. We don't need any better fighter jets or bombers because that's not how the next war is going to be fought.

The next war will be in stealing money from people, companies and banks and, so far, the Europeans, Asians and Africans are winning.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

LBJ made a grave mistake in Vietnam. Now look at who seems to have learned from that mistake and who still wants to blunder in against the best advice available.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cffrost]

And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.

They're trading our freedom for something, but it's not safety (as Bruce Schneier points out on a regular basis).

Re:Tweedledee won !

[aztracker1]

What the hell are you talking about.. we're still "stuck" in Germany, Italy, and Japan...

Re:Tweedledee won !

[dalias]

Some of us care about more important things than taxes.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[maynard]

LBJ just escalated a policy that had been set in place long before by Truman in '49. The presumption by Truman, then supported by Eisenhower, was that a domino effect of communist revolutions across Indochina could lead to a Trotskyite victory for communism over the long run (the so-called 'domino theory'). Going back to all the way '49 the United States sent 'advisors' and significant funds and weapons to French controlled Vietnam to sustain operations against communist guerrillas.

Thus, the foreign policy of the United States was to prevent a communist win by engaging in proxy wars rather than direct conflict. But the French lost control and pulled out, ultimately losing Algeria as well. The French gave up on colonialism as a result, but this left the United States to sustain cold war operations in Indochina. Eisenhower increased the 'advisor count' (special operations troops) as a result and Kennedy continued the policy until his assassination.

LBJ just escalated a longstanding policy supported by both Democrats and Republicans back when the country had a unified foreign policy across the parties. And you'll notice that contrary to his campaign pledge to 'end the Vietnam war', Nixon escalated as well. Who just happened to have been Eisenhower's Vice President.

Opposition to the Vietnam war in the Democratic Party in the late sixties and early seventies was only seen in a minority wing of the party that had little policy control at the top. By the time popular majorities opposed the war, Democrats then just rode the populist wave with anti-vietnam war rhetoric. But they had been staunch supporters of the policy from the start of the cold war. Just as had been Republicans.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"At lest we wouldn't still be stuck there a decade later. When Democrats go to war, they tend to strike surgically based on the advice of expert strategists who actually went to school to learn how to do these things."

Hate to burst your partisan bubble. But it was the Democratic Kennedy-Johnson administrations that escalated the war in Vietnam. On the other hand, the first Iraq War was effectively a surgical strike that kicked out the invading Iraqis from Kuwait. Bush senior could have kicked out Saddam as well but he didn't. For all his Star Wars bluster, Reagan didn't involve the US in any major wars.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Tastecicles]

Begpardon?? Clinton was the first and only President in several decades to leave the Office with a budget balance or surplus. Before him was Nixon, before him Eisenhower, and before him Truman. Obama begins his second term in the Oval Office after adding six point one Trillion Dollars to the deficit. More than doubling it in just four years from the previous eight!

Re:Tweedledee won !

[deanklear]

Gay rights don't matter? Reproductive rights don't matter? Ending wars doesn't matter? Reforming health care doesn't matter?

The fashionable political ignorance fad has really run its course. Learn something or find something less important to ruin with your branded apathy.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

There's not a lot of shooting and IEDs in any of those countries.

I would support pulling back in those countries, but we aren't stuck in the same sense we are and have been in Iraq.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cffrost]

So, lets spend nothing on defense [...]

Yup, let's spend zero dollars on defense, just like you quoted timeOday as having recommended.

You can learn more tips for constructing illogical non-arguments here.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Culture20]

Either party is deeply toxic towards America with their own unique blend of anti-freedom, anti-citizen agendas.

FTFY. Replacing the word citizen with consumer in public discourse is one of the toxic things they have done.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Tumbleweed]

We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.

I like food and movies way more than fees and pollution. YMMV.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ThatsMyNick]

Are you referring to 419 scams? I am not sure I understand what you meant about stealing money from people, banks & corporations.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

one that wants to make the country beholden to christian interests (pretty much above all, other than the almight dollar).

the other is nearly neutral (as neutral as you can get these days) on the subject.

in obama's speech, he talked a lot about inclusion.

in romney's speech, he said he'd 'pray' for the other side.

if you don't get that they are *worlds* apart, you have your head hidden somewhere dark.

we got the right guy. luckily, we avoided giving mandate to the american taliban party.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[joocemann]

The GOP blocked bills that would attempt to get equal pay for women.

The GOP has backed its candidates that openly exhibit patriarchical ideologies, to include attempting to discredit women who claim to have been raped through classifications.

I have a mother, a wife, and two daughters. They are *not* the same. They are both pro-Corporate, and that is where they are the 'two sides of the same coin'. You won't see Obama doing much about that.

But when it comes to some of the finer details, please actually notice and get a clue. You clearly can't tell the difference between horseshit and your own shit. Look closer.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Anonymous Coward]

Trillions into Solar Energy cronies? If we'd done that, Solyndra would be pumping out enough solar panels to enable us to tell OPEC to go pound sand.

That'd actually be good for national interests, including defense. Don't you agree?

Instead, we put a few hundred million into Solyndra while China poured billions into theirs, and that let their companies dump enough solar panels on our country that Solyndra just couldn't make it.

Of course you fail to recognize that the Department of Energy loan program you so detest now was actually a Republican idea, proposed by Republicans as part of their Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, both passed with Republican support and both signed by a Republican President. Yeah, that damn DNC, so fiendishly persuading Republicans to create exactly what they wanted two years later.

But hey, don't let the actual facts get in the way of your screed. You probably think the Walton family are a bunch of DNC stalwarts or something.

Or maybe you think that Solyndra didn't build their factory...oh wait, they did. They even had a working product. It just couldn't compete with Chinese prices.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[joocemann]

One fought for equal pay for women, the other fought against it.

Did you not notice this? It impacts all of us, and attempts to maintain the second-class treatment of women, who make up 51% of our population, who gave birth to you, and are best known as 'the people who gestate people'. Women are not second class. If you only noticed subsidies and taxes, you should care a little more and see when they talked about your momma (and mine, and everyone else's).

I'm glad to have informed you.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fm6]

No. But he would have taken the blame for 9/11 (it would have been "obvious" that electing a wimpy liberal had "caused" the attack) and the Let's Invade Everybody crowd would have still come to power in 2005.

Still, you have a point. People who talk about there not being any difference between parties are just not paying attention. Too busy obsessing about Libertarianism or Black Helicopters or some other fantasy.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Anonymous Coward]

Police/TSA officers are more of a threat to US citizens compared to Osama ever was.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fm6]

Yep, LBJ really blew it with Vietnam. And it's a damn good thing he beat Goldwater, who would have blown it even worse. War with China, anyone?

But you know, I still meet people who think the Vietnam War could have been won. Which just goes to show that you don't need to ignore history in order to repeat it.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fm6]

I seem to recall that Bush Sr. had a chance to overthrow Saddam and passed on it, because he was afraid of falling into a quagmire. Fortunately, Bush Jr. came along and showed us all that a quagmire is a good thing!

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fm6]

Right, so you don't care about health care reform or not fighting pointless wars, as long as you can leave your shoes on at the airport and Mickey Mouse is allowed to enter the public domain. Typical geek priorities!

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

Yes, sometimes with an application of overwhelming force you can get away with it for a bit, but the cost was that our entire armed force was rated as unready for combat afterwards. We also had to pull out and leave Iraq to fester.

Compare to the strike that took out Bin Laden. It happened so fast it was over before anyone (except Bin Laden) knew it had even started. It had no detrimental effect whatsoever on our combat readiness. Had we taken Saddam out that way, we wouldn't be in as big of a mess as we are now.

You probably don't remember Clinton and Obama's successes because they got the job done and got out without damaging the whole country.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[mcrbids]

As a former RepubliCrat hater, I can affirm: at the time where I was most negative and despondent about the state of things was during the time of my life that I was least aware of what each party did and stood for.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

That's "trade essential freedom for the temporary perception of safety" to you, buddy.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they're trading it for safety, but at a terrible exchange rate.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AJWM]

LBJ made a grave mistake in Vietnam.

Actually the mistake was in DC. He kept on JFK's SecDef, Robert McNamara, and listened to him. That war started under JFK.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Solandri]

Bush wasn't afraid of a quagmire. He respected the UN. The UN mandate only authorized us to eject Iraq from Kuwait, nothing more. So that's all he felt we could do. That was the reason he did not come to the defense of Iraqis rebelling against Saddam after the war. He didn't protect them until the UN authorized the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq.

Bush Jr. OTOH decided the UN was unimportant and invaded Iraq on his own.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[rs79]

I knew if I searched long enough here I'd find some rational thought. Thank you.

Cause, holy shit are the woodpeckers ever out in force tonight.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[witherstaff]

It was all about the vast amounts of profits to be made. Cheney's past company Halliburton with no bid contracts is a good example.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

Especially when the first American troops were sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower ("advisors" not regulars, but still, I love hoe the Republicans start a war, and a Democrat escalates it, not wanting to be the first American President to lose a war, and it's all the Democrat's fault).

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

They found WMDs in Iraq. Of course they weren't functional and were sold to Saddam by the US (Reagan and Bush) to use on Iran, but instead were used against the Kurds. Bush and Saddam go way back. Bush used to support him, then declared war on him. Just like Bush used to support Osama, but Bush's son declared war on him.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Ash Vince]

Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and 9/11. It was all about the imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

And the long term plan to get rid of Saddam to that US companies could finally get at the oil under Iraq again. That embargo on the place was hurting us too.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

If we spent $0 on defense, we'd be better off today than we are now. There's no need for a defense at all. Standing armies used to be rare, there's no reason to have one. Even if we abolished the army today and China declared war tomorrow we'd not risk losing anything except maybe a few uninhabited islands in the Pacific (well, and Taiwan, but that's not American).

The US military only exists to protect the interests of the rich. There should be a 30% income tax on all income over $1,000,000 with no exceptions and no deductions so the rich can pay for the military that protects only their interests.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Barlo_Mung_42]

You should bottle those tears and sell them to Nestle. They're soooo much sweeter than sugar.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

That's part of the irony.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[gomiam]

I'm sure the new security theater measures in USA airports have helped a lot in finding and killing bin Laden. Sorry, but military actions aren't usually considered security in normal parlance.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

I mentioned the party differences. The similarity is that both parties act quite similarly in wars.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

Actually yes. Enough so that Bush had to order the fabrication of 'intelligence' to 'justify' our clusterfuck there.

As for the women and children in Yugoslavia, what would your suggestion have been, Nuke 'em? Mass invasion and kill 'em all? I suspect less died as a result of Clinton's approach than would have in an all-out invasion.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cold fjord]

And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.

Excuse me, sir, since trivial research shows a fairly regular stream of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses in the United States, could you point me toward the American political party that would be indifferent to truck bombs going off in American shopping malls, as well as various other sorts of terrorist attacks and activities? You seem to believe that wanting to prevent that is a bug, not a feature, and with a large number of political parties in existence, surely one of them must be indifferent to Americans being killed by terrorists, and unwilling to engage in the surveillance necessary to prevent it, and therefore by your reckoning worthy of being voted into power? Which do you recommend?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

uhm, giggety?

(oblig)

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheEyes]

Begpardon?? Clinton was the first and only President in several decades to leave the Office with a budget balance or surplus. Before him was Nixon, before him Eisenhower, and before him Truman. Obama begins his second term in the Oval Office after adding six point one Trillion Dollars to the deficit. More than doubling it in just four years from the previous eight!

As he should have; recessions are precisely the times when you need the government to step in and keep the evonomy moving, because the banks aren't adding liquidity and private citizens are busy digging themselves out of unemployment.

The unexcusable, fiscally irresponsible moves were made during the previous decade, where we racked up huge deficits in the middle of a market boom. 2001-2007 should have been a time of budget surpluses, where the country built up a rainy day fund to pay for the next market downcycle. Instead we gave the money away to trust fund rent-seekers like Romney, in the hopes that these "job creators" would trickle down jobs on the rest of us.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

the republicans are butt-hurt about a black guy winning.

twice.

the first time, they swore that their goal was to ensure he was a 1-term president. they cared little about getting things done; instead they stood for blockage and non-compromise.

they had nothing other than 'our guy is not the black guy'

america is sad, like that. half of us are racists and won't admit it. they hide behind 'the businessman can fix our jerbs!' but its really what everyone in the room sees and just won't call out by name.

the good news is that we just barely beat out the racists and backwards thinkers.

the bad news is that it was not overwhelming like it should have been. a majority but not big enough, considering what most of the R voters were using for voting criteria.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

You caught that didn't you?

It was deliberate. There are no citizens anymore. Just resource units they like to refer to as "consumers".

Re:Tweedledee won !

[chrismcb]

Yeah but:

The actions he's taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very, very solid.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[tehcyder]

Yeah, there were a lot of good issues that Romney could have picked up on, but he kept pounding away saying how bad Obama was for the economy.

The fact that they are good issues for you doesn't mean they're good issues for a party that has to pander to a fairly extreme right wing element. Those people care more about denying women's and gay rights than they do about liberty, unless you mean the freedom not to pay tax if you're rich.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[junglee_iitk]

You mean how they are now able to resist 'stealing' whereas they were militarily weak before and open for 'new/better/the only mode of government' and 'upbringing'

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Areyoukiddingme]

There are people who think that killing an adult cow by shooting a steel spike through its brainpan differs from your scenario only by species, and is just as reprehensible. Should we make that illegal too?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[riverat1]

1. 9-11 would still have happened (remember: because Gore contested the election in the courts, not all of Bush's team was in-place before 9-11 particularly at CIA where the Clinton/Gore people were still running things)

Oh good God! Bush v. Gore was decided on December 12, 2000, more than a month before Bush was inaugurated. If a delay of about one month was a problem then the Bush administration was just plain incompetent.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[riverat1]

+1 Insightful

Re:Tweedledee won !

[The Master Control P]

If only there were something that happened near the time President Obama was elected that could explain a sudden simultaneous loss of revenue and increase in demand for social programs. Hmmm.

Nope, can't think of a thing. He must've just decided to ship a barge with nothing but pallets of Benjamins out to sea and scuttle it or something.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[isorox]

You seem to be mixing up Afghanistan with Iraq. It is understandable, because they speak foreign languages in both countries.

Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and 9/11. It was all about the imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

Shock and Awe provided the weapons of mass destruction, it just came from the U.S.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[isorox]

. The US cycles like this...bleeding hearts for Vietnam, and now...learn some history and human nature, then watch your frriends and family pay the price for your "Keep it at home' policy. lol

Yeah, after their success in Asia in the 70s, the Viet Cong invaded the U.S and took over west of the Rockies...

Oh wait, no they didn't.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[isorox]

Fuck man, I would have campaigned for him....

Really? I believe Rand Paul promised to get rid of the TSA. Just like the proverbial "Mussolini made the trains run on time". Just because a candidate has a single issue you agree with, or a single issue you disagree with, doesn't mean that they're the best candidate for you.

How about a hypothetical candidate who said "Scrap the TSA and kill everyone's firstborn", verses one who said "keep the status quo".

Which would you campgain for?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[gtall]

Farmers, Hollywood, banks, and oil companies are small potatoes compared to 2/3 of the budget that goes to entitlements. And the banks paid theirs back. The rest comes in at under $50 Billion out of an approx. $3.5 Trillion yearly budget. Do get a sense of proportion, it really helps frame your points. In short, most of the money goes to the American people, and mostly those on the lower socio-economic rungs. The economy is increasingly skewed towards winners take all, so there is a certain amount of poetic justice there.

And, it will only get worse when the Me Generation, which is just starting to retire, and the Association of Arrogant Retired People start demanding that they get properly compensated for the money they paid into SS, even if it will mean they take out much more than what they put in.

What? You say. You mean the government was lying about the SS Trust Fund. The government doesn't keep your money in a mattress under Capitol Hill. They loaned it to the rest of the government because the government cannot hold money like that (and you wouldn't want them to). So when the Blue Hairs start marching on Washington for their winnings, they'll be taking it out of the general fund...you know, the one that currently pays 2/3 to the rest of America.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[isorox]

the republicans are butt-hurt about a black guy winning.

twice.

the first time, they swore that their goal was to ensure he was a 1-term president. they cared little about getting things done; instead they stood for blockage and non-compromise.

they had nothing other than 'our guy is not the black guy'

america is sad, like that. half of us are racists and won't admit it. they hide behind 'the businessman can fix our jerbs!' but its really what everyone in the room sees and just won't call out by name.

the good news is that we just barely beat out the racists and backwards thinkers.

the bad news is that it was not overwhelming like it should have been. a majority but not big enough, considering what most of the R voters were using for voting criteria.

I have no doubt that more racists voted republican than democrat, however if you think the only reason 49% of the U.S voted for Romney was because Obama was black, you have serious issues.

There's a lot wrong with the U.S, and I can see why ex-Obama voters are disgruntled. Romney had a lot of valid points, you and I may not agree, but it's a perfectly valid opinion to think that people should live in an "every man for himself" world, or even a "charity will sort it out" world. You don't need to be racist to agree with Romney's policies.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[dbIII]

People have forgotten that Carter took on Iran while Reagan paid them off.
Don't blame me for either of them, both of those are their own countries problem.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Sique]

He might even have won if he didn't start to heap blame onto people likely to vote for Barack Obama. Hoping for hispanics to "deport themselves" or chastitizing people getting foodstamps and other social transfers did not increase Mitt Romney's chances for success, because those people also have rights and are constituents.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[nospam007]

"We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood,..."

Indeed, it's all those millions of liberal farmers.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[swalve]

1- Because the majority of the current deficits of the last 4 years were due to the wars and the Bush tax cut. Thus, he is not responsible for their effects. He tried to stop both, but met with limited success. Further, another good portion of the deficits were due to reduced tax revenue and increased mandatory spending because of the recession that appeared before he took office. Gonna have deficits during a recession.

2- Federal discretionary spending, which is spending that isn't forced by some law requiring it, is flat or down for Obama's term.

3- He will continue the hard work of helping the country build growth and jobs, and no doubt continue reducing any spending he can while trying to get the Bush tax cuts cancelled.

You talk about facts, but you don't seem to actually know any.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[gtbritishskull]

When Obama took office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes. Otherwise you risk making things worse. And Greece is a perfect example of what happens when you try austerity during a downturn (the austerity made the downturn worse, so the revenues decreased right along with their reductions in spending). If you want to reduce the deficit then you have to reduce spending or raise taxes (or wait for the economy to get better to increase revenue). I have found it very ironic that Republicans keep screaming that we are going to be just like Greece, and then keep pushing for the policies that caused Greece's economy to collapse (austerity).

It is all relative. If Obama had come into office with a balanced budget, he would have been able to maintain a deficit of a few hundred billion dollars and still stimulated the economy. Instead, he had to tack on a few hundred billion onto the trillion dollar deficit. What is not fiscally responsible is living beyond our means and running up the debt when the economy is doing well ($5 trillion added to the debt 2000-2008). If you do that, then there is a LOT less flexibility to handle emergencies (and the 2008 financial crisis WAS an emergency) in the future.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Sez Zero]

the republicans are butt-hurt about a black guy winning.

twice.

the first time, they swore that their goal was to ensure he was a 1-term president.

As the number of minorities increases, it will be interesting to see how the Republican party responds. There was a lot of chatter last night on the news networks about how Bush really mobilized the Latino vote, but Romney couldn't get any of it in this election.

Some predicted someone like Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida as a potential Republican candidate in 2016. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Republican party if the son of Cuban immigrants is their candidate for President. Either the party will evolve, or it will simply cease to be relevant in American politics.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[maynard]

I think you've got McNamara wrong here.

There are audio recordings of phone conversations between both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson with Defense Secretary McNamara, where McNamara recommended deescalation and withdrawal. Kennedy was leaning toward McNamara's position prior to his assassination, but a newly sworn in President Johnson disagreed strenuously. He ordered McNamara to draw up a memo detailing a new policy to escalate. McNamara, being an 'organization man' in the tradition of Arthur Sloan, believed that it was his role to follow a presidential directive to the best of his ability, even though he personally disagreed with the policy. As the war deteriorated, after a visit to Vietnam to assess the situation personally, McNamara directly told President Johnson that the United States was losing the war. He was fired as a result in '68. Shortly thereafter, due to severe public protests over war policy, Johnson withdrew his name from the Democratic nomination for the '68 election and retired from public life. Nixon won on a campaign to end the war, just as he and President Eisenhower had done in '52 to end the Korean war. However, unlike Eisenhower, Nixon escalated as soon as he took office.

These recordings are available at the respective presidential libraries. Excerpts of them are presented in Errol Morris' _Fog of War_, a documentary about Robert McNamara.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[captainpanic]

In a very safe country, where the large majority of people die from diseases (mostly at old age), the appearance of safety is as important as the real safety.

We have never really grown up. Instead of monsters under the bed, there is terrorism and rogue states. All we need is someone to tell us that things have improved. Reality is irrelevant.

Obviously, it really helps that the media first gave us the feeling of insecurity in the first place.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

Such a finding was required by the use of force legislation pushed through Congress, so Bush signed a letter to that affect.

The Letter

If I can avoid it, I will never vote for anyone who supported that war again.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

Do you know what a recession is?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Attila Dimedici]

One believes in the rule of law, the other believes in the rule of what he thinks best. The American people chose the latter.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

He wouldn't have had the opportunity since he would have stopped 9/11

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

3. No they didn't. See Powell's speech to the UN. They had no evidence. If you think they did then you haven't looked.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

Bush set the timetable after Obama proposed it during the election in 2008.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

Navy, Airforce, and nuclear missiles all cost money, and you can't raise those in an emergency levy.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fustakrakich]

Hilarious!

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Raenex]

Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes.

Raise taxes and use that to provide jobs if the private sector won't. If the "job creators" want to invest in American jobs, then they won't be taxed on their money hoarding. Close the offshoring loopholes. The idea that the US can just deficit spend it's way out of trouble is unsustainable.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[misexistentialist]

Absolutely, when we become cows. Evolution: believe.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[misexistentialist]

You sound like a fucking child, obsessed with your private parts. Those baby girls thrown out in the trash also had pussies. You may lack understanding, but at least have the humility to recognize that humanity might have a higher purpose.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[rvw]

Whats the difference between a prostitute and a politician?

A prostitute will leave you poor and happy. A politician will just leave you poor.

Ergo: to fuck, or be fucked.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Danathar]

Corporations 1 billion
Individuals -50

The score would of been the same no matter which side won.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ceoyoyo]

I'm curious, how do you base laws on moral relativism (particularly if they're also religious)? You only go to jail if you agree you broke the law?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should read what you quote before posting the links?
I don't see any significant arrests on the links you posted.
Why do you come to the braindead idea terrorists would plant bombs in your shopping malls?
All the world knows: the greatest nation on earth is ruled by idiots and its populace is mindless ...

Re:Tweedledee won !

[LordLimecat]

One thinks its appropriate to ignore immigration laws, the 10th amendment (healthcare anyone?), and our national debt, and the other doesnt?

Obviously Im biased, but obviously there are differences. Im sure dems would remark on how we hate women and whatnot, and I think we would both agree that there is a huge difference.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[toopok4k3]

Why haven't you made the pirate party as a real thing in USA? If neither of your two parties support what you believe in, why don't you do something about it?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cayenne8]

It isn't the terrorists that will bring down the US...it will be our mismanagement of the economy, and I'm afraid we as a country put a few nails in the coffin with the re-election of this guy.

Sad day for the US....

Re:Tweedledee won !

[interkin3tic]

The voters want that too, and thus it will always be an issue independent of party lines, until we change the voter mindset. Perhaps a strong, convincing third party candidate could do such a thing, but I suspect that if he or she were that convincing, they could do it as a candidate in either party as well. Ross Perot brought up the issue of budget deficit, but I personally think he could have raised the issue equally well as part of the republican or democrat parties.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[omnichad]

Who's racist? Obama got 93% of the black vote. Now THAT's racist.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[DNS-and-BIND]

First: capital letters. Learn how to use them. They're not difficult, and using them convinces others that you know how to use our language.

Recently, I was told that America was one of the least racist countries on the planet. So...*cough*...awkward.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[omnichad]

Well, Obama is bad for the economy. It's a shame that Romney would be too, but at least he was right about that.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[geekoid]

So basically you also have no clue why anythings are done or what happens in politics?

" subsidize farmers "
this is why we hae a stable food supply, and it's why when the global price goes up 25%, your goods don't also go up 25%.
We went through an era where the risk of no food was very real and price fluctuations destroyed communities. SO, yes farm subsidies. The US used to just buy the corn and store it in silos, but that was more expensive and wasteful. So we went to subsidies becasue it made logical sense.

"e party that taxes us to subsidize banks"
That was both parties becasue otherwise it would have been an economical implosion never seen before.
So, totally worth it. Setting up a process to prevent it and put the regulation that were removed is the solution to that problem.

"but I don't see enough of one for it to matter."
becasue you don't actual pay attention or make an effort to understand anything.

  and oil companies"

Re:Tweedledee won !

[geekoid]

The US has gotten safer every year for 30 years. I'm sorry, you were saying something isn't working?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[aztracker1]

Personally, I think we should simply close, and pull out of the majority of our overseas bases, including any active combat theaters... That's just me though...

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MachineShedFred]

Ahh, the old "They don't agree with the black guy, so they must be racist" chestnut.

You don't think that maybe they didn't like his policy decisions, do you?

I'm sure that skin color is why over 50 million people voted for the "not black guy".

Who's the racist again?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[mcgrew]

Lets see, Bush gave the "too big to fail" failed banks tons of money. Obama was elected an did the same. The PATRIOT act was passed easily with both parties voting overwhelmingly. Ditto DMCA and the Bono Act, both travesties.

Both parties want to put your friends, family, and loved ones in jail for smoking a plant, despite the Republican's lie of wanting "states rights". Two states legalized pot yesterday but it's still against Federal law.

The ways they are different mostly don't matter to me. Gay marriage? None of my fucking business. Abortion? Doesn't matter since the SCOTUS says you can't outlaw it. The only difference I see that matters to me is that the Republicans hate unions even more than the Democrats do (see what Democratic Governor Quinn is doing to gut state employees' bargaining rights).

So... how are they different? Assuming of course by "Republican" you don't mean "tea party"; those idiots are for enriching the rich at the expense of the rest of us.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[FreonTrip]

With a two party system co-opted by special interests, we were left with the option of a hammer and one nail, or a nailgun. With those as our only realistic options, you go with the guy with the hammer, because at least his aim might be off.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MachineShedFred]

Can I have a third choice? Like "neither"?

Let's not have Government spread out pork to campaign contributors, and let's not have Government buying all kinds of bombs and guns that they don't need. Now that's a compromise I think a lot of us can get behind.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[thoth]

I realize the dumbfuck is strong with you, but

1) The debt is largely due to Bush tax-cuts, which the republican house won't consider undoing
2) The deficit has decreased every year of Obama's presidency. yes it has, look it up and deal with the a fact-based reality
3) Predicting the future is hard to do.... what do you think Romney would have done BETTER? He basically advocated the same fiscal policy as Bush 43, that's the one that got us in this mess.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MachineShedFred]

Apparently praying for people is now religious extremism. Good to know.

Who's got the extreme views here?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Chrisje]

As an outside follower of American politics, I have no idea what the people were smoking when they modded this comment up +4 Insightful. Really. Seriously guys?

It is clear as my nose that Barack Obama has the following points:

- Pro choice in the abortion discussion
- Favors gay rights
- Favors a universal health care scheme
- Favors government intervention in economic matters
- Favors a certain wealth re-distribution through taxes in the direction of the lower and middle classes
- Actually seems to know his ass from his elbow in terms of foreign policy

Then Mitt Romney:

- Panders to the more fundamentalist Christian elements of the Republican electorate in spite of previously having been a moderate
- Therefore becoming more pro-life
- And less gay friendly
- Claims that no government is good government
- Does actually not know his ass from his elbow in foreign politics
- Does not believe in income re-distribution away from the richest 2% in the country, probably because he's exactly that

Now once everything has been said and done, while the difference between these two men is evident, the difference they can make depends largely on the equilibrium in the Senate and in Congress. If you are a democratic President, but the Republicans swing too large a bat in the Senate or Congress, you have to maneuver a lot to get anything done. Add to that filibusters and the mess is complete.

You cannot vote for a presidential candidate, then let them and their party slide during state- and local elections, and finally expect them to deliver on all they said. You need to follow through to ensure a robust power base across the board.

Hence, the previous poster's comment was idiotically near sighted, and the people who modded it up confuddled at best. ;)

Re:Tweedledee won !

[danwiz]

I've paid attention to what they've said and, in theory, that should be the same what they do.

If you compare what they've actually said, Obama and Romney look shockingly the same on MANY issues:
Romney Vs Obama - Same Issues, Same Answers!

So why would we expect progress?
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss ...

Re:Tweedledee won !

[mcgrew]

The actions he's taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very, very solid.

Typo: it's selled "sordid", not "solid".

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Beerdood]

Mods, can you please stop modding these False Equivalencies as Insightful? It's getting really annoying. "Demicans and Republocrats are the same!! THE SAME I say. They both vote the same on these issue!" Except that whenever this mantra is repeated, you cherry pick your topics to fit your narritive of "new boss, same as the old boss". NDAA agreement, warrant-less wiretapping, war on drugs, war on Afghanistan, regard for the Bill of Rights or Constitution. The SAAAAAME I tell you!

Oh, did you leave out a few key topics where they parties might not have aligning values? Gee, how about abortion, same-sex rights (and general tolerance / attitude towards gay folk), thoughts on military spending, healthcare for the poor? Because when I hear of some US politician denying evolution and promoting intelligent design teaching in school, I would bet my life savings that there's an R next to their name in the ballot and not a D. One party (and their members) acknowledge climate change as real, and the other party has some members blaming hurricanes on gay marriage! You bet your fucking ass there's a difference between parties.

We get it. You're bitter about the two party system. Maybe the Libs or Greens are a much better choice for you, and get a somewhat passing grade in your hypothetical leadership, morals and ethics test - but they aren't getting elected any time soon. Maybe the D and R candidates both get a failing grade in your test (say 50%). But if one scores a 5% and the other gets a 40% grade, that's a huge difference - you don't get to say "Well they both get an F grade and both fail - therefore they're equally bad".

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

For all his Star Wars bluster, Reagan didn't involve the US in any major wars.

US foreign policy in his day was to supply arms to various terrorist organisations and states. Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, Iran, The Contras in Nicaragua, etc.

What happened to those US bought weapons?

Regan was certainly involved in foreign wars. Just in an immoral (sometimes illegal), underhand and stupid way.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[mcgrew]

It isn't the terrorists that will bring down the US...it will be our mismanagement of the economy, and I'm afraid we as a country put a few nails in the coffin with the re-election of this guy. Sad day for the US....

I don't see it. It took Bush's economic policies (tax cuts for the rich, getting our country attacked by not listening to the previous adminiatration or his own FBI agents), and starting two very expensive wars to nearly bankrupt us. Bush went into office with a balanced budget and a booming economy, and left it with the largest defecit in US history and the economy in ruins. You expected Obama to fix in four years what Bush took eight to destroy? Are you mad?

When your wife leaves you broke and in debt, what do you do? You cut spending as much as you can, get a second job if you have to (increased revenues), and guess what? You're going to go even deeper in dept before you can get out of it. You gotta eat. That's where the country is now.

Unemployment is lower than when Obama took office, there are far more jobs available than when he took office (Bush is still history's only President to leave office with fewer jobs than when he was elected), the Iraq war is over and Afghanistan winding down. Things are getting better, fool. But Romney's plan is to go back to the Bush policies. All I can say is WTF?!?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[digitalsolo]

...The Vietnam Conflict could have been won, without much doubt. However doing so would have been prohibitively expensive both in cost of lives and financially, as well as requiring an entirely different approach to fighting it. The way it was handled, it had a near 0 chance of success.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[rwv]

... that would be the appearance of safety. I don't think anything that has been done has actually added any significant safety.

Whether it's security theater or real safety improvements.... I'm waiting for a POTUS who has some attention directed at shrinking the gap highlighted by this List of countries by military expenditures page.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ddt]

Mitt's a devout Mormon. When they say they're gonna pray for someone, they mean it, and it's not a "fuck you". Prayer is basically self-programming. It means the supplicant is probably going to do things consciously or unconsciously to help out with whatever he's praying for.

I'm not religious, but the bitterness on here is really disheartening. It was an ugly process, but I think we came out the other side of these elections a lot better off on several fronts, and I'm a little more hopeful for the future.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Boronx]

"You've covered your ass, now watch this drive!" Bush didn't take Osama seriously.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Synerg1y]

Another discussion hosed...

Re:Tweedledee won !

[quax]

This looks and feels very different from the outside. In my lifetime Democratic presidents did not start wars unilaterally. Bosnia as well as Lybia was very much in line with what the European allies wanted from the US. On the other hand the Iraq war was a big "f*** you" to the rest of the world.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

You don't need to be racist to agree with Romney's policies.

you don't have to be, but it sure helps. others will accept you as one of their own if you wink and nod about 'the evil muslim in the white house'.

we all know what you guys mean. we can see thru the veneer.

stop the bullshit, ok? we call you on it and the country has also, just now, called you on it.

die out already, you backwards country hicks. let the rest of us move forward. a 'I got mine, fark you!' country is NOT what this was supposed to be! assholes. try learning what compassion and teamwork really means. I suspect you have been lucky in your life (so far) and so you like the winner-take-all concept.

I wish you bad luck in your life so that you will finally understand what a supportive country is all about. and I wish that you, somehow, don't benefit from it since you don't really want to contribute to it.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[heefeneet]

How about a hypothetical candidate who said "Scrap the TSA and kill everyone's firstborn", verses one who said "keep the status quo".

Which would you campgain for?

The first one. I dont have kids.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

every single romney supporter I've talked to has this 'wink wink, nudge nudge' air about them.

we all know.

and we all know that you don't like to be called on this.

but you know,

"a spade is still a spade."

(and no, that's NOT a racist comment, lol)

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

What do you call it when more than one bad person cooperates on an agenda that they both find mutually beneficial? Hint, it starts with a 'c'.

A corporation?

If there was more than one person in the government that knew of an imminent attack and deliberately obfuscated, delayed, or otherwise covered up the facts to allow it, since it would benefit certain interested parties financially, or with increased power over people, it was a conspiracy.

That's a big if.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ultranova]

Compare to the strike that took out Bin Laden. It happened so fast it was over before anyone (except Bin Laden) knew it had even started. It had no detrimental effect whatsoever on our combat readiness. Had we taken Saddam out that way, we wouldn't be in as big of a mess as we are now.

Or you might be in an even bigger mess. While neither Osama nor Saddam were nice people, the fact remains that one was a mere criminal and the other was a head of state. Sending assassins after heads of state, no matter how badly they might deserve it, is a pretty good way of making enemies of all of them, even more so than invading their countries.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

I'll do you one better, the modern US police force exists JUST to serve the rich and powerful.

its really hard to tell the diff between military and police these days.

woody guthrie and the weavers (music group) sang it many decades ago:

I've traveled round this country
From shore to shining shore
It really made me wonder
The things I heard and saw.

I saw the weary farmer
Plowing sod and loam
l heard the auction hammer
A knocking down his home

But the banks are made of marble
With a guard at every door
And the vaults are stuffed with silver
That the farmer sweated for

nothing has changed in this regard. the illusion that the military and police are there to 'protect and serve' is bullshit. they are there to protect the interests of the ruling class. period. they are not there for OUR well-being.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[GoogleShill]

You are (possibly intentionally) conflating debt and deficit. The deficit was about $1.4 trillion when Bush left office, part of this was combined Bush and Obama budgets, but that is aside from my point that if you push that out over 4 years you get the $5 trillion debt number, which you were comparing to the $1 trillion deficit.

What is important, however, is that the deficit has steadily dropped over the last 4 years to around $900 billion, so while Bush consistently increased the deficit every year he was in office, Obama has consistently decreased it. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

The invasion of Iraq had no more to do with rumours of (non-existant) WMDs than it had to do with 9/11. The invasion was simply the putting into action of the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) on Middle Eastern oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine#Oil

This was a Neo-Con agenda, and thus not one to which Gore would have subscribed. The idea that Gore would have invaded Iraq is ridiculous.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

Hating on banks is a bi-partisan issue, except among politicians.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

You don't need to be racist to agree with Romney's policies.

...but it helps.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[babblefrog]

Gay marriage? None of my fucking business.

This comes across as "I'm not being discriminated against, so I don't care if other people are". I don't know if that was your intent, or not.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

It's a good thing we have people like you who can see that everyone else is an evil racist and has no other motivation. You're so intelligent.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

Another Romney voter.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[mcgrew]

Dude, why do you feed an anonymous troll that sits at -1? The guy got every single "fact" wrong and he probably did it deliberately.

Example: he said "Gore would have continued running the country into the ground like Clinton before him" despite the fact that Clinton turned a recession into a boom, and took a huge defecit and left with a balanced budget. No way did he "run it into the ground." I voted against him when he first ran, but for his re-election because I'm not a retarded party guy like the troll you responded to and saw that he was doing a great job.

"Clinton utterly ignored them when they tried the trade center the first time." Again, a complete falsehood. The bombers were jailed and Clinton was vigilant to the point of paranoia, warned Bush, who ignored all the warnings.

So now you have me feeding him, too. Thanks, buddy.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fm6]

How would you have won? Invade North Vietnam? Even assuming that didn't start WW III (imagine what we would have done if the Soviets had invaded one of our satellites) all that would have done is extended the guerrilla war that was already bleeding us dry.

The closest we could ever come to a victory in Vietnam is to get the Saigon regime strong enough to hold off the other side without 500,000 Americans to back them up. That's what Nixon tried to do. He gave them one of the biggest air forces on the planet and trained and equipped an ample army. But the Republic of Vietnam was just a cadre of corrupt people who thought that the country was still a French colony and who had no support in the countryside. (And dropping more bombs on that countryside than we dropped on Germany during WWII did nothing to enhance their popularity.) As soon the last American left, South Vietnam collapsed with a speed that shocked even Hanoi.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

You base laws on what the society generally believes (democracy) rather than on the imagined rules of a mythical character.

If the majority of people don't think it should be illegal to say "God's an arsehole" then it shouldn't be illegal, despite what people think the bible or the koran says.

Hopefully, given yesterday's votes, recreational use of cannabis will become legal in two states. Because the majority of people in those states think it should be. That's moral relativism applied to lawmaking.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Anonymous Coward]

My god you really drank the Democrat kool-aid here. The economy tanked because

1) Sub Prime mortgages finally caught up with the banks who were told/forced to give loans out to people who normally wouldn't qualify. Forced by Congress (before Bush)
2) Then the deriative fiasco where the banks, insurance companies, etc tried to trade-off these bad loans.
These weren't Bush policies. Sorry. Both Bush and McCain tried to get the Democratically controlled Congress to look at both of the above because they were worried what might (and did happened). But the Congress failed to do anything about it. Todd/Frank said there was nothing to worry about. The biggest fraud is that the financial collapse was caused by President Bush. Todd/Frank are the two keys guys that should be arrested for the financial fiasco.

Tax cuts for rich - hmmmm these tax cuts were sustained by Democrat controlled Congress as well.
Getting our country by not listening to previous administration: I love this one. One of the contributing factors to go into Iraq was because the previous administration said that they did have WMDs. Also now it is Bush's fault that the 911 hijackers struck WTC and Pentagon. Please...... So in one instance you fault him not listening to prevous adminstration and another for listening to the previous administration. Maybe you are one of those 9/11 truthers who think that Bush staged the whole thing. They belong with birther nut jobs.

Also wars are not detriments to an economy even wars that we borrowed money for. In fact it is quite the opposite. Wars are one of the top economic growers (not saying polictically or morally that they are correct - just the economic effect).

Unemployment is lower???? Really... You do know that number is only people who claiming unemployment benefits right....You do know that millions of people have given up on looking. What you really need to look at is the total number of people working. The work force size is down millions. Unemployment is really around 10% to 15% depending on area.

I was no Bush fan and not a Romney fan, but his policies did not screw up the economy.

Keep on drinking the Kool-aid and let's keep on doing what Obama is doing and maybe we can be like Greece someday. Yeah!!!

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cayenne8]

Bush went into office with a balanced budget and a booming economy, and left it with the largest defecit in US history and the economy in ruins. You expected Obama to fix in four years what Bush took eight to destroy? Are you mad?

Actually, not entirely true.

The economy was in a bit of a downslide when Bush took office, due in part to the dotcom bubble bursting at the end of the Clinton era.

And I'd dare say, that Obama has done as much to ruing the economy, running up the deficit in his four years, that almost doubles everything prior to him (Bush included).

If Obama keeps pushing us the same in the next 4 years as was done the previous ones....well, the US will be looking a great deal like Greece I fear....

We're getting dangerously close to the fiscal edge.

Seriously too..unemployment lower? More jobs?

Where are you getting those numbers?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Hatta]

That doesn't mean there are no grand conspiracies. That's just an explanation of how grand conspiracies actually happen.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Hatta]

What do you call it when more than one bad person cooperates on an agenda that they both find mutually beneficial? Hint, it starts with a 'c'.

Corporation?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

if you're referring to me, typing caps is painful (carpal...)

but thanks for judging me based on stupid criteria. attack the typing style instead of the message. niiiiice.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Hatta]

It's more likely to be the banks stealing money from people. The true enemies of global peace and freedom are entities like Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs deliberately sunk the Greek economy and profited from it. They'll do the same to anywhere they can.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ultranova]

america is sad, like that. half of us are racists and won't admit it. they hide behind 'the businessman can fix our jerbs!' but its really what everyone in the room sees and just won't call out by name.

Because obviously, everyone who didn't vote for the black guy did so because he was black. Not because they disagree with his policies or agree with other candidate's policies, it's all because he's black. If they've opposed policies like his in the past, it was not the reason they voted against him now, no; it was because he was black.

If half of Americans weren't so damn racist, the Republican party would had spontaneously disbanded and Obama would had gotten 101% of the vote, and you know why? Because he's a magic negro. If those darn Ku Klux Klan grand wizards wouldn't had counteracted his nigger voodoo, he would had enchanted - wait, what was your argument again?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

Your race baiting statement is not accurate

posted by an AC.

yeah, I'll respond to your derp. uhuh. please post as non-AC first, though.

or, do you have something to hide, maybe? WHY post as AC? I never understood that. there are no real names here. why, are you ashamed of your views?

oh right. I just answered my own question.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TheGratefulNet]

The guy is bad news period.

your side really has talked itself into believing that.

sad.

fortunately, the rest of the country has (just barely) countered your derp.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[tompaulco]

the republicans are butt-hurt about a black guy winning.
Right, because there weren't any black folks that voted Obama simply because he was black. Yeah, some white folks are pretty intolerant, but you want to find a REAL racist? Find yourself a minority.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

So your position is that invading the country, bombing it back to the stone age and THEN killing it's leader is LESS problematic than a quick surgical strike in the capital that 'just happens' to kill the leader?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[tompaulco]

He might even have won if he wasn't a mormon, there are just too many christian conservatives who consider Romney a heretic.
On the other hand, most of the Christian conservatives I know voted for Romney because although he claims to be a Mormon, he supports Christian platforms, whereas Obama, although he claims to be a Christian, does not support Christian platforms.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[tompaulco]

Of course you have to weigh the whole platform. I don't think anybody is arguing that one plank was enough to get their support. Why do you think the race was so close? Obama had some things people were in favor of and some that they weren't. Same with Romney. There is not one candidate for me that meets all of my criteria, and I would have thrown both of them out and asked for new candidates if it was in my power to do so. In fact, 94 million people voted for neither candidate, whereas only about 60 million voted for the winning candidate, so it is clear that the country wants neither of them.
My perfect candidate would support small business, would endorse a fair tax system that doesn't kill the middle class, would slash the military budget, would completely nix the TSA, would slash the entitlement programs, would in fact slash government down to a shoestring budget, would properly fund education, would properly fund infrastructure, would enforce the notion that government cannot establish a state religion, and would enforce the constitutional rights that have already been outlined in the constitution and the bill of rights, and not allow the SCOTUS to simply put the word "not" in front of sentences in the constitution that they don't like.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

We did for the first 150 years of the nation.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cheekyjohnson]

You seem to believe that wanting to prevent that is a bug, not a feature

No, I seem to believe that things such as warrantless government surveillance, the Patriot Act, and the TSA shouldn't exist because I believe freedom is far more important than safety. It has nothing to do with being indifferent about a small amount of deaths.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cheekyjohnson]

That's true, but I like to make the point that I believe freedoms to be far more important even if what they're giving us actually does make us safer.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

Favors gay rights
And less gay friendly

What did they say they'd do? Did Obama introduce legislation to reaffirm the Full Faith and Credit clause, which would effectively legalize gay marriage by forcing states to adhere to the Constitution?

Did he introduce legislation to add sexual preference to the protected classes?

No, he supports gay rights only in theory. Mitt may personally hate gays, but he hasn't said anything specific he'd do against them. So, from where I sit, their "stance" (as in what they'd do about it) is identical.

You are confusing differences between the "men" vs differences between the parties.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[HiThere]

I have, indeed, heard that unemployment is down. I think what that means is that more people have been unemployed for a long enough time that they are no longer counted.

OTOH, face it, no matter WHO gets elected, unemployment is going to be continually increasing over the next decade. Because automation is increasing. Even China is experiencing job loss to automation, because robots are cheaper than people.

We need a very different answer. The best one I've come up with is free college education combined with a linear income tax, and no exemptions. Note that a linear tax can easily be adjusted so that persons making below some particular amount receive money rather than paying it. And at every step along the way you're better off if you earn more money. It goes:
y = mx + b
y is the tax owed. x is the income. m is the tax rate. b is the location where you've decided the tax should intersect the y axis. If b is negative then mx abs(b) you get money back instead of paying.

Perhaps the college should also supply the official text books for free. And any needed lab equipment.

Unfortunately, this must be a federal program, because currently the feds are taking most of the tax money, so no state can afford to implement it. (I want to say taking and squandering, but many people would disagree with me over just which programs constitute squandering.)

Still, even with this proposed approach, unemployment is going to be skyrocketing over the next decade...unless going to college is reclassified as having a job, of course. But even then, lots of people wouldn't qualify with the best intentions in the world. (Many go through their teens oblivious to the long term effects on their life. Sometimes reasonably, as among some sub-groups of the population they can't expect to have much of one, no matter what they do.)

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

Who's the racist again?

Believing everyone to be a racist isn't racist. So your attempt to deflect the "insult" missed.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[HiThere]

Given Obama's first term, it will amaze me if he doesn't make things worse. I may feel that Romney would have been an even worse choice, but that doesn't make Obama a good one. His first term was so bad that I literally could not force myself to vote for him this time. So I voted Green...the candidate did not convince me that she was competent for the office, but then neither did any of the other candidates. I know she wouldn't have been able to get anything through Congress, but given what the Democrats and the Republicans were able to agree on, not getting anything through Congress might be an improvement.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

And idiots like you are the reason we have a 2-party system. There should be only one issue. The deficit. Everything else can be solved in 4 or 16 years. If the deficit continues as it has the last 12 years for the next 4 years, then it's possible that it would end up unsolvable. And both parties have the same stance on the deficit (deficit, what deficit? Can you raise the debt cap again?).

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ultranova]

So your position is that invading the country, bombing it back to the stone age and THEN killing it's leader is LESS problematic than a quick surgical strike in the capital that 'just happens' to kill the leader?

If by "less problematic" you mean "less likely to get the other leaders regard you as a common enemy", then yes. It's not less evil, of course, but then again, that was not the question.

Also note that simply assasinating Saddam would not had removed his inner circle from power, any more than Stalin dying dislodged the Communist Party from Soviet Russia. So, for the stated - or the likely real - purposes of the Iraq War the war really was the only option.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

Those are issues where the parties agree to disagree, but in practice, I honestly don't see much functional difference.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

Then I would have to say that striking like a little girl is apparently quite effective and costs a lot less American dollars and American live. It looks like a good option.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[nibbles2004]

The Greek economy collapsed because it didn't do austerity, they have massive tax evasion, bribes and corruption are the norm and they pay inflated wages to public service workers
Why the economy in Greece is down the pan, is no one, the IMF, the EU has any faith in the politics or infrastructure of Greece, if Greece had been serious and made serious cut's, tackled Tax Evasion, then the world would off been more willing to play ball.
The whole austerity question, is like a gambler who's down, do they cut there lose's or hope to make good by putting more money on the table. In short Austerity is the least worse option, the countries more serious about Austerity have tended to retain higher credit rating's hence cheaper credit when suitable in the future.
In the 30's government's could roll out big infrastructure project's like highway's, rail, ports to boost the economy, they don't have that option now to the same extent.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Gadget_Guy]

Dude, why do you feed an anonymous troll that sits at -1? The guy got every single "fact" wrong and he probably did it deliberately.

Because it wasn't at -1 when I replied. There are plenty of people around who still believe what the OP was saying, so I am not so sure that you can say with certainty that he was deliberately being a troll.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[HiThere]

I think you're believing self-promoting government figures.

FWIW, yes it's gotten safer. This is what you EXPECT from an aging population. It hasn't gotten safer at the rate one should expect. So, yes, something isn't working.

OTOH, I don't believe that currently safety is the major problem. The major problem is "unemployment". By this I don't mean people not having jobs as traditionally defined, because more and more those jobs are going away as automation increases. But without a job people don't have any way to have a decent life. So automation is making a few people extremely rich (not wealthy), and driving more and more to desperation.

Please understand, it's not that automation is, per se, a bad thing. It isn't. But the social implementation of how to deal with it is attrocious, to be kind about it. If this is not addressed fairly quickly, I expect we will experience violent upheaval fairly soon. Say, within the decade, though the timing is a guess. I suspect this is why various police departments are getting drones, and I'm certain it's seen as one of the benefits of the robotic soldiers.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[mcgrew]

If the "job creators" want to invest in American jobs, then they won't be taxed on their money hoarding.

I simply don't understand why people fall for the trickle down fairy bullshit when math and history say it's bullshit, to say nothing of logic and reason itself (a sad not on some slashdotters). I don't care how much you lower a restaraunt owner's taxes, he's not going to hire more cooks and wait staff unless business is so good he needs more staff. Conversely, if an equipment manufacturer is selling his gizmos faster than he can make them, no amount of taxation is going to keep him from hiring. Taxes aren't part of the equation at all. That's the math part.

The history part is that there has never been any correlation between taxes on the rich and the economy in history.

I'd also like to know why the tea party is bitching about federal taxes when they're lower than they've been since Truman? And why they never bitched about the deficit until Obama was elected?

Somebody's pulling the wool over a lot of stupid poor and middle class fools' eyes.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[tbannist]

Is it a quota thing or is it a "because the person is [fill in the blank] we gotta pay them higher than what the person is worth"?

It's a "you can't pay someone with breasts 60% of what you pay someone without breasts for doing the exact same job" thing*.

It not as common as it used to be, but there's still a pay gap in some areas.

We can no longer offer people higher-than-usual pay just because that person happens to be [fill in the blank].

Actually the law was supposed to prevent people from being paid less-than-usual pay because the happened to be born with "the wrong equipment".

* Excluding acceptable reasons for the discrepency like seniority, skills, or experience.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[strikethree]

You are correct in your assessment. There was some lying going on, but isn't there always? The parent poster is indeed crazy with the conspiracy theories.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sconeu]

OK, Asshat.

It has nothing to do with shoes, per se. It has to do with *RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTION*. On both counts. I just used those as examples.

The TSA, behaving as it does, is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Copyright, as is, is a clear violation of the copyright clause -- It neither promotes the sciences and useful arts, nor is it for a limited time.

Those were simply examples.

Now to your points. Health care reform, to be honest, I'd almost argue that it's not in the federal purview, except that it does fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause (many people cross state lines to obtain healthcare). As a matter of fact, I think Obamacare is probably not bad.

Not fighting pointless wars is irrelevant the argument... Afghanistan was authorized by Congress, not sure about Iraq. Iraq may have been illegal under the Constitution, but Afghanistan wasn't. Note that Obama didn't put us in Iraq, and but the pullout was under his watch.

Again, the items I listed were examples of disrespect for the Constitution, not "Oh, I wantz fr33 w4r3Z!!!!"

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Burning1]

When Obama took office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes. Otherwise you risk making things worse.

Just a point: The top 5% of this country are most certainly not in a recession.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ski9826]

Oh, really? How about when Clinton relaxed the lending restrictions on banks allowing them to make questionable and fiscally irresponsible loans? That was the beginning of the end. They all played a part in this, but don't blow hot air up my ass.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

Without Saddam, the inner circle would have been too busy playing king of the mountain to cause us trouble for a while.

Meanwhile, 10 years in Iraq doesn't seem to have done much to enhance our reputation with the Muslim world. The other leaders already saw us as a common enemy. With a surgical strike, the people of those countries might have seen us as a potential friend, but with a destructive war, we are seen as being as bad or worse than a bad government.

Of course, by the time we invaded Iraq (again), neither it nor Saddam were actually a credible threat to us.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[steelfood]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Republican party if the son of Cuban immigrants is their candidate for President.

Did you forget Herman Cain already? Or before him, Colin Powell (who refused to run for the same, very specific reason)?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[sjames]

Exactly.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cayenne8]

We need a very different answer. The best one I've come up with is free college education combined with a linear income tax, and no exemptions. Note that a linear tax can easily be adjusted so that persons making below some particular amount receive money rather than paying it. And at every step along the way you're better off if you earn more money. It goes: y = mx + b y is the tax owed. x is the income. m is the tax rate. b is the location where you've decided the tax should intersect the y axis. If b is negative then mx abs(b) you get money back instead of paying.

Why in the world should ANYONE get money back, rather than pay in their fair share?

That's a problem we currently have and desperately need to get rid of....

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Solandri]

Bush went into office with a balanced budget and a booming economy, and left it with the largest defecit in US history and the economy in ruins.

The tech bubble actually burst 8 months before Bush won the election. So the economy was already set to crash before he ever got into office.

The balanced budget under Clinton was largely attributable to the bubble. The spending cuts in particular are mostly attributable to Newt and the Republicans who swept into power in 1994. Still, spending under Clinton never actually fell below the historical average for tax revenue - it was the spike in revenue due to the tech bubble which turned it into a balanced budget. In fact, if you look at the numbers behind the red line, you'll find Bush's budgets over 8 years actually spent slightly less on average (as percent of GDP) than Clinton's budgets for 8 years.

Bush did plenty of stupid things himself (the stupid tax cuts and the Iraq war). But the narrative that everything bad was his fault simply isn't true.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

You sound like a fucking psychopath that believes he can, and should, control other people's behavior and bodies because of what some mythical man in the sky allegedly said through a book.

A higher purpose for humanity? Fucking wank me. You just want to enforce your particular, albeit popular, interpretations of the bible as law, no different than any Taliban extremist.

Separation of church and state, mother fucker. It's important.

As long as it is part of that woman's body, SHE gets to decide what to do with the fetus, baby, wonderful-opportunity-from-the-jesus, etc. That's the only sane way you can run a society.

People, such as yourself, that suffer from this righteous disease that allows you to justify your lust for power over other people are a danger to a free society.

That's why that nutbag lost. All the swing voters that could have been persuaded, were put off (immensely) by his religious bigotry and need to force feed religion down our throats.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[disambiguated]

These guys are indifferent to nearly everything.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[jahudabudy]

There should be only one issue. The deficit.

Oddly enough, there are those of us that think life is about more than money. Yes, money (and by extension the deficit) is very important. It's just not the only (or even most important) thing. Why should it be the only thing I care about?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Draknor]

I really wish more American citizens were as informed as you are.

All the campaign stump speeches are empty words, considering that the President of the United States can't actually do ANYTHING they claim in those speeches -- he (or hopefully one day a "she") can only enforce the laws that Congress passes.

(Ok, he can do a LITTLE more -- administrative orders, military decisions, etc, but he really doesn't have THAT much autonomy in what gets done, especially big stuff like health care & the economy & taxes).

So unless the Republicans decide to play ball & actually work with the Democrats these next 2-4 years, I don't know that we'll really see much change in the next 2-4 years, considering the Congressional makeup didn't really change.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

Because, left too long, and the economy will collapse. The kind of post-apocalyptic collapse that you only see in zombie movies and video games. It's not that I'm worried about *my* money, but that a failed economy falling into wars between the states for oil sands and robber barrens proxying for foreign interests (the PA Dutch team up with Germany, and upstate NY teams up with France, so France and Germany hold a proxy war over Euro debt on US soil type issues we've done before in the 1800s). The other choice is 40 years of stagflation, which Japan chose, but Americans don't have the patience or discipline for that, so it would become a civil war.

Yes, I'm saying that if the debt gets to 2x GDP, there will be a civil war in the US. I'm not worring about money. It's not about taxes. It's about preventing 100,000,000 (or more) deaths. The fun thing about that math is that we don't even need to grow the debt for that to happen, just shrink the GDP and it'll have the same effect.

So no, the deficit isn't about money. It's about governmental stability and safety for all. What, you hate being safe from Mad Max style breakdowns?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MooseMiester]

"You cut spending as much as you can," Under the current Administration, that would be zero. By not passing a budget, spending is at 2008 levels despite a huge drop in revenue. This has never happened before - no President has ignored this responsibility, ever. Your argument is based on speeches, not facts. And that is the problem. Saying you care about the deficit - and rejecting the ideas of your own deficit reduction committee - means you don't care about the deficit. Duh. Unemployment is lower than when Obama took office by one tenth of a percent. Wow,

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Bigby]

Obama has all the power he could ever want/need in order to curtail military expenditures. He could bring troops out of 100+ countries immediately. I am not sure, but I think he could sell the bases to the host country too. He could then use that military, at a far less cost, as a corp of engineers. Have them build up local infrastructure and defenses.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Bigby]

I can't believe someone is calling the GOP (as a group) racist, yet 94% of black people voted for the black candidate. Who's racist?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MooseMiester]

You're ignoring the cold hard reality that the Obama administration has not passed a budget, at all, the entire time they have been in power. The Democrats have simply spent, spent, and spent while TALKING about all the great things they believe. Yes, we are still running off the 2008 budget revenue assumptions. The 2008 budget was based on 2008 revenue projections. Guess what's happened since 2008? Revenue has gone down. That's one of the big reasons the deficit is so large. Until the Democrats actually pass a budget, all talk by all Democrats about fiscal matters is complete and utter BS.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Magius_AR]

Bush's economic policies (tax cuts for the rich, getting our country attacked by not listening to the previous adminiatration or his own FBI agents), and starting two very expensive wars to nearly bankrupt us.

Tax cuts that Obama extended. And war costs that are far smaller than the legislation Obama passed (bailouts, stimulus, healthcare).

Bush went into office with a balanced budget and a booming economy

Booming? Are you nuts? The 9/11 terrorist attacks sparked a mini recession in '01 at the start of Bush's term. In his second term, housing prices peaked in '06 and we were in a recession by late '07. At best, those 8 years were a period of mediocre economic activity (~2% average GDP growth per year, if that): http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth+chart#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=973573200000&tend=1320642000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

left it with the largest defecit in US history and the economy in ruins

A deficit that Obama continued to extend...

Unemployment is lower than when Obama took office

By .1%??? Man you have low standards for 4 years of action and trillions of dollars of deficit spending. 4 years! Hell, at some point you have to stop blaming Bush. Or will Obama get a free pass for the next four years of economic blundering as well? What are you going to blame it on this time? Europe? China?

Things are getting better, fool.

When the country is at rock bottom, it isn't very hard to see "improvement". I'm sorry, but I have higher standards. This recovery is the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Magius_AR]

You don't need to be racist to agree with Romney's policies.

you don't have to be, but it sure helps.

An interesting view, considering the voting demographic turnout:
93% of the African American vote went to Obama
73% of the Latino vote went to Obama
59% of the White vote went to Romney

Clearly the white people are the racist ones...

Re:Tweedledee won !

[IrquiM]

Well... not the right guy - he's missing something when it comes to ignoring the other side, but it's far better than the alternative.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Richy_T]

40+ years is less than ten presidencies ago by definition. Exactly how many presidents are needed for a "tend" generalization? 2? 3?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Magius_AR]

Why should it be the only thing I care about?

In life, it shouldn't be. In government, it most certainly should be. Money drives this country. It pays for all the sweet social programs that people so desperately need. To some extent it drives the job production that grows the country. Hell, ask Zimbabwe how rampant inflation has affected their country. Not saying it's going to be like that here, but ignoring the deficit could be very very painful to everyone in lots of different aspects of your life. When we don't have the money to pay for SS or Medicare, for instance, because we ignored the problem for too long -- that kind of thing will hit the country like a Mach truck.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Magius_AR]

One fought for equal pay for women, the other fought against it.

That's one way to see it. Another way is that one man fought for special treatment sexism while the other wanted equal treatment for everyone. Potato, potahto.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ubermiester]

We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.

The difference is in the history and direction of the subsidies you include in your equation. Their current vectors.

I understand that because food and fuel are arguably in the same range in terms of necessity and there are giant corporations on both sides, it is easy to make them appear equivalent.

The banks are a special case here wherein they are accused of and in many cases proven to have shot themselves directly in the foot. And when they can't perform their function because their too busy bleeding to death. Therefore the lack of any alternative system of currency exchange - aside from pigs and bales of wheat - the feds had no choice but to stop the bleeding and buy them all Segways so they could go about their business.

They got away with murder and the motto has been "never again" ever since. I agree.

The oil companies are a different story. Because of a century of not only subsidies but the entire US military to back them up, they have established themselves as the most profitable firms on the planet. Bar none (except Apple, which is really astounding BTW).

On the other side of your equation you have farm subsidies and Hollywood. Now I'm not sure what you mean about Hollywood, but I'm fairly sure whatever it is its 0.01% of the bank bailout and aircraft carriers dont protect the honey-wagons on a location shoot.

I also agree that farm subsidies are out of control. But precisely because farming is big business, you can't suddenly choke off millions of dollars of what is effectively "income" and not expect them to slash costs. Which would inevitably reduce the quality and quantity of what they produce. You know, bread and stuff.

Now when someone in power has the cajones to go after these subsidies in a rational way, I will support them even if they are attacked relentlessly by Karl Rove's PAC. But until then we have bigger fish to fry.

Look, as a share of what we spend, there is no comparison. And as outrageous injustices go, hedging with swaps has already written its own chapter in the history books and oil itself may well be humanity's undoing.

Basically, I dont question the numerators in your equation. It's a basic 1-1. But the denominators that are waaaaay off.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Qwertie]

Oooh, they finally managed to kill one man half way around the world from me! I feel so much safer now that Bin Laden is gone... the chance of dying from a terrorist attack may have been well below 0.00001% before but... I bet it's down to, like, half of that now!

Say... how much did it cost to wage the war that killed this one man?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MachineShedFred]

It may not be a racist comment, but it sure is an ignorant one.

And thanks for lumping me in with Romney supporters too. Never mind that I voted for Obama, in Hamilton County, Ohio - the swing county of the swing state that blocked Romney's chances.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[gtbritishskull]

The House of Representatives controls the purse strings and it has been controlled by Republicans for the past 2 years. Have we passed a budget in that time? And why do you think we should trust republicans on fiscal matters. Don't forget that they gave us $5 trillion in debt under Bush when there wasn't a recession. And don't forget Romney's (who doesn't matter now, but still) "I will tell you the details of my plan after I get elected". If you want to argue that they all suck, then I probably can't argue with you. But, you seem to be arguing that Republicans are better and I don't know of many FACTS that back up that perception. Just out-dated stereotypes.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Richy_T]

you can easily spot topics where the parties differ significantly,

You sure can. But it's the areas where they fail to differ that offer the most insight into what's going on.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[fm6]

You say it's about respecting the constitution, but you only seem to care about Constitutional issues when they inconvenience you. I don't like security theater or retroactive copyright either, but I don't make them sole determinant of who I'll vote for. There are bigger issues.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

I know what and why. The statement was about the differences between the parties, not the reasons behind the differences. Try reading slower, you might read more.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

The difference is tiny on the scale of political spectrum. It's like comparing two houses with identical floor plans and picking the one with the blue trim over the green trim and insisting that it's a massive difference. And the republicans don't just hate women, they also hate gays foreigners and poor people.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

Entitlements? People generally mean medicare and social security when they say that derogatively. And you do realize that if we eliminated those entitlements and the taxes ear-marked for them, the deficit would increase, not decrease? And AARP generally is in bed with the Republicans as much as the Democrats, and Romney committed to not touching current SS payouts. And SS is about the same as DoD books much of DoD is hidden under other programs to help the cost look smaller. And the interest on the debt is about 10% of the budget. That's interest on money we aren't paying back. And the interest is growing. And don't forget that discretionary is about 20%. That's the pork. Tweaks to SS, medicare and Obamacare would result in cuts to costs and improvements to benefits. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, having a politician willing to make the hard choices would be a good thing. Wouldn't you like a cheaper government?

The government never asserted there was an SS trust fund, other than on paper to reflect the tax cut you got when SS was running a surplus. Nobody complained about that accounting until it looked like SS might run a deficit.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Tough Love]

...war costs that are far smaller than the legislation Obama passed...

Oh I don't know about that. The costs of intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is in the $3-4 trillion range, roughly similar to the financial intervention that arguably save the world from a second Great Depression. And I just don't buy the platitude that war is good for the economy. Look what war did to Russia versus what industriously pumping out their oil does for them today. Mind you... selling war materiel to foreign combatants, yes, that's great for the economy. Working out the associated morality issues is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Lemmy Caution]

This was the election where the simmering misogyny - there's no other word for it - of the Republican base caught up with it. I'm not exactly a hardcore feminist - I even do agree with some of the men's rights issues (in things like custody battles, etc.) but characters like Akins and Mourdock set a tone that no one really sought to repudiate. Opposing the equal pay legislation is another.

The things that you see as respect for law - natural (abortion, contraception) or Federal (immigration) is seen, somewhat rightly, as a smokescreen for nativism and cultural chauvinism and a nostalgia for the dominance of men. When you see the videos of Romney backers talking about having lost "our" America, complaining about the loss of a white majority, it becomes more and more obvious.

The Republican party is paying the cost of the Southern strategy. It's become the party of the white south, of the Confederacy. It will have to reinvent itself to remain relevant. And it will have to realize that the perception that it has become the party of misogyny and lingering racism is not without basis.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Lemmy Caution]

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/same-sex-marriage/

He has set himself up on the wrong side of history. This is another moment in which the old Republican strategy has bit them on the ass. Gay marriage used to be used by Republicans to divide Democrats. Now it's a wedge issue in the other direction.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Lemmy Caution]

SCOTUS / Roe V. Wade is one reason why so many women voted for Obama.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[swalve]

He could wipe out the whole pentagon budget and still not counteract the bush tax cuts.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[EdIII]

Try some reading comprehension.

Most religions believe the end of the world is nigh, not just the Mayan calendar stuff. Since a very large number of people identify themselves as belonging to religions that have those beliefs, it might not be a great idea to have a religious extremist in office during the "end times".

Re:Tweedledee won !

[elfprince13]

Obama still tried to keep us there longer, and only withdraw when Iraq refused legal immunity for US troops.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure you could say Carter 'took on' Iran, more like 'Iran forced him to pay attention.'

Re:Tweedledee won !

[deanklear]

Gay rights and reproductive rights are safe. They are the emotional platforms needed to rally the hysterical voters against the opposing candidate. They are brought up in every campaign and are very rarely acted on. The candidates need to save them for the next election because they are the only actual differences between the parties. (But the fact that they are never acted on means they can't really be counted as differences.)

So when Romney says that he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and cut funding to Planned Parenthood, I'm supposed to vote for him because he is a liar and won't do anything? Are we voting for the guy most willing to be unethical?

Obama didn't end any wars that weren't already set to end. And he started the Libyan thing. And he's been ramping up aggression towards Iran. Romney may invade Iran sooner than Obama, but they'd both get us there eventually.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Yes, there are foreign policy problems with the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, Romney thinks the greatest threat to our country is Russia. Are you going to pick questionable foreign policy, or a foreign policy based on complete ignorance of foreign policy itself? The Obama Administration has backed Israel down from rash action in Iran, and as our client military state, Israel has little choice but to listen.

Reforming heath care is hardly a differentiating factor. Obamacare is Romneycare. It's the exact same thing. Obamacare isn't a single payer system, it's a mandate that everyone must do business with a cartel of for-profit insurance companies. Romney's just pissed that Obama didn't go too far enough.

Romneycare is the compromise proposed by Republicans in the late 90s when Clinton attempted to establish a single payer system. Obamacare has similarities, which were a compromise, but you didn't hear any kudos from the Republicans because the GOP establishment (not the voters) does not base policy on how well it helps working and middle class Americans. They base their policy on how much power it gives them to cut taxes for themselves and relax business regulations for their friends. And in this case, to their bizarre obsession with making things up about Obama. I'm so glad Mitch McConnel failed miserably at his goal of making Obama a one term president. I hope it sticks in his craw for the rest of his life for wasting taxpayer money and time on such a petty personal vendetta.

Anyway, that's why the financial service sector took a dive today -- they know with a second term and Elizabeth Warren taking office, the hammer will fall on all of the unethical corporate business practices that have been ruining our economy since 1980. I doubt Obama will go as far as I want him to go in punishing white collar criminals, but if Romney had been elected, they would have thrown a three day coke bender in every penthouse office in Manhattan in celebration of more free money.

I have no idea where your information comes from, but you should probably stop reading whatever is filling your head with nonsense. If you find yourself avoiding WikiPedia and every news source except for Drudge and Fox, you have only yourself to blame for constructing a fantasy world that never punishes you for being ignorant of the facts.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[scotch]

No, he supports gay rights only in theory. .

Dear person living under a rock. The Obama administration:

• Repealed DADT
• Ended legal defense of DOMA
• Signed hate crime legislation covering sexual orientation
• Some more lesser things.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Jane Q. Public]

"In a very safe country, where the large majority of people die from diseases (mostly at old age), the appearance of safety is as important as the real safety."

B.S.

That is the formula for "decadence", and a solid sign of decline.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ceoyoyo]

That's a pretty generous definition of moral relativism. I suppose it's close to the one religious extremists use though. It's also unsupported by history, and logic. Our basic legal code, things like thou shalt not murder, etc., predate current religious texts.

Moral relativism, at it's core, is the position that morals are subjective, and therefore can vary. If you and I take incompatible moral viewpoints that's okay. It doesn't matter where those morals come from. If you think morals should come from holy books, but you're okay with different religions following different moral codes, you're a relativist.

On the other hand, if you think there are objective, universal (or at least somewhat so) morals, then you're not a relativist. Those morals can be based on religion, a belief that we're all instilled with the same core moral beliefs (in which case democracy works just fine), evolutionary arguments (it's not a survival advantage for a social animal to murder, for example), or anything else.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[_KiTA_]

Oooh, they finally managed to kill one man half way around the world from me! I feel so much safer now that Bin Laden is gone... the chance of dying from a terrorist attack may have been well below 0.00001% before but... I bet it's down to, like, half of that now!

Say... how much did it cost to wage the war that killed this one man?

Almost 25% of what Bush's tax giveaway to the rich cost. Although that one's ongoing.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[TranquilVoid]

Not sure exactly what you're saying here, that without bank and oil subsidies you would be paying those prices? But then how do you "take pizza and a movie" which would presumably be more expensive with bank/oil subsidised?

Anyhow, there are legitimate food security reasons for a country to subsidise its own farmers. Oil subsidies tend to be to placate consumers which makes them fundamentally different. Hollywood and banking, just basic corruption.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[stymy]

Something similar has happened in Canada. Previously, minorities used to vote for the Liberals or the NDP. However, now they are starting to vote Conservative instead. The truth is, most immigrants are actually very conservative, compared to the population of Canada at least, and so as long as the right-wing makes sure to not be racist in any way, they should be able to get the minority and immigrant vote.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Magius_AR]

The costs of intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is in the $3-4 trillion range, roughly similar to the financial intervention that arguably save the world from a second Great Depression

Well you can't just lump the Pakistan war in with Bush's wars and attribute the total cost to Bush. And if you follow the link to the page where they calculate those figures, it's a bit disingenuous with the caluclations. "Interest on Pentagon War Appropriations", for instance -- am I allowed to use "Interest on Social Security/Medicare" when calculating the total cost of those programs? And attributing expansions in the Pentagon non-war base budget as war costs? Really?

Bush's wars probably cost a sum total of 2, maybe 3 trillion. And that's over a 10 year period (or like 200-300 billion a year). Compare that to the 700 billion stimulus or the 700 billion TARP or the ~2 trillion we spend in social services every year. Ultimately, the wars, although costly, were not the primary driver of our deficit. Hell, even the Bush tax cuts were more of a cost sink than the wars.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Stuarticus]

Remember next time you're watching a film and eating pizza rolls that you could have been waiting in a bank queue drinking diesel.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Stuarticus]

Who was it that crashed the global economy stealing money from European pension funds with their shitty mortgage deals?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[BasilBrush]

Yes, I know what moral relativism is. The question is how does it, or should it, relate to law.

things like thou shalt not murder, etc., predate current religious texts.

Careful use of the word "current" there. In fact laws against murder date from time immemorial. We don't know for sure how or where they came about.

But even with murder, the edge cases are relative. Assisted suicide, killing in war, abortion, the death penalty. Some people will class these as murder, and some will think they are moral actions. And depending where in the world you are they variously legal or illegal.

Those morals can be based on religion, a belief that we're all instilled with the same core moral beliefs (in which case democracy works just fine), evolutionary arguments (it's not a survival advantage for a social animal to murder, for example), or anything else.

They could be. But by far the biggest class of moral absolutists are the religious who think the absolute is contained in their choice of religious text.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[joocemann]

There is mounds of research that sows that, across the board, controlling for all other factors including merit, a woman is paid significantly less.

If you don't know, now you know. You can quit sounding like an ass with this 'merit' and 'overpay' nonsense. Fixing underpayment is not overpayment.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[joocemann]

The fight to make a imbalanced treament of women 'equal' is only sexist if you pretend the problem it solves is not sexist. It solves a problem caused by sexism and enforces equality.

You are wrong.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[ganjadude]

not taking money from someone != giving the rich money. Unless you dont believe you own any money and the government gives you an allowance.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[HiThere]

I think you have some misconceptions about what money is. But if you want nobody to get money back, just set the intercept at 0, and deal with the resulting social unrest some other way. Expect a violent revolution.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[tedgyz]

Indeed. This quote from Ike was insightful 50 years ago:

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:Tweedledee won !

[joocemann]

Please learn from scholar.google.com instead of foxnews.com. Your talking point is not factual.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[dbIII]

How much do you expect me to pack into one simple sentence, and why nitpick when I'm sure you know about the failed military expedition to rescue the hostages anyway? From where I was standing it looked like the reaction to that failure (military action against Iran that did not succeed) was what doomed Carter and left you with the man that would not deal with terrorists*.
Anyway, my point is Gore (or anyone, I really don't know much about Gore) may have ended up taking action and there is no rule set in stone that Democrats or Republicans stay out of conflicts when they see it to their advantage to get involved.

* Except for the guys he paid off in Iran, Hezbolla AFTER they had blown up a couple of hundred US marines, a whole pile of dubious groups in Central America and those Chileans that at one point killed a guy with a car bomb in the middle of Washington fucking DC in case the rest wasn't obvious enough. Apart from that (and some guys in Afganistan funded way back then that keep changing sides) no deals with terrorists at all.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[CHIT2ME]

The difference is; The Democrats tax, and, the Republicans pull out the Chinese credit card so that the Democrats have to tax more next time around to cover the excesses of the Republicans!

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Trogre]

I assume you voted third party then, as any responsible American should have done?

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

The economy was in a bit of a downslide when Bush took office, due in part to the dotcom bubble bursting at the end of the Clinton era.

The downslide happened *after* bush was elected. There's nothing he could have done about it, but just the fact that he was (mostly) elected started the process. If I had a time machine I could prove it to you. We go back in time and FL goes for Gore without a recount, and I guarantee the market doesn't start the stumbles the way it did. The "OMG, we are presidentless" recounts and such caused the initial issue. That, and who was selected from the incomplete and cherry-picked recounts.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[phantomfive]

Oh, I was hoping there was something I didn't know about Carter and Iran which you were going to tell me.

Yeah, you're right, for a while democrats and republicans were competing to fight the biggest war, until Bush did it.

The biggest problem with Bush in Afghanistan was his complete incompetence, and I think Gore would have been better at handling that situation (at least he would have managed to turn every country against us within a month of 9/11).

Re:Tweedledee won !

[dbIII]

and I think Gore would have been better at handling that situation

I think even Lady Gaga would have been better at handling that situation than the Playboy Prince you had.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[MooseMiester]

The two budgets submitted by the Obama Administration resulted in a vote of ____________? The excuse for not having a budget the two years the Democrats controlled both houses is ________________? And the budget proposals passed in the house, with Bipartisan support, that the Senate refused to bring to the floor are the fault of Harry Reid, Republican? No doubt. The Republicans are driving us off a cliff at 70 miles per hour. The Democrats are driving us off the cliff at 100 mph. Either way we're going off a cliff. In the waning days of the election, Obama announced his Economic plan in a glossy brochure. Guess what the main point was: "Reduce rates across the board, while closing tax deductions for high income earners" This is the Romney plan - that they ridiculed. Guess where it started? Simpson-Bowles, the debt commission that Obama formed - and ignored. Are you going to declare I made all this up too? ROFL

Re:Tweedledee won !

[_KiTA_]

not taking money from someone != giving the rich money. Unless you dont believe you own any money and the government gives you an allowance.

Tax cuts are equally damaging to the budget as expenditures. Only in Wingnuttia are tax cuts budget neutral.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[cavebison]

do you pay the slightest attention to what our politicians do?

Try to win votes while making deals with business to run their $billion campaigns? In between that, they age a lot.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[Magius_AR]

The fight to make a imbalanced treament of women 'equal' is only sexist if you pretend the problem it solves is not sexist. It solves a problem caused by sexism and enforces equality.

Insufficient data exists to prove sexism. Men are eight times more likely to play hard ball and negotiate salaries in job negotiations, for instance. For all you know, THAT is the reason for the discrepancy. The fact is that we don't know and you've simply assumed sexism -- because that's what people in this country do when something displeases them: they look for someone to blame who isn't themselves. I can see you're not a scientist, because you know nothing of the burden of proof, nor the difference between correlation and causation.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[joocemann]

So you skipped all of the data and went straight for your bullshit GOP factless rhetoric.

Scholar.google.com.

I do stemcell research. I associate facts as a career choice. You're such an ass for defending inequality so blindly like a GOP bigot. All of the data I've seen for a decade now says "controlling for all other factors". That would indicate wage bartering not being a factor. Bye asshole. Go tell your mother what you think.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[doggo]

Yeah... I quit reading after you said "Democrat". It's a stupid, petty insult, and it's grammatically incorrect. I won't take anything seriously, or even bother having a discussion with anyone who uses this term. It's infantile, something only worthy of fratboy-middle-school level discourse. As we say here in the City of Big Shoulders, "buh-bye!"

Re:Tweedledee won !

[gtall]

Yes, I do mean medicare and social security, but also the rest of the entitlements, but medicare and social security are the biggest. And they are scheduled to go through the roof as the Me Generation retires. The Me Generation thought they did not need to save for retirement. They were wrong and the Federal Government made promise they cannot keep.

No one wants to eliminate those entitlement. However, when the age at which Americans tend to pop their clogs has been increasing, those entitlements cannot keep up. There's a demographic problem that has not been built into those programs.

AARP is more in bed with the Democrats than the Republicans. Just observe their reaction to any sort of re-adjustment to those entitlements made by Republicans and the Democrats propaganda about how any change will destroy America.

Bullshit about DoD being hidden, unless you wish to accuse the Congressional Budget Office of lying. Under Bush, the costs of the wars were off DoD books, under Obama, he insisted they be properly accounted for.

Your point about the interest is bang on. What's your point? Discretionary is not pork. It funds NIH, you remember, the people that do cancer research and research on a host of other diseases the afflict Americans. NTSB investigates and researches airline, train, and auto accidents...so you won't die in a crash. NSF funds science, the sort of stuff that keeps the U.S. competitive. The FDA makes sure you aren't buying drugs from Joe's Car Repair and Immunization Vaccines. The list goes on. The point is the the discretionary (including DoD) is the part of the government that works. Discretionary is not all pork, a very small percentage of it is pork, and that the part our dear Congress Critters siphon off.

" Tweaks to SS, medicare and Obamacare would result in cuts to costs and improvements to benefits.", Just what the hell is your fucking point? No shit, but it will take more than tweaks. SS needs to be funded on all income, not just up to approx. $105,000. No one has a solution to Medicare and the Affordable Healthcare Act, mainly because Obama capitulated to the insurance companies.

The government is always asserted there was an SS Trust Fund. Look at the laws, its is right there where you would expect to find it. It is how the government does their accounting. Don't believe me, ask AARP and Democrats, they have a shrine to it somewhere.

Cheaper government is not the problem. The problem is entitlements and rules and regulation. The budget problem iis threefold, what it costs to run (minimal) the government, what costs it imposes on the economy (rules and regs), and what it pays out in transfer payments. The transfer payments dwarf everything else.

I really cannot figure out what point, if any, you were trying to make.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[AK Marc]

AARP is more in bed with the Democrats than the Republicans.

Maybe there's some things the Democrats have promised the Republicans didn't match, but Romney's promise to not cut any current entitlement payout seems to indicate that AARP is in bed with the Republicans.

" Tweaks to SS, medicare and Obamacare would result in cuts to costs and improvements to benefits.", Just what the hell is your fucking point? No shit, but it will take more than tweaks.

Increase the retirement age 5 years (1 every 2 for 10 years should do it) and get rid of the cap on SS taxes (only affects those in the top 10% anyway), and every projection shows SS would forever make money, and never run a deficit (make similar tweaks when lifespans change or such). Just a few minor tweaks like that, and the schemes could provide the same or better benefits, with little impact. And yes, just "tweaks" can cut the costs of the programs by 10-50% and increase services at the same time.

Cheaper government is not the problem. The problem is entitlements and rules and regulation.

So, you don't mind if the government costs 110% of the GDP per year to run, so long as the rules, regulations, and entitlements meet your personal preferences. I think you are a moron who makes rocks look smart, because at least rocks don't go around trying to spread their spectacular ignorance.

I really cannot figure out what point, if any, you were trying to make.

I think that's because you disagree with the idea of a "lean government" so much that you didn't read what I said, just what you wanted me to have meant because it was easier to argue with. When the government is small and efficient, the government will have minimal (if any) entitlements, and minimal rules and regulations, as those also drive government cost.

Re:Tweedledee won !

[robsku]

Between "dumb and dumber" (and I'm not seeing Obama that dumb, just not very good) I'm glad to have the dumb - doesn't mean I would have voted for him (I'm not US citizen, but for obvious reasons we Europeans are also concerned of US politics).

So yes, I'd say there is a difference - but damn it, US citizens should not vote based on such little differences but start voting 3rd party candidates or you'll never get out of your two-party dictatorship. The only way to change it is for each of you personally to start voting who you really want, even if you're scared that it will lead into your preferred party-of-two-parties candidate to lose to the other.

Time to end the Electoral College

[Anonymous Coward]

Through an amendment, or through the National Vote project.

Re:Time to end the Electoral College

[Jethro]

Yes.

As a (LEGAL) immigrant to the US, I was shocked when I learned how elections work here. It's... it's seriously hard to believe.

I live in Minnesota. Around 44% of the votes for president in Minnesota DO NOT COUNT. Even though 44% of the voters voted for Mitt Romney, their votes all count for Obama. That's just crazy. I've been on both sides of this - some years my vote counts, some it doesn't. It makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea how or why people put up with it.

Re:Time to end the Electoral College

[actiondan]

>Around 44% of the votes for president in Minnesota DO NOT COUNT

They do count - just not in the final stage of the process. You live in Minnesota, so you get to help decide who Minnesota wants for president.

The USA is a federation of states (as the name makes clear) - directly electing national politicians would be against the whole way the country was set up.

If you take your argument all the way, you would have to say that in an election based on the popular vote, anyone who didn't vote for the winning candidate would not count.

Would you also remove all scores made by losing sports teams from the record books on the basis that they didn't count as their team didn't win the game?

Re:Time to end the Electoral College

[geekoid]

although it is possible for the winning president to not have the most actual votes; which is a problem.

Hope Part 2

[Databass]

I hope the plans and values of his 2nd term really do help grow the country and the world.

Kill the Electoral College please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama or Romney, whoever gets elected, get rid of the Electoral College.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[imamac]

The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states. Civics education in this country is going down the pooper.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Jeremi]

The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states. Civics education in this country is going down the pooper.

Whether or not balancing power between large and small states is a good thing is open to debate, though.

The fact is that the vote of a person living in Wisconsin counts for 3.8 times as many Electoral Votes as my vote as a Californian.

The historical background of the USA as a collection of sovereign states notwithstanding, that seems like a pretty undemocratic state of affairs. In a proper democratic system, all votes should be given equal weight.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Spy Handler]

nope, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment. All it needs is this:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

California has already enacted it into law. All it needs is more states to ratify it until enough states are on aboard to total 270 electoral votes.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[breech1]

The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states.

No it's not. That was never the purpose. The electoral college was needed for southern states to get some credit for slaves that they wouldn't get if there was a direct election of president. (See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States).) Besides that, the effect of the electoral college is to put the focus on a few swing states. No one cares about CA and TX and numerous other states because those states will reliably go for a particular side.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[westlake]

The core principles of the US Constitution are based on a notion of a "balance of powers." It's purpose was to insure a stable political union not given to extreme behavior no matter how strong the forces that might push it in that direction.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[guises]

That's the implication, but it has always been my opinion that the electoral college was about maintaining the oligarchy. Voting was originally just for wealthy white men after all, and they needed a way to prevent someone unapproved from gaining power. This was why electors were not originally required to act in good faith (still true in many states).

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is doubly hilarious because conservatives who keep regurgitating this sour grapes refrain forget 1.) you would have had Gore as President in 2000 and 2.) as you pointed out the pissant, Midwestern, way Republican states with jack shit for people would lose even more influence on elections.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[jonnythan]

How do you calculate that? In CA it's about 630,000 people per electoral vote and in WI it's 570,000 people per electoral vote. That's a 1.1 ratio, not a 3.8 ratio.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I wont argue balance of power. At this moment I frankly think that California, Texas, New York and maybe Illinois hold too much power. ( Maybe break them into smaller states? ) I think any form of election based on popular vote is problematic. Aside from it becoming a competiton seeing if the Republican's could steal more votes in Texas then the Democrats could steal in California, Chicago and New York, imagine the problems with a recount. In 2000 Florida was a big mess, but that was only one state. What if it happened all over the country at once.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Tablizer]

A compromise is keep the total E.C. allocation of votes, but partition them proportionally by actual vote ratios of the given state and allow decimals. This would keep a low-population state's total influence intact to protect them from "mob states", but improve the granularity of influence so that politicians don't obsess on swing states.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Wraithlyn]

Why does this balance of power between large and small states (which I can understand), require ALL votes in a state to go to a single candidate though? Wouldn't allocating a state's electoral votes proportionate to the actual percentages allow third parties a chance at gaining some representation that seems essentially impossible now? Taking an entire state seems to be an insurmountable barrier-to-entry for new parties (see Ross Perot circa 1992), effectively locking you into a two-party system forever. And once the corporations own both sides of a two-party lock-in, you're basically done.

A sincere question from a Canadian. (We have many problems of our own up here, but a perpetual two-party lock is thankfully not one of them)

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Anonymous Coward]

>The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states. Civics education in this country is going down the pooper.

Bullshit. The electoral college was put in place to give advantage to slave owning states. History education in this country is obviously suffering. Small states already have disproportionate representation in the Senate, and if they're small enough in the house too. There is absolutely no reason they should have disproportionate power in electing the president. A mayor represents a city, and is elected by popular vote in the city. A US Rep represents a district and is elected by popular vote by members in the district. A US Senator represents a state and is elected by popular vote in the state. A US President represents all Americans and should be elected by popular vote of all Americans. The electoral college serves no purpose and has shameful origins. All it does now is give professional political types a way to game the system. We should amend the commendation to get rid of it and elect the President by straight popular vote. It's a no-brainer.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Weirsbaski]

The fact is that the vote of a person living in Wisconsin counts for 3.8 times as many Electoral Votes as my vote as a Californian.

I don't have to point out that the "people/electoral vote" ratio from WI to CA is only about 1.1 (others beat me to that), but even that's misleading: the all-or-nothing nature of (almost) every state's EC voting gives large states a extra-large influence on the election outcome. In a race that's tight in the state, a change of only 1% of votes can cause lots of EC votes to swing from one side to the other. Read recent history for OH and FL to see that play out.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Pretzalzz]

It's not that simple. How do you get states not participating in the compact to cooperate with a recount? How do you get a state not in the compact to count all provisional ballots when their result isn't particularly close? How do you have a national popular vote when voting eligibility rules vary by state? Is it fair to compare raw votes in a state with early voting and same day registration and a state that votes on one day with narrow absentee rules and you have to register a month ahead of time? If you think none of that will make too much of a difference, remember that the whole point for the change is for close elections. Any margin greater than 1-2% in the popular vote will invariably result in the 'correct' electoral college outcome.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Deus.1.01]

I know that sounds good on a resume, but it means absolutely fuck all.

You are a representative democracy, republic is actually a pretty broad term which most states through history falls under.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[actiondan]

>Why does this balance of power between large and small states (which I can understand), require ALL votes in a state to go to a single candidate though? Wouldn't allocating a state's electoral votes proportionate to the actual percentages allow third parties a chance at gaining some representation that seems essentially impossible now?

I think your second question answers your first. The folks in power have no interest in helping third parties take some of that power away from them.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[NotSoHeavyD3]

The fact is that the vote of a person living in Wisconsin counts for 3.8 times as many Electoral Votes as my vote as a Californian.

Actually that Wisconsin vote counts way more than 3.8 times your (or mine, I'm from Massachusetts) vote. It's because the chances California will flip are basically 0 while there was some chance Wisconsin could have flipped which makes campaigning there worth doing. (I'm guessing if we did a popular vote then both parties would start targetting population dense regions like the north east.)

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[chill]

The pandering to NH, IA and NV have nothing to do with Electoral votes. Electoral votes are assigned proportionally based on population.

Ever notice that the States with the most Electoral votes also have the biggest populations? Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[ceoyoyo]

So how does that change if you get rid of the electoral college? Voters in particular areas will still tend to either be overwhelmingly for one side or split, and the focus will be on the split regions. I suppose instead of "Ohio" you might have "southern Ohio" or "northern Ohio and southern Michigan" (totally made up).

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[slashmydots]

You do know that California holds the vast majority of the US population, right? So no other states' votes would count by comparison. Since California's politics are a joke and it's run like an overpriced circus over there, if anything they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all let alone letting them solely pick the president.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[omnichad]

The electoral college is necessary to enforce a two-party system, and prevent a vote for a 3rd-party candidate from having any meaning at all.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[geekoid]

except it doesn't work. Those states have more power. And no one has every properly explained why there needs to e a balance of power between the states. You have fewer people? then you have few influence.

Originally it was a compromise between popular vote and congressional vote for president. Not 'balance of power between states size.

"Civics education in this country is going down the pooper."
indeed.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[geekoid]

Then why doesn't congress select the president?

How about an actual logical argument in stead of shouting a term that is meaningless without context.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[geekoid]

If that was true, then they would have stuck with the original plan and had congress select the president.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[geekoid]

The portion isn't the same for all states.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[scamper_22]

Yeah... unless you allow states to leave the union or are willing to fight continuous wars of independence... you better recognize regional power.

Just what would be in it for Wisconsin or Vermont to be a part of the United States if they basically had no say in the politics of the country?

Then it would be even more undemocratic as they tried to leave the union and the federalists would try and stop them.

All countries face this... and the more power the national government has, the more these issues comes to the forefront. Canada is a pretty wide diverse country... and the only way we maintain unity is by acknowledging regional differences.

Healthcare/education are left pretty much entirely to the provinces. The feds reduced to largely a funding role.
We 'pointlessly' recognize French as an official language even though its largely only important in Quebec.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[LynnwoodRooster]

The solution is to allocate each district how it votes. Blue districts in Texas would go to the Democrats, red districts in California would go to the GOP. No need to do proportional allotment, let each district go as it votes, just like it does for its representative. Then allocate the two electors representing the Senators go to the State's overall popular vote.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[guises]

I don't see why, they felt that doing so would make the president beholden to congress, inviting corruption. The oligarchy that I'm talking about here is a large one, not just a few influential people who wrote the constitution but rather preventing the unwashed masses from selecting one of their own.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Wraithlyn]

I certainly understand the political will to maintain the status quo.

My question is posed to those defending the current Electoral College system on its actual merits (like imamac above). Are there actually any GOOD reasons, in this day and age, for the "First Past the Post" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) component of the system?

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[steelfood]

Just gotta add more representatives. The number is currently pegged, and the distribution is done via relative population increases and decreases.

As the number of representatives increase, the better the individual is represented in the house, and the lesser the gap between the voters in the smaller states and the larger states.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[scot4875]

Electoral college is fine. Just get rid of the winner-takes-all aspect.

--Jeremy

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[Rudeboy777]

The historical background of the USA as a collection of sovereign states notwithstanding

History can't be dismissed with a single word! That smaller population states would get disproportianate electoral votes was a key factor in convincing many states to join the US. It can't just be taken away, even many decades later.

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[g1zmo]

The state of California has about 12% of the country's population. Not quite the same thing as a "vast majority".

Re:Kill the Electoral College please...

[chill]

It is directly related to the number of Representatives a State has, so while it may not match directly it is very similar to population proportions.

The number of electors is 538, based on the total voting membership of the United States Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators) and three electors from the District of Columbia.

Obama

[crumbz]

God bless America. Or flying Spaghetti monster. Or random evolutionary processes. At least it wasn't that mutant.

Now, we have to:

1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.
2. Get rid of the electoral college.
3. Get Congress to override Citizen United.
4. Take the money out of the electoral system.

Re:Obama

[aardvarkjoe]

1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.
2. Get rid of the electoral college.
3. Get Congress to override Citizen United.
4. Take the money out of the electoral system.

Funny, I'd put "educate the voting public" ahead of any of those.

Of course, it will never happen, since it suits both major parties perfectly well to keep the voters ignorant.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

At the time of writing, CA is only 22% in and the margin is 200k voters. I bet there's enough blue votes outstanding to turn that around.

Re:Obama

[PrimaryConsult]

Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.

It's funny how governments and unions are the only ones who seem to be able to accomplish giving election day off... Federal employees and various autoworker unions got it as an actual day, state employees around here got a floater (which everyone uses the day after Thanksgiving rather than on Election day). I know no non-union private sector employee who actually got anything for it (though my sample size is fairly small).

I'd imagine that helps skew the results a bit...

Re:Obama

[naasking]

While ideal, proper education takes decades to have effects. All the other changes are short-term with immediate benefits.

Re:Obama

[phantomfive]

How can your first sentence be so wise and your second sentence such nonsense?

There are plenty of resources for any voter who wants to educate him/herself. Parties don't need to keep voters ignorant, the voters do it to themselves. And there are certainly politicians on both sides who wish the voting public were more educated.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Re:Obama

[AK Marc]

Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.

We'll call it "Saturday".

. Get rid of the electoral college.

While you are at it, get rid of Lame Duck periods. Made sense 250 years ago when it took weeks to get a reply to a postal letter and information was slow.

Re:Obama

[raind]

Great, except for 1, why not all vote by absentee?

Re:Obama

[tehcyder]

Here in the UK no one I've ever heard of takes any time off for voting, but then our polling stations open from 7am to 10pm so you've not really got an excuse for not voting.

Re:Obama

[Clubbah]

>Of course, it will never happen, since it suits both major parties perfectly well to keep the voters ignorant.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Blue states have much better educational systems than red states for K-12.

Re:Obama

[c0d3g33k]

Citizen United and take the money out of the electoral system:

Money doesn't matter as much as you think. Here in Connecticut, Linda McMahon (professional wrestling magnate and aspiring politician) has attempted to buy herself a senate seat twice now, drawing from her own substantial money pool. She's been handily defeated each time, by people who are by no stretch of the imagination appealing and should stand no chance against her carefully cultivated grandmotherly demeanor. Her first defeat? At the hands of Dick Blumenthal, who is affectionately known to us as Skeletor. The second? Chris Murphy, a non-person that few people know much about and who looks like a guy that was beat up a lot in school.

Money didn't work. Carefully crafted image didn't work. Money can buy lots of ads, but it can't make people vote for you.

Re:Obama

[geekoid]

1) no, just get your state to go to a mail in option. That way people have a week or so to do it in the comfort of their own home where they can do research on what they are voting for while they vote.
2) difficult and complex.
3) Yes please
4) How to you prevent free citizen from spending there money advocating for a candidate?

Re:Obama

[geekoid]

"since it suits both major parties perfectly well to keep the voters ignorant."
clearly it doesn't.
One candidate said over 800 direct provably false lies.
The other candidate didn't.

Ignorance only benefits the candidate in one of those scenarios. hint, it' was the winning one.

Re:Obama

[aardvarkjoe]

What would you put on your curriculum?

I would start with teaching people what positions the candidates actually hold on political issues. My experience has been that most voters know nothing about the candidates they vote for besides whether they have a "D" or an "R" next to their name.

Ideally, I would like a requirement that you have to demonstrate some knowledge of a candidate before you are allowed to cast a vote.

Re:Obama

[Shag]

1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.

Actually, making early voting available nationwide (it is where I live) would probably do a lot more on this front. If 50% of your voters are spread out over a week and a half, starting two weeks before election day, it's harder to have long lines.

Re:Obama

[rsborg]

1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.
2. Get rid of the electoral college.
3. Get Congress to override Citizen United.
4. Take the money out of the electoral system.

#1 will not eliminate the lines, likely it would increase them (not that it's a bad thing). Perhaps we should do like France and do it on a Sunday. Regardless we need more polling locations and staffing = more public money devoted to the electoral process.
Whereas #2 and #3 are worthwhile goals in their own right, I don't think they are as key to the voting issue as changing the electoral mechanics of "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) voting scheme (aka, plurality voting) [1]. FPTP has been widely criticized [1.1] Best options for replacement are Instant Runoff [2] or Approval Voting [3]. By making voting 3rd party feasible, you remove the spoiler effect. By strengthening 3rd parties, you instantly alleviate the "voting for the lesser evil". Money in politics, like trolls on the internet = going to persist forever. What's the problem is that we have an easily exploitable voting system. For example, if you ran a blog without an excellent moderation system, you're soon turned into a spam forum or some moneyed interest will just use your pages for advertising their wares or opinion (see the blogs on many newspapers or youtube - a cesspool that would make 4chan blush). Imagine if slashdot had no moderation.

We need a "moderation" scheme that systematically removes/reforms the voting process - one that isn't inherently broken.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
[1.1] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/FPTP-bad-for-democracy
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

Re:Obama

[stymy]

Nothing's stopping people from reading the news online from a trusted source, such as the BBC, rather than watching the trash that passes for news television these days (BBC world service and to a lesser degree CBC excepted, of course). The truth is, the average person is very easy to persuade with ads and misinformation. While good public education can foster critical thinking, at the end of the day people deserve some of the blame if they stay ignorant, when most of them have the means to become informed, through the internet.

So... nothing has really changed

[The Chemical Crow]

Obama is still president.
Meanwhile, going by the last results I saw, it looks like the House and Senate are going to retain their respective majorities. (Yes, I know that's not official yet, just going by the results so far)

So... at least 2 more years of gridlock. yay.

Re:So... nothing has really changed

[Anonymous Coward]

We are better of with a paralyzed government. The government screws things up.

Romney COULD have won it.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Romney could probably have gotten the Republican nomination fair-and-square, and if he had done it that way a bunch of people wouldn't have been alienated and abandoned the Republican party. Instead his people cheated blatantly and publicly and drove away, not just a few hundred thousand hardcore Ron Paul supporters, but a bunch of non-Paulite Rs. He lost FAR more than the margin by which he lost some key states in the general election.

The behavior of his people in the primary/caucus period proved they couldn't be trusted with government power. So they got what they deserved. And I'm proud to have been a part of it.

Take that, Neocons!

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[ShakaUVM]

> Instead his people cheated blatantly and publicly and drove away, not just a few hundred thousand hardcore Ron Paul supporters, but a bunch of non-Paulite Rs. He lost FAR more than the margin by which he lost some key states in the general election.

He probably has lost Florida because of these shenanigans. Gary Johnson is getting more votes than the margin between Obama and Romney.

Not all of the Libertarians came from the Republican party, of course, but a lot of those were Ron Paul supporters that Romney drove out of the party.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And so ends america as our fathers knew it.

That happened a LONG time ago. WW I, the New Deal, and the creation of the Federal Reserve did it. The cancer has been growing since and, after a long and painful illness, it is finally killing the patient.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[GodfatherofSoul]

You know, that sounds great and I wish it were true (moderate version Romney wouldn't have been a bad President) but it's absolutely WRONG. Look at what's been happening in the Republican party during Obama's administration. Just saying you'd be willing to cooperate with Democrats has been enough to get incumbents run out of Congress. Todd Akin had no business even sniffing this election, yet won by pandering (I hope he's pandering) to the extreme sentiments of the party.

And, look at who the other candidates were; Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, George "makaka" Allen [sic], DONALD TRUMP!, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich. And each one of them had a period of time at the front of the pack because they decided to play the game of "who can scream Obama insults the loudest and harshest from my balcony." Had any of them been *remotely* qualified to even run a Presidential campaign (never mind actually being President), one of them would have one and gotten whipped in the election. The moderates like Huntsman and Pawlenty were run out of the race.

This race went down about the best it could have for Republicans because of the state of the party.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[Tablizer]

Re sig: "Government "economic stimulus" programs destroy more jobs than they create."

Can you present concrete evidence of this?
   

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Re sig: "Government "economic stimulus" programs destroy more jobs than they create." Can you present concrete evidence of this?

Depends on what you would accept as "proof".

Consider this article: "Obama's Economists: 'Stimulus' Has Cost $278,000 per Job." No doubt that's an underestimate, too, but let's take it as accurate.

As I read it, that means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed. That's because the median income for the period was about a fifth of that number, and the value of the money spent "creating or saving" those jobs was sucked out of the private sector, thus destroying about that number of jobs.

The value was sucked in one of about three ways: Direct taxation, currency inflation (diluting the existing money in private hands), or borrowing from those with money to invest - in competition with other borrowers who would have used it to create actual productive economic activity. That third one costs several times, by the way: Once when the investment money is pulled out of the economy initially, again when it must be paid off out of tax money, along with years of interest.

A Keynsian would prattle about the "multiplier effect" of the created jobs creating more. But the destroyed jobs also have the same multiplier effect, so the created/destroyed ratio remains the same if multiplier effect jobs are included (and the total job loss is far higher than the direct job loss minus the direct job creation.)

For a classic explanation of how this happens see the broken window falacy.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[ShakaUVM]

At the time I posted, it was true.

Also, I'm sure some of Ron Paul's supporters switched to Obama, too.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[tehcyder]

And so ends america as our fathers knew it.

That happened a LONG time ago. WW I, the New Deal, and the creation of the Federal Reserve did it. The cancer has been growing since and, after a long and painful illness, it is finally killing the patient.

Life was so much easier back when a man just had his rifle and his wits to pit against the wild woods.

Like all reactionsries, your biew of the past is based on smeary sentimentalism.

For everyone apart from a few Robber Barons who could earn fortunes and pay effectively no tax, life is much, much better now than it was a hundred years ago. And now even the rich are pretty much back to paying relatively little in tax.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[gtbritishskull]

Speaking as an Obama supporter, I really did not like Pawlenty, mainly because I couldn't see him as president (I don't disagree with anything you said, though). But, I REALLY liked Huntsman. I can't say that I would have voted for him over Obama, because I believe that Obama has been a good president. But he is the republican that I would have been most likely to vote for. He was a moderate who was running his moderation as a strength. So, there is no way he could get anywhere in the Republican party, but I think that he would make a good democrat (and probably do well).

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[buddyglass]

Figure most of the Paul supporters voted for Johnson. Johnson got about 1% of the vote, or one million votes. Obama ended up with about 2.5 million more votes than Romney, according to google's counter at the time of this post. So if Romney got every single Johnson supporter (which is unlikely considering the second choice of many Johnson supporters would be Obama) he would still be 1.5 million votes short. Or would you suggest that the majority of Paul's support just stayed home instead of voting for Johnson?

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[geekoid]

Just stop. I physically pains me to read you're bullshit.
It's so wrong it' unbelievable. Its like listening to someone say the only way to shit down your computer is to pull the plug out from that back while standing on one leg.

Just..not even wrong.

"No doubt that's an underestimate, too,"
you're bias is showing, you twit.

Re:Romney COULD have won it.

[Tablizer]

I counter with this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

And what you cite as a the broken window "fallacy" is not necessarily a fallacy.

Further, many investors are sitting on cash such that there is not a shortage of investment money in this down-turn.

And most cases of stimuluses being used appear to have helped at least some.

Who?

[pspahn]

All I know is that Colorado looks to be passing Amendment 64 (as is Washington.. Oregon doesn't seem to be on the train). Here's a tip, start buying stock in lighting, security fencing, and organic soils.

Re:Who?

[pspahn]

Bring what down? Do you really expect the federal gov't to continue fighting 'another' war they have lost? Should someone abiding the state law really fear the feds from hauling them off to prison? Which prison? All the federal prisons they might use are actually here in this state.

Pff.. The cops here aren't going to bust you. They simply wont. With everything else on his plate, Obama wouldn't dare.

Re:Who?

[game kid]

Whether or not the feds decide to trump those state referendums, I think those could actually bring a DoJ change of heart like those they've had with DOMA and gay marriage support. I don't expect such a change to occur soon after this election, but if a few more occur in 2014 or 2016 then those will start clicking White House political Geiger counters, and make them say "damn...our crackdowns aren't earning us the votes we need to retain control...".

We need to get rid of "Winner Takes All"

[elabs]

The electoral college is fine. The problem is the Winner Takes All system. The founding fathers never intended that.

Re:We need to get rid of "Winner Takes All"

[westlake]

The electoral college is fine. The problem is the Winner Takes All system. The founding fathers never intended that.

There are many things the founding fathers never expected to see:

Political parties, for one.

Though echoes of the split between Hamilton and Jefferson resonate in our two party system to this day.

The direct election of the Senate, the vast expansion of the franchise and the election of a young-in-spirit though not always in age populist President rather than a gentlemanly elder statesman and father figure like Washington.

Re:We need to get rid of "Winner Takes All"

[prefec2]

In a modern democracy every vote should have equal weight. However, the present system changes that by a) the winner takes it all and b) by giving small states more weight. You already have the senate to represent state balance. The parliament and the president should be elected directly by the people and not through some 18th century system. It was a good idea in those days. However, today it is not very democratic anymore.

Furthermore, the money spent in the election should be limited. SuperPACs and similar constructs should not be legal. The income and extra benefits of all candidates and elected people must be transparent. I want to know whose song they sing. Who is paying them and how much. As politicians are representatives for the people, their motives must be understandable and that is only possible with a lot of transparency.

On a side note: Changes in economic regulations take many years to have any measurable effect. It takes between 5-20 years from law to a significant change for the people.

On a second side note: The US should consider to get a multi-party system where minorities or minority opinions can also have seats in the parliament. Have a look at France, Sweden, The Netherlands or Germany (don't copy Italy). In such a system the Greens would sit in the parliament as well as the Tea Party. If present parties do not cover all issues of the public, a new party could bring these issues forward. Have a look at the Pirate parties in Europe. The rose very quickly introducing transparency and information age issues. The established parties had to address these issues and the political discourse changed.

Re:We need to get rid of "Winner Takes All"

[ceoyoyo]

The fact that you have one president instead of investing executive power in the party that controls the legislative house(s) suggests that your founding fathers did indeed intend that the winner of the presidential election should take all.

Re:We need to get rid of "Winner Takes All"

[fejikso]

The electoral college is fine. The problem is the Winner Takes All system. The founding fathers never intended that.

Ugh, I'm sorry, but I cringe every time somebody says "our founding fathers never intended that". They couldn't possibly foresee the state and needs of the country almost two centuries later, and the social, technological, and environmental complexities of this new globalized world. They were not infallible saints sent from God. We are the ones who have the responsibility of adjusting our laws and systems to cope with the new problems we face.

Re:We need to get rid of "Winner Takes All"

[Uberbah]

The direct election of the Senate

You say that like it's a negative...

Re:A small victory for sanity

[GiganticLyingMouth]

Then try scrolling down to the "Niggers win again" comment by AC

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Black Parrot]

Obama may not be perfect, but at least he doesn't wear magic underpants. I don't think america's reputation would recover if they handed control of their nuclear arsenal over to _that_ particular flavour of crazy.

Hey, don't knock magic undies. I traded an excellent sword for my +7 Knickers of Protection, Levitation, and Seduction.

Only problem is that they can only provide two benefits at a time, so I have to avoid some of the obvious things that come to mind.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious??!?!?? Of all the things to criticize about Mitt Romney you chose underwear? How is that even relevant. Go after his foreign policy or his lack of information on how he would carry out his Economic plans, but your comment is just plain stupid and ignorant.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[AK Marc]

What, is this your first day?

Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[khasim]

Then you'll see a huge difference.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Taco Cowboy]

... doesn't matter, really.

The original intent of the founding fathers have been fcuked left, right, and center, by those power crazy elites.

There supposed to be 3 branches of government, and the 3 branches supposed to be guarding against the other two, preventing any of the branches in usurping power from the people.

But the whole thing no longer work as intended - at least not by the founding fathers' blueprint.

So many of the rights of the people have been taken away, and the saddest part is, most of the citizenry still do not care.

As long as they can continue to enjoy their six packs, and have some one-night-stands, they are satisfied, and they do not care what the politicians, the Demo-Republicrooks, are doing to them, and their children.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[EdIII]

Mod Up.

We gained nothing today. We just cut our losses with the less crazy douchenozzle being elected.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[fustakrakich]

The original intent of the founding fathers...

The founding fathers.. bla bla bla... Maybe you should read some history about the Whiskey Rebellion and the original Aliens and Seditions act. It took a lot of yelling and screaming to get the bill of rights into the constitution. And it took another 75 years to abolish slavery. There was no absence of aristocracy amongst the founding fathers. Not a poor man in the bunch. The government still maintains sovereign immunity, amongst other perks none of us are permitted. I would wager that they would think we have far too much freedom.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[evil_aaronm]

Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution? I mean, take the 4th amendment. It says right there, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?

This is just one example among many.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Black Parrot]

Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution? I mean, take the 4th amendment. It says right there, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?

This is just one example among many.

Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

So a bunch of really old dead white dudes matter?

The founding fathers were people, not gods.

Big deal.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Taco Cowboy]

It's not the dead white dudes that matter.

It's their intent for the new nation that they fought and won that matters.

The only thing that differentiate America from the rest of the world is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Without those two very important documents, the United States of America is as good as Zimbabwe or Somalia, in terms of governance.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Who care about the intent?

If Benjamin Franklin knew about the state of the world today there would've no second amendment and healthcare for all.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[MightyMartian]

A good many of the intentions of the Founding Fathers were wiped out in the Civil War. It strikes me as odd to complain about it now.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[isorox]

If Benjamin Franklin knew about the state of the world today there would've no second amendment and healthcare for all.

It has nothing to do with the state of the world, it's America we are talking about.

It's the current state of America that sux to the max.

Even the tiny Singapore fairs much better, in comparison.

Caning, death penalties, CCTV trained at peoples homes to catch them dropping litter?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Relayman]

You need to review the concept of "implied consent."

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

That ship already sailed. The decision on Obamacare blew out all the constitutional limits on what the Federal Government can regulate, provided they disguise the penalty for non-compliance as a tax. Five to four, and the swing vote was Roberts, the chief justice, appointed by George W. Bush.

This has been coming since the Marijuana Tax Act and the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. But National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius made it explicit, putting the stake firmly through the heart of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[bondsbw]

In the USA, we need:

- Better checks and balances. In addition to the above, we need to return more power to the states (which gives us a check on the federal government).
- Better system for single-winner elections. It should allow you to specify your primary choice, and also your backup choice(s) should your primary fail to gain enough support.
- Proportional representation in Congress. If every district in the nation votes 50.1% for Party A, then Party A has 100% of the seats of Congress. Party B gets nothing, although 49.9% of the nation supports Party B. (A less extreme example: third-party candidates often get a decent chunk of the vote, but rarely get representation in Congress.) A solution is multiple-winner proportional representation.
- Electoral college reform. I don't know that we should go to a popular vote system for President, but the electoral college should at least force a proportional representation from each state. It should also remove the electors, and change to a simple count.

Please, continue on from here...

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[gfxguy]

That's right... I don't HAVE to travel anywhere or cross borders. On the other hand, I do HAVE to pay taxes, and they violate the fourth amendment, IMO, just as much - if not more - when hunting for income to tax. The IRS is brutal and seems to have even fewer obstacles to screwing citizens than Homeland Security does, and with the IRS you're often presumed guilty unless you can prove you're innocent.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[jcr]

So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to,

Because we fail to resist. That's the long and short of it.

-jcr

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[nedlohs]

But the more crazy douchenozzle would have at least had some resistance from the democrats. But when you have a Democratic President going nuts with targeted assassinations (including of US citizens) no one complains since the Republicans love the idea anyway. If it was a Republican President at least the Democrats might make some noise about it.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[artor3]

Why should I care what they wanted? They're dead. I'm alive.

We should respect the Constitution and the rule of law for our own sakes, not out of respect to some people who literally could not care less. And when the Constitution says something like "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", we need to understand that the writers did not, and could not, imagine such things as nuclear bombs and weaponized anthrax. So yes, we infringe on the people's right to own such things. Would the founding fathers approve of us not following their exact instructions? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see why we should even care.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[TheGratefulNet]

we gained a lot because we unloaded a lot of crazy!

sadly, not going backwards does count, these days, as going forward.

I really did not want to return to bad old days. and so, in a way, its a victory.

obama is very much on the right; he's not nearly left enough for many of us. and so, take this as a middle ground vote, one that is long over-due.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[joocemann]

Reasonable means 'of fact', which is the basis of a warrant. Thus, only with facts that warrant search/siezure, would those rights be overridden.

The language is not so old that it requires interpretation. Also, it is written plainly -- there is no basis for semantics in it.

What you, and the SCOTUS judges have done, is politicized the constitution and perverted its clear language with loose interpretations. The most likely definitions of the words are quite clear and ring true to the intent of the document -- but its people like you that play this 'not necessarily' b.s. and use uncommon definitions and semantic wizardry to attempt to win at things.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[joocemann]

If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes. And you wont' get all of the things that those taxes pay for.

Let me guess.. You're not the 'better one'. You're using tax-paid benefit right now and are too deluded in meritocratic fantasy to realize it.

Who pays to protect you from invasion? A ghost? Voluntarily?

Do you think your 2nd amendment joke of a weapon would ever protect you from a trained and equipped military force? Check the 100:1 KDR in indigenous populations. You can't do better. You would be on the bad side of that ratio.

Take away what you've been paying for and you'd be a crying little baby.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AK Marc]

If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes.

Nope, the US is about the only country in the world that taxes non-residents the same as residents.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AK Marc]

But that was their intention. They balanced it to force a future generation to make the decisions about slavery. The founding fathers intended for a future conflict to settle it. You might even consider that they "caused" the civil war.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of a bullshit response I think. Of course the founding "fathers" were aristocratic. If they weren't they would not have thought or bothered to rebell against Great Britain. I can't think of run of the mill peasants and slaves revolting and trying to form their own country. It would require men(well at that time) that were knowledgeable and perhaps charismatic enough to sway the populace into revolting with them, despite the dangers.

And slavery has nothing to do with it. That's a whole different ball of wax and not much to do with the founding of the country. People are still racist even today. It was pretty much a given back then. I mean today we know or at least most of us know (i hope) that despite color we are all the same, but that was not how people thought back then. Hell I wish I could say slavery was done for good, but I and I'm sure many others know that if given the chance there are plenty of fucktards..... yes I did say that, who would be absolutely ecstatic to reinstate slavery of any non white people. I find that utterly and totally despicable btw. Also people should not forget that their own people were selling them to slave traders. Not that it's an excuse,... What's more sickening? a slave owner or the fact that your own people, perhaps blood relatives sold your ass into slavery. that makes me sick.

Also it wasn't just yelling and screaming that formed our country or the bill of rights/ constitution. It took the lives of thousands upon thousands of people if not more to establish the US as a separate country. Doesn't make us perfect but at least further in the future of the country someone in a position of power stood up to slavery, even at the cost of tearing the entire country apart.

As for immunity. Well that seems pretty obvious I think. I mean if any joe schmoe could sue or file whatever suit against the government, we wouldn't have a country left standing. How would a country operate if people were suing it willy nilly? It would go bankrupt and not be able to govern, let alone defend itself in court.

I don't think it's fair to deride the "founders" because they were upper class or rich. I think at the time, having that type of intelligence came hand in hand with money, status, power...etc. That doesn't make them bad or evil.

I also think that it's not really the government, or at least just the government that thinks we have "too much freedom" it's large corporations, especially the RIAA and MPAA who are so uptight and asinine about their copyrights that they almost don't even want us to watch what they paid others to create. I think if you were to get rid of them or at least their thoughts on the matter we would be just fine. Sadly I agree with you that as time goes on and these corporations continue to get their way. we will continue to see the erosion and eventually removal of our rights.

BTW I hadn't heard about what you mentioned. I will def take time out to go read up on that. Perhaps it will change my mind but I can't promise anything. I wish you a good day... or night whichever.

and to the rest.. why would people even vote for Romney aside from the fact that he's white and obama isn't or you are a large corporation? What exactly did you think he would do that would directly help or benefit you? Tax breaks? Health care? Technological advancement?...Noooo sooo why? that's what I don't understand. I mean he told my state (michigan) that we could essentially go fuck ourselves and just go bankrupt even though cars ARE the main source of employment in the state.... a state in which his own father was head of a car company, a governor, a civil rights activist (so I've heard) and even a runner for office of the presidency though that didn't go well. What if he told those working in silicon valley they could all go bankrupt and die for all he cared? would that change anything? Not that I like either of them much, but Obama at least seems to care even if you are not a millionaire. The problem I think is congress and

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous Coward]

No single Party should have the majority of the House/Senate. I think every Party should not be able to legislate "on their own", there should ALWAYS be a debate about laws and regulations, especially between opposing views. I believe that in that proverbial middle ground lies the best chance for a country to move forward. Any country that considers itself democratic.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[frinsore]

we need to return more power to the states (which gives us a check on the federal government).

Specifically what powers should the states have that are currently exclusive to the federal government? The way I see it is that the federal government enforces the bare minimum of an individual's rights, controls interstate commerce, and runs other projects that would be inefficient for individual states to run. Some examples of these would be freedom of speech, outlawing slavery, running the military, setting a currency, etc. There is nothing preventing a state from granting it's citizens greater rights then what the federal government ensures or providing their own military. You may disagree with how the federal government chooses to protect individual liberty or even what those rights are; but that's a very different discussion.
Also the states can amend the Constitution without involving the federal government, all they'd need to do is call a convention and then later vote on the new amendment. That's the greatest balance against federal government that there is.

Better system for single-winner elections. It should allow you to specify your primary choice, and also your backup choice(s) should your primary fail to gain enough support.

Who would enforce this? The federal government? I think we have single run off because of tradition more then anything else. There have even been state laws that split their electoral votes proportionately (I think they've all been abandoned now). As long as the federal government ensures that everyone can vote and that everyone's vote is equal I think it should be up to the states to determine what style of voting to use.

Proportional representation in Congress. If every district in the nation votes 50.1% for Party A, then Party A has 100% of the seats of Congress. Party B gets nothing, although 49.9% of the nation supports Party B.

That would be true if we were electing parties to congress but we're not, we're electing people. Representative X from Party B is not at all equivalent to representative Q from Party B. I realize that the political rhetoric tends to slant towards Party A vs Party B but I'd much rather vote for someone who fairly represents their constituents instead of a generic interchangeable member of a Party.

Electoral college reform. I don't know that we should go to a popular vote system for President, but the electoral college should at least force a proportional representation from each state. It should also remove the electors, and change to a simple count.

This will probably never happen because it would involve states relinquishing power and they'd never give permission for it. In the current set up states with a low population have a greater electoral collage vote per capita then a state with a large population. This is a balance so that large states can't steam roll over smaller states.

I'm not saying that our republic couldn't use some improvement but I think it's important to realize why it has worked so well. Like Churchill said:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[dunkelfalke]

The only thing that differentiate America from the rest of the world is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Not really. When not taken seriously, any constitution is merely a scrap of paper.

Do read the 1936 Soviet constitution (AKA Stalin constitution) sometimes. It is a very progressive and democratic doument. One of the most democratic ever in fact.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[tehcyder]

Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.

Well, if it had said "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against any searches and seizures, shall not be violated" you'd not be able to have much in the way of law enforcement, would you?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[tehcyder]

with the IRS you're often presumed guilty unless you can prove you're innocent

That's what people guilty of tax evasion always say. If the IRS find out you've been in receipt of undeclared income (e.g. you are a drug dealer driving a Ferrari who claims to be unemployed) why the fuck shouldn't they presume you are guilty?

Yes, it is their business to hunt for income to tax. If they just relied on the honour system, only the poor honest suckers would pay any tax, and the rich and criminal would pay even less than they do now.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[tehcyder]

The only thing that differentiate America from the rest of the world is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The only two things that differentiate America from the rest of the world are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and an almost fanatical devotion to the gun.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Camael]

Yes, Singapore has caning and death penalties for numerous crimes including murder, drug trafficking and the use of firearms. On the other hand, ladies can expect to walk home alone relatively safely even at 3-5am in the morning, and the use of firearms in crimes is somewhat rare. Is it worth trading some personal liberties for safety and security? I honestly don't know, but it seems with the growth of the TSA that even the US is leaning in favour of security.

As an aside, there is nothing as invasive as the TSA in SIngapore, which i am profoundly grateful for.

There is a growth of CCTVs installed privately by angry individuals who accuse their neighbours of littering the common areas/outside their homes etc. but that seems more an exercise of individual freedom (albeit misguided) than anything sinister.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[mishu2065]

Also, more importantly... no chewing gum.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[complete loony]

I like the system in Australia.

The lower house represents each district, first past the post, but with run-off voting for 3rd party candidates. The upper house is elected based on the proportion of votes, with some number of seats per state.

The lower house represents the majority opinion, but everything they want to do must pass the upper house, who represent significant minorities across the entire population.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[isorox]

Yes, Singapore has caning and death penalties for numerous crimes including murder, drug trafficking and the use of firearms. On the other hand, ladies can expect to walk home alone relatively safely even at 3-5am in the morning, and the use of firearms in crimes is somewhat rare. Is it worth trading some personal liberties for safety and security? I honestly don't know, but it seems with the growth of the TSA that even the US is leaning in favour of security.

As an aside, there is nothing as invasive as the TSA in SIngapore, which i am profoundly grateful for.

There is a growth of CCTVs installed privately by angry individuals who accuse their neighbours of littering the common areas/outside their homes etc. but that seems more an exercise of individual freedom (albeit misguided) than anything sinister.

For CCTV, I was thinking more of http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1222962/1/.html

As for the TSA and their equivalents, I agree Changi is quite a nice airport to go through, but the U.S. is by no means unique. Heathrow (T5) at the moment is a nightmare. Moscow force you through a MMW scanner with no opt out available, half of europe has such scanning. Manchester, UK, are the rudest security guys I've ever met.

I'm not aware of many first-world cities where "ladies can't expect to walk home alone relatively safely even at 3-5am in the morning,", is the U.S. that bad? It's 05.36 here on the east coast and I'm about to walk 100 yards back to my hotel. Should I book a cab?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[dbIII]

Because we fail to resist. That's the long and short of it.

I'll bet fifteen years ago you didn't think that airport security would literally have you by the short hairs if you go through an airport today.
It wasn't that many years ago that Oral Roberts declared that all Australians were forbidden to enter heaven for eternity after he was subjected to a far less invasive search (ie. looking inside his luggage) than what is common in US airports today.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Teun]

It sounds like you haven't thought of the possibility, sorry, the fact other nations are successful without this constitution.

Nor have you visited Zimbabwe or Somalia.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[theid0]

I've been to dozens of major cities around the world. The USA doesn't rank well for crime, with so many weapons on the street. And the TSA guys in Minneapolis are far more extreme than anyone at Manchester.

But I haven't been to Baltimore. Perhaps you travel at night for safety?

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/witness-to-brutal-attack-speaks-with-wjz/

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Registered Coward v2]

Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution? I mean, take the 4th amendment. It says right there, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?

This is just one example among many.

Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.

Actually, the stuck the and in there which makes it even harder, you could argue that an unreasonable search with no seizures is permissible; similar to the argument for capital punishment which may be cruel but not unusual.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Registered Coward v2]

That's right... I don't HAVE to travel anywhere or cross borders. On the other hand, I do HAVE to pay taxes, and they violate the fourth amendment, IMO, just as much - if not more - when hunting for income to tax. The IRS is brutal and seems to have even fewer obstacles to screwing citizens than Homeland Security does, and with the IRS you're often presumed guilty unless you can prove you're innocent.

The 16th addressed that issue.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[slacka]

Mod Up.

We gained nothing today..

Colorado and Washington passed marijuana legalization for recreational use. We gained a little more freedom in some states.
I don’t even smoke pot or tobacco. But It's clear that prohibition does nothing but make criminals rich and overcrowd our jails with non-violent citizens.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[thespeech]

There's no CCTVs in most residential areas here, FYI. The only places I've seen CCTVs on the street in Singapore are the crowded shopping areas. If you come to Singapore you'll realize a lot of the draconian stuff here is basically just show-business, which is pretty sad, actually. I laughed when I saw the CCTV thing - because AFAIK the police here are so lazy they wouldn't actually go out and nab people even if we actually had a CCTV for every house. They basically have an iron rice bowl, given that the majority seems to find policing as a job below them and, as Gibson put, everyone here already has a policeman in their heads.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[jaeson]

If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes.

Nope, the US is about the only country in the world that taxes non-residents the same as residents.

Actually non-residents are only taxed the same way if the income was earned inside the USA. I live outside the USA but am a US citizen. I work for a company based outside the USA. I still have to file taxes in the US, but I also get an exemption for my foreign earned income. Unless you make more than $90K per year you wont pay anything in US taxes.

See http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[baffled]

So it's reasonable for strangers to fondle our children? Is SCOTUS is full of pedos?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Young Master Ploppy]

The only thing that differentiate America from the rest of the world is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The only two things that differentiate America from the rest of the world are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and an almost fanatical devotion to the gun.

AMONGST THE THINGS that differentiate America from the rest of the world are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, an almost fanatical devotion to the gun, and continued insistence on paying lipservice to the notion of personal freedoms while simultaneously supporting politicians who erode them.... oh sod it, I'll come in again!

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[mabhatter654]

There's not really a problem with drone strikes. It's a tempest in a teapot. Reagan bombed Gadaghi in Libya as a PERSONAL attack.. Far more brazen.

Bush was doing the same thing... The military commanders like Republicans so they don't run their mouths. (Note they treated Clinton the same way)

Sure, he's targeting US Citizens... That are engaged in WAR against the USA on FOREIGN soil. Obama is following precedent... You don't twist the Constitution and invent secret courts... People plot war against the USA and you blow them up where they hide. A US flag don't save you. These targets are the definition of traitors... You stand with the enemy, get blowed up with the enemy... And yes... They might be gunning for you...

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[baffled]

Littering is wrong and CCTV is an excellent enforcement tool. But the thought of the government prosecuting my children for doing so during their immature years, that's just not right. Now if the CCTV feeds were used to monitor & then provide evidence to the parents to allow them to punish their own children, that would actually be quite useful.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AlecC]

Proportional representation in Congress.

If you think this is a way forward, you should think again. Open a couple of history books, look for countries that tried it and look how and why it failed.

Do you actually think before giving these advices?

Sweden, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands... None of these seem disaster areas to me,

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[PopeRatzo]

The original intent of the founding fathers ...

So? What, were the "founding fathers" fucking supermen? Who fucking cares what the "founding fathers" wanted? That group of slaveowners who though only men should be allowed to vote? Were they some kind of god-endorsed supermen and now we're bound to every asshole's interpretation of what they believe the "founding fathers" wanted?

And what kind of huge fucking ego does it take to say you can look through the eyes of an extremely intellectually diverse group of men from 240 years ago and come up with a distillation of their collective desire? Because I've read Jefferson and Madison and Franklin and others and guess what: they didn't all agree on everything.

I'm sorry, I know I should be mean to you Taco Cowboy because you're so badly damaged. I mean, you know, "more to be pitied then censured" and all that, but seriously, take your founding fathers and Ronald Reagan and stuff 'em.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Black Parrot]

Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.

Well, if it had said "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against any searches and seizures, shall not be violated" you'd not be able to have much in the way of law enforcement, would you?

They could have rephrased the whole thing, along the lines of "The people's persons, houses, papers, and effects shall not be searched or seized without a warrant."

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Stirling Newberry]

Yes States can be bought with smaller checks.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Stirling Newberry]

Ireland is a disaster area. Israel has constant minority leading parties that must ally with parties demanding bribes. A system has to have some mechanism to force coalition without the minor partners having disproportionate power.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

If Benjamin Franklin knew about the state of the world today there would've no second amendment and healthcare for all.
Wow, insightful for that clap trap? Kos bots out in force. News flash Switzerland is not the murder capital of the world, and your dumb ass needs to read Federalist #46 before you start espousing what the founding fathers were thinking about the second amendment.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Stirling Newberry]

That is completely false, the protection of rights was left to the states, there is no bill of Rights in the Articles, it is not until after the Civil War that the Federal Government gained the ability to enforce the Federal Bill of Rights on the States.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[cmdr_tofu]

Really you don't think other countries have constitutions and their own statements of rights? Have you checked this? I'm pretty sure there are other democracies in the world.

US has some more economic and mineral resources than Somalia too.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[jaeson]

If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes.

Nope, the US is about the only country in the world that taxes non-residents the same as residents.

Not exactly. If you are a non-resident US citizen and you earn your income from a foreign company, then you get an exemption on this foreign-earned income up to $95K a year. So, you only pay US taxes if you make more than that amount.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Eunuchswear]

The only thing that differentiate America from the rest of the world is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Without those two very important documents, the United States of America is as good as Zimbabwe or Somalia, in terms of governance.

Ah, the US is the only country with a constitution and a Bill of RIghts and all other countries are the same as Zimbabwe and Somalia.

And someone modded that "interesting".

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AdeBaumann]

Works absolutely fine in Switzerland.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Danathar]

Actually it was 3 branches guarding against the other two AND the States/Federal Government checking each other.

That second part was gutted about 100 years ago.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[asylumx]

Those are some great proposals which I can get behind, but unfortunately it's not apparent how any of them could actually gain traction in the US. We'd have to somehow elect people who are willing to change the very process that they took advantage of in order to get elected.

Seriously, how can we get ideas like these to actually happen? Or at least to be considered?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[modmans2ndcoming]

We have a Constitutional Amendment that supersedes any interpretation of the 4th Amendment that would prevent taxation....and before then, precedence showing you as very wrong.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[LordLimecat]

Um, everyone criticizes congress for the last few years of "obstructionism"-- seems to me theres your check / balance. And SCOTUS narrowly avoided striking down the healthcare law-- theres another check.

most of the citizenry still do not care.

And it is your opinion that in days of yore they did?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?

I think it may be the part that described the government's duty to defend our international borders and to regulate international trade.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[LordLimecat]

Its a contract that gives our government legitimacy. You cant just throw that away and expect to maintain legitimacy.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[ultranova]

You also forgot the smoking of teh weed... cuz you know, that's exactly what the 99% need... another place to spend the money they don't have and to magically go someplace in their mind where nothing matters.

Sure, why not? World sucks and probably always will, so people need a break from it every now and then. In practice that can come from weed or alcohol, and weed is a lot less unhealthy.

The availability of relatively safe mind-altering substances is going to be ever more important in the future as energy shortage, climate change and wealth concentration make life worse and traditional escapes - such as traveling - less available. Also, we should invest serious research into things like easy induction of lucid dreaming.

The thing is, drugs are a cheap form of entertainment, both in terms of energy and enviromental impact. And some of them, such as weed, also help people deal with the fact that their lives will suck from cradle to the grave, and their children will be even worse off. We can't afford to overlook these benefits just for ideological reasons.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[JesseMcDonald]

Unfortunately, they stuck that word "unreasonable" in there. All you have to do is assert reasonableness, and the whole thing goes away.

Only to those completely lacking in reading comprehension. The word "unreasonable" is merely part of the introductory phrase, describing the intent of the amendment. The mechanism by which reasonableness is ensured is the requirement for a warrant (which is another way of saying "permission to perform a search or to seize property"--no warrant equals no permission) and the restrictions imposed on issuing such warrants.

In a sense you're correct in that all you have to do is establish reasonableness, but only insofar as you follow the procedure for establishing reasonableness, which is to apply for a warrant. If no warrant is issued then reasonableness has not been legally established. It is not sufficient to merely assert that a given search or seizure is "reasonable".

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Dishevel]

So many of the rights of the people have been taken away, and the saddest part is, most of the citizenry still do not care.

Don't you mean given away?

We have sold our rights to small responsive federal government that guarantees our rights little by little for trinkets and by "thinking of the children".

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah because Canada, Britain, Germany, etc., are such oppressive regimes....

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[angel'o'sphere]

Thats the biggest nonsense I have ever heard The only thing hat diferentiate America from the rest of the world is The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
This from a country where the soldiers claim they have neve heared abou the treaty og Genova or the Haag land war convention.
In what ridiculous nation do you live that you believe other countries (especially democra tic ones) have no constitution or no equivalent to the bill of rights?
For f*** sake. The USA was "founded" 1776 ... There where plenty of democracies around at that time. Do you really believe the USA invented 'democracy'? And howvlong did it take them to 'implement' it?
As far as I can tell it took ages for women to have voting rights an blacks could not vote till 1960 or so.
"The greatest nation on earth" is still power full. But it is as well the most backyard nation I can imagine.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Speare]

And yet, the IRS has abdicated its obligation to investigate religious organizations that get involved in political endorsements and attacks. Think of all the juicy tax money that could be flowing from the main street hatemongers' castles.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[aztracker1]

Have you read the Articles of Confederation... there wasn't a "Bill of Rights" but most of what is in the bill of rights were provisions directly in the Articles... Beyond this, I'm not sure you quite understand all of what the civil war brought.. beyond either one or another illegal amendment to the constitution... After all, New Hampshire and Vermont had considered leaving the union as well, not to join the southern states either. I'm not pro slavery, or racist... But I do know a bit more about the pre civil war history in this country.

I'm curious which portion of the first 10 amendments to the constitution weren't being enforced prior to the civil war?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[nedlohs]

But the democrats (well some of them) complained when Bush did so - remember Bushitler and so on.

Whereas Clinton got away with it, and Obama even more so.

The drones aren't the real issue, they're just an obvious and well known if imperfect example. Banker bailouts might have been a better choice.

It's just a strange situation in which I think (I haven't thought deeply about it) I would prefer the guy who I like less to have won. On a political axis I might be a at -1 while they are +8 and +8.5. So they are both terrible (in my opinion obviously) but one is slightly worse. However, the one that is slightly better is likely going to be able to get more of the stuff I don't like done because the huge chunk of people at +5 (or whatever, I'm making up numbers on an undefined axis) would heavily criticise the +8.5 guy about things they'll let the +8 guy get away.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[BasilBrush]

If you think nothing matters when you've been smoking weed, then I'd suggest you've never tried it.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[SteffenM]

Umm... What?

An Amendment is a ratified change to a legal document. it either replaces the original language, or adds additional provisions to it.

That means the amended document supersedes the original document. You cannot interpret the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, nor any of the other amendments that have passed. Legally, the Constitution doesn't exist without them.

I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong about this if you tried.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[BasilBrush]

Oh look, a Romney supporter.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[gfxguy]

Wow... presume much? I didn't say we shouldn't pay taxes, genius; and no, I'm a net payer, not a net taker (top 10%). I'm suggesting there are better ways of taxing than an agency that has free reign over what should be your personal, private business.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Yeah, they're just crazy and have no idea what they are doing. Keep thinking like that. They love it.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[BasilBrush]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

Looks like a wide range of countries there. Both successes and failures. Just like a list of first past the post countries is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post_electoral_system#Use

Neither one is a panacea or a guaranteed failure.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Chrisje]

I hardly think that Corporal punishment, Death penalty, Surveillance or even being held without a fair trial are things any US citizen can comment on at this junction in time. As long as y'all have 12.000+ deaths due to handgun violence per annum, still execute more prisoners per year than any other country on the planet, run camps like Guantanamo and invade the odd nation for spurious reasons, y'all can't really bitch about Singapore, now can you?

Having said that, I am a citizen of the Netherlands. We've been known to be a wee more liberal and less violent than the US for a while now.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Rufus Firefly]

In 1992 Michigan went to term limits and the results have been a disaster. Our state level politics have become polarized, and no one is willing to work together for the common good, they just want to make a name for themselves so that they can move on to the next step up the political ladder. We have no one in the legislature able to work a reasonable budget or work with the other party because there's just no experience any more in budget writing or politicking.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[junkgoof]

Problem is when they gang up. Clinton changed the laws and then Bush the lesser pushed the changes to the limit of their ability to send the American economy to Asia and the Caymans for the benefit of a few rich donors.

There is always a massive media push to elect the most bought politician in the race, the one who will never go against his donors for the good of the people or the economy (NOT Bush Sr (trashed by media and his own party), Clinton, Bush jr, NOT McCain, Romney). Obama is bought, and way more bought than was hoped when he was elected, but much less than Romney or Bush jr. There is some hope, on any given issue, that Obama won't let the 0.1% sell off shared assets and grab deficit dollars for their benefit to be paid for by the rest of us.

Obama may sell out the electorate 80 or 90 percent of the time, but at least he digs in his heels on the odd occasion. Bush jr, Clinton, and Romney would/did sell out 100% of the time with a servile bow and an easy smile.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[MightyMartian]

And a future generation did, and swept away the Jeffersonian-madisonian state in the process. The notion that the Federal government should b small and impotent was swept away with the Confederacy.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Kjella]

Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution?

Well, it's one page long - literally, this is the actual document. The first amendment doesn't say anything about death threats or shouting fire in a crowded theater, but I very much doubt they intended those to be legal. I really doubt they expected that 200+ years later people would try to divine the small implementation details from what is an extremely high level summary, even vital rights are covered by about half a sentence. To take the 4th, I'm pretty sure a 1790s sheriff would search a person that's under arrest and that's as intended but it's not explicit but is considered a "reasonable" search. I think you're forgetting what the alternative here was, which was to have no bill of rights at all. The point was to have something short and sweet that said the government can't search anyone and any place they want, any time.

I know that Iceland has been working on a new constitution using a very open and modern process with public input and their section on human rights covers about 6.5 pages and I'd say even that one could be spelled out in more explicit detail, because most articles end up with stating a right then saying the government can curb it anyway. But it's kind of hard to catch all the "EXCEPT if your religion requires human sacrifice, EXCEPT if you want to print kiddie porn, EXCEPT if your peaceful assembly on public ground is blocking any ambulances from reaching/leaving the hospital" and so on. Almost no rights are total absolutes that under no circumstances can be restricted in any way. Like the ten commandments may say "You shall not kill" but I'm pretty sure most would kill in their own or their family's defense. But there's no exceptions stated.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[mcgrew]

You also forgot the smoking of teh weed... cuz you know, that's exactly what the 99% need... another place to spend the money they don't have and to magically go someplace in their mind where nothing matters.

Legal weed is like legal apples: you can grow your own and it costs nothing. And look at if you do actually buy it rather than growing it -- a pack of cigarettes has an ounce of tobacco, which is much harder to grow. Now, look at the price of a pack of legal, lethal cigarettes compared to the price of an ounce of illegal, mostly harmless weed.

AND, if they're stoned on pot they're not likely to be breaking into your house or driving, unlike the very dangerous but legal drug alcohol.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Hatta]

We gained one thing yesterday. The chance to have a real national conversation about Cannabis reform.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[mcgrew]

So a bunch of really old dead white dudes matter?

"Old" matters; age usually confers wisdom and knowledge. But what does the fact that they were white dudes matter? Your comment sounds a tad bit racist, sexist, and ageist. I'm guessing you're an undergrad in college, right? Or maybe still in high school?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[gamemank]

Pick one. How do we get it done?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Hatta]

That ship already sailed. The decision on Obamacare blew out all the constitutional limits on what the Federal Government can regulate

No, that was Wickard v Filburn (1942).

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[quintin3265]

But most people agree that both weed and alcohol, regardless of how they fare relative to each other, have detrimental effects on the body, especially in the long term. Traveling, which you mentioned, especially by plane, does not carry these risks.

While your opinion obviously differs, I personally don't see why drugs are necessary to enjoy life. I don't smoke, drink, or use weed. I have many "problems" that others do not share - my job is tedious, I have always had difficulty making friends, never had a girlfriend, and my health has had setbacks. But I never have turned to drugs to get away from these issues. Instead, I take pleasure in the little things of life, like going for bike rides in state parks, playing Halo 4, and spending time with family over the upcoming holidays. It is unreasonable to think that everyone can be content with all or even most of their lives, because society cannot function without trash collectors and assembly line workers.

If you think life sucks, then it has always sucked and it certainly sucks less today than it did 100 years ago. As long as you have the basics of food, water, shelter, and medical care (which will now be available in just over a year), it is not necessary to use drugs to be content with life.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[painandgreed]

In the USA, we need:

Trouble is, to get those, there will probably have to be changes made to the constitution. I for one, doubt we could make changes to the constitution and come out with something better for the people than was cooked up by a bunch of idealistic white guys more than 200 years ago, especially when the planned changes are meant to fix the people that are supposed to be making the changes.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Just Some Guy]

It took a lot of yelling and screaming to get the bill of rights into the constitution.

Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights because he believed people would incorrectly interpret it as an enumeration of rights "granted" to the population. In his own words:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

And on that count, he was completely correct. There are plenty of people who wrongly believe that we have, say, freedom of speech because the first amendment grants it to us. In reality, we inherently have freedom of speech and the Constitution simply grants the government extremely limited powers to curtail it.

Let me put this in geek terms: the Constitution is a default-deny policy. Given a query in the form "is the Federal government permitted to do X", it can be satisfied by seeing if X is an enumerated power of the Federal government. If not, then no - the government isn't permitted to do it. Madison et al wanted to keep it default deny but add a few explicit deny rules afterward. Hamilton said that was a bad idea because people would start treating those as the canonical list of denied actions, effectively treating the base Constitution as default-allow with enumerated exceptions. And what do you know; he was right about that.

Of course, people would probably have started looking at the Constitution as default-allow over time anyway, and the Bill of Rights is a good fallback position of telling the government that "you aren't allowed to do anything not spelled out in the Constitution, but you're especially not allowed to do this stuff". In that sense, Madison was probably wise in supporting it. But in any case, everyone involved supported the contents of the Bill of Rights, more or less. They just differed on whether it was a good idea to spell them out as a set of special cases.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[MightyMartian]

If the Europeans and Africans moved away, you would be left with Amerindians.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[TopherC]

I cannot understand why Maine and Nebraska do this! I applaud them of course but I don't see this as a locally-correct strategy.

If you're a swing state, you love it because you get lots of attention, perhaps to your own state's needs, during presidential election season. That's good. If you go to proportional representation that no longer happens. (A friend pointed out to me that this kind of attention is really a bad thing. We live in Colorado and I've had no less then 12 phone calls reminding me to vote during the past week, and sticky notes on my doors.)

If you're not a swing state, winner-take-all is still good for you because if you transition to proportional representation most of your citizens will feel like they have less of a voice in the election -- less impact for their collective votes. If all "blue" states, for example, went to proportional representation while the "red" states did not then it would be nearly impossible for a democrat to win the presidency. The blue state citizens would generally not like this and wish to change back.

So while I'd love to see proportional representation happen, I don't think it can happen unless the constitution is amended to force all states to do it at once. Of course along come Maine and Nebraska -- an ugly disfigurement on my lovely little theory. What stupid states, doing what's best for the good of the country and all that. Makes me sick.

What I think is even more important is going from plurality voting to almost any other system. The grandparent post mentions instant runoff, but I'm starting to favor approval voting. We're so close to doing that anyway. I heard a news report reminding voters that if they mark YES for more than one candidate, their ballot would be invalidated. Approval voting is just like our current system except that voting YES for more than one candidate is allowed. Maybe that's not quite as good as instant runoff, but it's close and dead simple. It eliminates the third-party spoiler effect, and I think that's huge and worth fighting for. I think it would make a noticeable improvement in partisan politics! Yes we'd again need an amendment, but honestly who in their right minds would oppose that? I guess the catch is "who in their right minds."

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[NoOneInParticular]

Gerrymandering.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AK Marc]

The taxes and tax rates are the same, even if your actions change the deductions you are under the same tax rules as a resident.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[emj]

So basically if you live outside of the US for 330 days you will not pay taxes in the US, sound about the same as in Sweden.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[dgatwood]

In 1995, Congress failed to introduce term limits and the results have been a disaster. Our Federal-level politics have become polarized, and no one is willing to work together for the common good. They just want to make a name for themselves so that they can move on to cushy consulting jobs in private industry. We have no one in the legislature who is able to create a reasonable budget or work with the other party because most career politicians have no real experience in budget writing or politicking.

Never attribute to causation what can be attributed to national political trends just as easily.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[strikethree]

There was no absence of aristocracy amongst the founding fathers.

Erm, not everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence was awesome. Most (Alexander Hamilton) were utter jackasses who were authoritarian freaks. Those guys only signed because they hoped to benefit from it financially in the long run.

I consider Thomas Jefferson to be one of the ultimate founding fathers, but so few people care what he wrote, said, or did (except having sex with a woman he owned). When I think of the principles that America was founded upon, I reach for his writings.

I guess I am kind of dancing around the no true Scotsman thing here but really, not everyone who signed the Declaration agreed on the principles with which the country was founded.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[steelfood]

They didn't think to put the Bill of Rights into the constitution because to them, it was an obvious matter that people had these inalienable rights.

Even the wording of the Bill of Rights reflects this: "Congress shall make no law..."

The Bill of Rights is not intended to grant people any rights, it only prevents the government from taking them away.

It doesn't matter though. As you say, the constitution was always just a piece of paper. Read up on Andrew Jackson. In fact, I'd wager that the checks and balances are working better now than before. People are at least respecting its words, rather than doing whatever they liked.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[ultranova]

But most people agree that both weed and alcohol, regardless of how they fare relative to each other, have detrimental effects on the body, especially in the long term. Traveling, which you mentioned, especially by plane, does not carry these risks.

Traveling carries the obvious risks of plane crash, picking up exotic diseases, getting into trouble due to cultural differences, etc, and that's not even getting into the energy cost and enviromental impact. Also, none of us gets out of here alive, so the relevance of long-term detrimental effects is somewhat questionable, especially since weed's long term effects are pretty much nonexistent.

While your opinion obviously differs, I personally don't see why drugs are necessary to enjoy life. I don't smoke, drink, or use weed. I have many "problems" that others do not share - my job is tedious, I have always had difficulty making friends, never had a girlfriend, and my health has had setbacks. But I never have turned to drugs to get away from these issues. Instead, I take pleasure in the little things of life, like going for bike rides in state parks, playing Halo 4, and spending time with family over the upcoming holidays. It is unreasonable to think that everyone can be content with all or even most of their lives, because society cannot function without trash collectors and assembly line workers.

And I don't see what your argument has to do with mine. You are happy with your life without drugs, good for you. What does that have to do with whether they should be available to those who want them? Especially since Halo - and all games - are just another way of escaping reality? It seems a bit hypocritical to proudly announce you don't need one particular way while admitting you use another.

If you think life sucks, then it has always sucked and it certainly sucks less today than it did 100 years ago.

But it also sucks less than it probably will 10 years from now. That's part of the problem: 100 years ago, people had hope that their lives would improve, and that their children would be better off than them. That helped them endure their hardships. That hope of a bright future is pretty much gone.

Things might start improving again some day, but for now, we're in for a long, dark winter.

As long as you have the basics of food, water, shelter, and medical care (which will now be available in just over a year), it is not necessary to use drugs to be content with life.

You ended your previous paragraph by stating everyone can't be content with life. Here you're asserting just the opposite. Which one is it?

Also, this claim of yours is incorrect: of course you need more than just food, water, shelter and medical care to be content. Even animals require more than that.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Draknor]

Although I agree with this in theory, the practical application of it is much more challenging -- how do you prevent individuals from supporting their preferred candidates without infringing freedom of speech?

If I'm an Democratic supporter with tons of cash, and I want to buy a billboard that says "Republicans eat babies for breakfast", and I'm not associated with the campaign -- on what grounds should my freedom of speech be impinged? Or if I'm a Republican, or Independent, and I want to send out a mailing saying our Democratic president has ruined this country over the last 4 years -- don't I have the freedom of speech to say that?

I do agree that direct campaigns should be publicly-funded, but the broader issue is very challenging to regulate.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[steelfood]

Even if you renounce your citizenship, you're still supposed to pay U.S. taxes for ten years afterwards.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Draknor]

Two things -- cannabis reform, but also significant democratic (read: popular vote) on gay marriage. Despite the loud mouths of those opposed, the tide is definitely shifting towards MORE freedom and MORE inclusion.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[jcr]

If one person resists, they're probably screwed. If tens of thousands resist, it's a whole different ball game.

-jcr

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Relayman]

I've had to deal with the IRS more than I would like to and I have always found their people to be fair and professional. Sorry if you had a bad experience.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[kenorland]

A solution is multiple-winner proportional representation.

And what problem is that supposed to solve? Right now, the winner take all system means that fringe candidates just don't make it. With proportional representation, any significant group of political nuts gets a voice in Congress. Do you really want a Congress in which you have a Christian Fundamentalist Party, a Black Panther Party, an Earth First Party, and a Neo-Marxist Party? Those are the kinds of groups that the current system filters out. I think that's a good thing.

In addition, in a proportional representation system, by necessity, you end up having people appointed to Congress by parties; do you really want the Democratic and Republican party machinery to be able to appoint their nutcases to Congress without any voter input?

Proportional representation is a horrible idea, and we should be glad that we don't have it in the US.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Solandri]

There is no perfect election system. The bottom line is any representative system is going to have shortcomings. Some will be better than others in certain situations, which means for a given range of situations some will on average be better. I'd argue the U.S. system could be improved substantially with instant run-off voting. But the bottom line is any system will always have areas where "it can be improved." The problem is those improvements cause deficiencies elsewhere.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[kenorland]

Obama should have used that as a campaign slogan: "I'm Barack Obama. Vote for me because I'm no worse than Bush or Reagan!"

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Richy_T]

Winner-takes-all sucks and effectively disenfranchises up to 49.999% of a state's population.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Richy_T]

Ireland? Really?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Richy_T]

+1 on approval voting by the way.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Richy_T]

They did, however, understand that things could change and provided a method to amend the constitution, one that has actually been used quite a few times over the years.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[angel'o'sphere]

It does not matter how you like to phrase it. Amendments are just additions and are not in the original document. So in most cases they come in precedence AFTER the original phrasing, in case of a conflict.
Perhaps you should read a bit about law and how it works. Besides I don't really get where I was wong, perhaps citate a phrase and give an example and a clarification?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AK Marc]

So, you must file to the IRS every year, and your deductions change based on your personal situation, and you claim that's unrelated to being responsible to the IRS for taxes?

You do realize that if you fail to file your $0 tax return, you are responsible for the full tax, as if you lived in the US, right?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[shutdown -p now]

Specifically what powers should the states have that are currently exclusive to the federal government?

The power to bust your door and drag you to jail for possession of marijuana (with no interstate commerce involved) would be one glaring example. There are many more.

That would be true if we were electing parties to congress but we're not, we're electing people. Representative X from Party B is not at all equivalent to representative Q from Party B. I realize that the political rhetoric tends to slant towards Party A vs Party B but I'd much rather vote for someone who fairly represents their constituents instead of a generic interchangeable member of a Party.

Mixed-member proportional is designed to accommodate both the desire to elect specific people, and the need to accurately represent parties and their platforms proportional to the expressed preferences of the voters.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[shutdown -p now]

Certainly an amendment is less binding than the original paragraphs of the constitution.

No, it's not. In fact, exactly the opposite is true - if an amendment conflicts with some original provision of the constitution, it overrides that provision. For example, the 12th Amendment redefined the election procedure as outlined in the original document.

Also, amendments are just a part of the constitution as the original text. At any given moment, the constitution in force consists of the original text, with all the modifications of the standing amendments.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Ahab's compliments]

Ausfag here. Some minor clarifications. The vote for each seat is NOT first past the post - it's preferential voting or "instant run-off voting". So, if no candidate has a majority on primary votes, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the second preference for those ballot papers is distributed where those . Rinse, repeat until someone has a majority. As you say, in practice this means that 3rd party candidates are eliminated first. And in practice it comes down to a fight between Labor (our marginally progressive left-centrist party) and Liberal (our marginally conservative right-centrist party). Apologies if this is what you meant. The Upper House (Senate) does get third party candidates because of this preferential voting process - each state has 7 senate seats regardless of actual population - a famous Prime Minister (Paul Keating) once called the Senate "unrepresentative swill" for this reason. The Senate is still largely Labor/Liberal with usually some Greens and a few independents though, so it's a stretch to say it represents minorities much. Also, in the Lower House rules of party discipline apply - so if I'm in Labor party, I will vote with them regardless of my personal preferences - otherwise I can expect a nasty phone call from the heavies later in the day. "Crossing the floor" to vote with the other side is a big deal and a step not taken lightly. Occasionally on a moral issue (eg abortion, euthanasia) a "conscience vote" will be allowed and MPs can vote whichever way they like. Don't romanticise our system - it's as prone to party politics and grid lock as anywhere else. A key difference though is that voting is compulsory - so you get high turn out rates. If you don't vote and get caught (ie you are registered to vote but don't) you'll get a small fine, about $50 I think.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[bondsbw]

Also the states can amend the Constitution without involving the federal government, all they'd need to do is call a convention and then later vote on the new amendment.

This balance is indeed the greatest balance, but only if it exists in reality. I neglected to mention that I would like to require the states to hold such a convention to declare and/or vote on amendments on a regular schedule (e.g. every year, every 4 years, whatever). As it stands, the idea of a convention was good in theory but nonexistent in practice, due to the logistical difficulty of getting 50 states to decide when and how to bring up potential constitutional amendments.

That would be true if we were electing parties to congress but we're not, we're electing people.

Please s/Party/Political Affiliation/. The use of "Party" was more as an example. You would still be voting for a person, except that perhaps you would be voting statewide for X people instead of in X districts for 1 person each. Or perhaps the state would divide into larger districts and allow you to vote for 2 or 3 people in your district. How this is done, I don't care and should be determined by the state.

In the current set up states with a low population have a greater electoral collage vote per capita then a state with a large population.

My argument was not for popular vote, but for proportional representation. In some state, instead of 50.1% of the vote giving that candidate 9 electors, it would give that candidate 5 and their opponent 4. Then those 49.9% have some representation, instead of none at all.

As long as the federal government ensures that everyone can vote and that everyone's vote is equal I think it should be up to the states to determine what style of voting to use.

Swing states are the evidence that this is not happening. I live in Alabama, and it matters not who I vote for. Romney was practically elected in Alabama the moment he beat Santorum/Gingrich/Paul. At least with proportional representation in the electoral college, there may have been a difference in whether 5 or 6 electors (out of our 9) were dedicated to Romney.

Now, if you enjoy this charade of democracy and believe there is nothing that could be better than a polarized populous with a large minority of people unrepresented, then ignore everything I said.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[rtb61]

Smoking weed is cheap, hell growing your own is easy. In fact that is the problem with it, it is too cheap. Can't have the sheeple chasing the carrot they can never quite reach, if they are cruising in a hammock letting the world drift by, not cleaning the toilets of the rich and greedy or dying in the wars of the rich and greedy or slaving in the sweat shops of the rich and greedy. Compared to the prize of fancy marketed booze there is just not comparison, legalised weed could cost you in one whole year what you could spend in a weekend on booze.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[ultranova]

Their lives might not suck so much if they learned not to substitute "kicking back and feeling good" for actually taking action to solve the problems that were confronting them.

Neither energy shortage nor climate change are solvable due to physics. Wealth concentration is not solvable due to human evil. But even if you solved all of this, you would still remain a mortal in a world full of horrible things, and drugs would likely make your life better.

The worst thing about habitual drug use is that it takes both time and money away from solving real problems. Feeling good by using the drugs becomes an easy substitute for feeling good by actually doing something that benefits one's life long-term, which is harder, but ultimately more rewarding.

Doing something? You mean like the French Revolution? Or the Russian Revolution(s), or the American Revolution, none of which did anything to actually make life better for anyone?

The real problems are not solvable, on the account of the being real problems rather than, say, political ones. They can not be solved, they can only be endured. And drugs help with that, just as vodka once helped russians endure their regime.

I's precisely because habitual drug use makes people less likely to want anything that makes it such a perfect match for the world of steadily deteriorating circumstances we're now facing. Perhaps one day we can again look into the future and believe it'll be better, but for now, it's about endurance. And drugs help with one endure the long, dark winter.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[isorox]

Just wait another four years. Did you happen to miss what Obama said to Putin that was caught on an open mic? It's quite telling that at the same time we've elected that asshat for another term several states passed measures to allow recreational use of pot. Seems that there is a correlation of stupidity there.

Probably, I'm not American, and I'm not Russian (although I've been to both places in the last 8 weeks and keep a fairly close eye on international media)

Could you enlighten me please?

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[isorox]

I hardly think that Corporal punishment, Death penalty, Surveillance or even being held without a fair trial are things any US citizen can comment on at this junction in time. As long as y'all have 12.000+ deaths due to handgun violence per annum, still execute more prisoners per year than any other country on the planet, run camps like Guantanamo and invade the odd nation for spurious reasons, y'all can't really bitch about Singapore, now can you?

I agree there's a lot wrong with America, and there's a fair bit wrong with Singapore. I'm not sure which I'd prefer to live in, but I'm not a citizen of either, and to be honest I prefer European universal health care to both systems.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[isorox]

Kind of a bullshit response I think. Of course the founding "fathers" were aristocratic. If they weren't they would not have thought or bothered to rebell against Great Britain. I can't think of run of the mill peasants and slaves revolting and trying to form their own country.

Look up Wat Tyler.

Of course the aristocrats couldn't be trusted then, and still can't.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[mcvos]

Proportional representation in Congress.

If you think this is a way forward, you should think again. Open a couple of history books, look for countries that tried it and look how and why it failed.

Do you actually think before giving these advices?

I'd love to see an explanation of what you were thinking when you wrote this, because it doesn't seem to be making any sense.

Countries with proportional representation tend to be more democratic and have more dynamic democracies than countries with two-party systems. Two-party systems tend to polarize, and polarization tends to paralyze the politics of a country. Minority opinions don't get represented, and elections tend to degenerate to the choice for the lesser evil. Really, proportional representation is the way out.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[Kjella]

That's what people guilty of tax evasion always say. If the IRS find out you've been in receipt of undeclared income (e.g. you are a drug dealer driving a Ferrari who claims to be unemployed) why the fuck shouldn't they presume you are guilty?

But that's not how it works in practice, I know a person who did some petty drug crime with some petty income to go with it. The government practically robbed him blind because anything he couldn't pull up a receipt for, anything he couldn't track back to a purchase from his checking account, they took. Anything bought second hand, gifts from friends and family, anything he'd bought cash in store and thrown away or lost the receipt, they took everything and far more than he ever made being a small-time drug peddler.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[joocemann]

When living abroad, if paying taxes abroad, you are exempt from US taxes. The idea is that if you're paying for social services elsewhere, you are using them elsewhere -- and if you're not paying elsewhere, then they assume you're using US social services and should pay.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[AK Marc]

You get deductions for foreign tax paid, up to a point, but you are still required to file, and may still owe US taxes.

Re:Look at who they appoint to the SCOTUS.

[robsku]

I don't know what you've been smoking, but our country is not similar to Zimbabwe or Somalia - I don't think those Somali refugees would be that keen to come here if it were.

Important documents? Maybe - personally I think what matters is what kind of country you want yours to be - but cut the BS.

Changes?

[ryen]

It's currently projected that the Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats will retain control of the Senate.

So nothing has changed. Looking forward to the next four years of partisanship!

Re:Changes?

[aralin]

bipartisanship: partisanship by two parties

Re:Changes?

[amiga3D]

I remain hopeful that we may yet get a viable third party. I figure 4 more years of mismanagement by the two mafias may yet bring about real change. Probably not though.

Awkward...

[AdamStarks]

Romney would have won if we didn't have the electoral college (according to the popular vote), sooo...

Re:Awkward...

[speederaser]

Romney would have won if we didn't have the electoral college (according to the popular vote), sooo...

Nope, Obama got the popular vote too:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president?hpt=elec_racenav

An hour ago when you posted Obama was behind but he's ahead now. The only states still counting votes are the ones that Obama is winning so he'll stay in front.

Which is too bad in the sense that if the electoral vote and popular vote were split maybe there would be some momentum to get rid of the electoral college.

Re:Awkward...

[sjames]

Look again.

Re:Awkward...

[AdamStarks]

Yeah, I just did :P

Awkward...

Re:Awkward...

[sjames]

Apparently, you didn't. Last time I took math, Obama's 53224554 was > Romney's 52515324.

Of course, the final figures are days out as the various absentee and provisional ballots are counted, but however narrow, Obama seems to be winning in the popular vote as well as electoral.

Re:Awkward...

[gtbritishskull]

Which is too bad in the sense that if the electoral vote and popular vote were split maybe there would be some momentum to get rid of the electoral college.

I briefly thought the same thing, but overall it would not have been good. The US government already can't get anything done. If Obama had actually lost the popular vote then he would have had almost zero mandate. So, while it would have been good to have some push for a national popular vote, the country has so many problems right now (fiscal cliff, slow improvement in the economy, debt) that we need to give our leaders a mandate to fix the problems.

Re:Awkward...

[AdamStarks]

I should have been clearer. I meant that I was agreeing with you, and the "Awkward" thing was supposed to be ironic.

I voted Third Party so I don't really care too much either way on these results, hence was the smiley face.

Re:Awkward...

[geekoid]

If the events of 1968 didn't get rid of it, I'm not sure anything can.

Re:Awkward...

[geekoid]

" slow improvement in the economy"
myth. By any comparative measure the recovery isn't slow.
There is a difference between 'I want it faster therefor it's slow' and actual logical measurements.

A bit early

[mveloso]

If you look at the numbers, there are quite a few counties in Ohio and FL that haven't come in yet. FL is probably good for Obama, but OH is really still a question mark right now.

83% reporting
difference: 26k votes

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enrpublic/f?p=212:41:535976335870203::NO::P41_REGION,P41_RACE_CODE:Statewide,PR
20:47 PDT

Re:A bit early

[the eric conspiracy]

If the both end up in Romney's column Obama still wins.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Black Parrot]

Are you serious??!?!?? Of all the things to criticize about Mitt Romney you chose underwear? How is that even relevant. Go after his foreign policy or his lack of information on how he would carry out his Economic plans, but your comment is just plain stupid and ignorant.

A cynic might also ask how "magic underwear" is any different from the things more popular religions claim.

Re:Just one thing

[fustakrakich]

The 'free world" is an exoplanet, still waiting to be discovered.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[Cruciform]

Um, no. They can keep both of them and have Harper for free.

Just hope it isn' a...

[maz2331]

"Dewey Beats Truman"

Wait, What?

[Greyfox]

I go away for like FIVE MINUTES to make popcorn, open a beer and settle in for a long night of watching pundits say whatever comes into their heads, and Obama wins it? I made enough popcorn to last UNTIL DECEMBER!

Oh well. I guess I'll go watch Fox News slip into a channel-wide suicidal depression.

Re:Wait, What?

[uslurper]

Mod up! -I especially like the part about Fox news

Re:Wait, What?

[Grayhand]

I go away for like FIVE MINUTES to make popcorn, open a beer and settle in for a long night of watching pundits say whatever comes into their heads, and Obama wins it? I made enough popcorn to last UNTIL DECEMBER!

Oh well. I guess I'll go watch Fox News slip into a channel-wide suicidal depression.

Fox News just has a full screen banner running "The Mayans Were Right!"

Re:Wait, What?

[Tablizer]

I guess I'll go watch Fox News slip into a channel-wide suicidal depression.

FoxNews, gun shops (NRA), and Rush Limbaugh are ironically more profitable with a Democrat in office. Aggravation and paranoia are their secret formula for profits.

Re:Wait, What?

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> I made enough popcorn to last UNTIL DECEMBER!

At least you'll be regular.

Re:Wait, What?

[StatureOfLiberty]

Interestingly, In Charlotte, NC the Fox News channel on cable actually went black for 18 minutes about the time it was clear that Romney was going to lose. I was watching Fox for amusement. I thought it was just that channel as other channels looked OK. So, I switched from the HD Fox news channel to the low def channel and it was black too. I was surprised I never heard anything about it in the news. I just double checked and the outage was between 11:20 and 11:40 PM eastern.

Re:Wait, What?

[Greyfox]

Karl Rove, is that you?

Sorry, couldn't drink you over the sound of me sipping this Karl Rove Bitter Tear Martini! Two shots of gin and a dash of Karl Rove tears! So bitter, yet so delicious!

Re:Wait, What?

[Tablizer]

The evidence is in:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/09/news/economy/gun-control-obama/index.html

The Repubs really need to do some soul searching

[Snotnose]

If they can't beat Obama in this economy, with his results, they really need to stare at their navels and figure out why people hate them so much. They can start with GWB, one of the worst presidents in history, move on to what they think of rape, and then figure how much they need the religious nutjobs that forms their so called base. Their anti-science, anti-women BS is driving the country away from them.

I'll admit I voted for Rmoney. Not because I like that finger in the wind flip flopper, but I think Obama's policies are disastrous.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Jeremi]

Please, let's stop pretending that Bush started anything.

1) He started the invasion of Iraq.
2) He started torture as official US policy.

His predecessors were hardly any better.

After World War 2, the USA convicted several Japanese soldiers of water boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. The US government hanged them for that crime.

George W. Bush will forever be known as the President who first sanctioned torture in the USA.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Deficit is not the same thing as debt... look it up

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

but Barak Obama is the same way (maybe not as religious, but still religious). So the only thing you can say about the person starting this thread is that they were purposely trolling.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people disagree. Bush was the one who got tens of thousands of Americans killed for a pointless war in Iraq.

The republicans got Clinton impeached for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and then lying about it.

Tell me one of these is not worse then the other. Bush was a madman who screwed up this country far more then any other president in recent history, including Nixon. And that Nixon asshole was a dirtyhanded SOB.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[Massacrifice]

Sorry Canuck, no hockey, no trades.

ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in part

[Joe_Dragon]

ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in part

The health care problems in the usa are to big to fix at one time and there is room to change ACA or to use it while working on a better over all idea.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[Telvin_3d]

This person does not speak for us. Harper is... uncomfortably far right for many Canadians. And yet still sits to the left of Obama on many issues. He only appears deranged and extreme compared to our regular variety of center-left or outright left politician.

Well, no, he is a little deranged all on his own. But still, we'll take him over damn near anyone you could send us in return. Should only be another election or two before his party collapses on itself and we can move on.

Don't blame me

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Kodos.

Now what for the Republicans?

[enter to exit]

Mitts strategy was to rely on moderate Republicans (who vote for the party and what it ideally stands for, even if it falls short) and appease the far right, in an effort to push him over the line. Essentially playing the numbers game (Hey, it made him rich!).

The Republicans didn't bother trying to engage broader America. This is now proven to be a loser move (and demographics are against this). So: Is the Republican party going to move towards the centre or go further right? A reagan-esque war is about to happen in the GOP.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

The party will go further right.

"We didn't appeal to our core. We didn't pick a conservative enough candidate." Fox news is already spouting this.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Billly Gates]

Mitts strategy was to rely on moderate Republicans (who vote for the party and what it ideally stands for, even if it falls short) and appease the far right, in an effort to push him over the line. Essentially playing the numbers game (Hey, it made him rich!).

The Republicans didn't bother trying to engage broader America. This is now proven to be a loser move (and demographics are against this). So: Is the Republican party going to move towards the centre or go further right? A reagan-esque war is about to happen in the GOP.

Mark my words in 2016, you will see Rick Santorum stand on stage with a few grayer hairs. He will claim Romney as to far the left and a radical socialist and communist just like OBL. He was rejected because he was too much of a Democrat and we need some far right wing libertarian reactionary like me to lead America!!

Then win and be shocked again! Then will be saying why are these dems winning! They all must be welfare recipients! ... or something retarded bla bla bla.

The problem is the Tea Party. The Tea Party just kicked out popular Republican Luger (FYI is not a moderate) for a far right wing candidate. Gee, a democrat in this conservative district just won! Sigh ...

Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox news mixed with the Tea Party makes up the Republican base. There is no moderate Nixon/Goldwater/Eisenhower GOP leaders of old left. Just angry ones who hate government and believe they are on a mandate to stop everything and cut taxes and regulation at all costs.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[breech1]

They go further to the right (unfortunately). I think there's a good chance the Republicans repeat what happened after 2008: savage their nominee by complaining he wasn't conservative enough. Their solution will be to move further to the right to address that rather than realize they likely lost because their candidate moved too far to the right to appease the extreme wings of the party for the primaries.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Black Parrot]

The party will go further right.

"We didn't appeal to our core. We didn't pick a conservative enough candidate." Fox news is already spouting this.

The civil war between the right wingers and the plutocrats will heat up. I expect a divorce before the end of the decade, though neither faction can win many elections without the other.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Snotnose]

I can see Santorum getting the Republican nomination. I can also see a bigger landslide than the McGovern mess.

Santorum is a 100% asshole who stands for everything that is wrong with the R party. If the R's can't figure that out in the next 2 years, then the hell with em. We'll be effectively a 1 party country, so say we all.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Billly Gates]

The real question is will Romney's loss energy the right for even more extreme candidates who will differentiate more? Or will the Republican party stop sabatoging themselves and moving seats to moderate democrats by kicking out the incumbents with far right wing types who can't stand agaisn't democrats?

The third option is the Republican party splits into two! This has been discussed for awhile. Women are what put Obama back into Office a second time. Many ladies I know who were apolitical really thought Romney was going to peeping into their vaginas looking for fetuses. 70% of women supported Obama! That is very large.

Many women like us men care about the economy, budget deficits, and healthcare and would not mind voting for a Republican. Those who vow to end contraception and abortions and gay marriage is simply unacceptable to them.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[aztracker1]

I'd love to see another Reagan, JFK or Theodore Roosevelt win the presidency.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[phantomfive]

So: Is the Republican party going to move towards the centre or go further right? A reagan-esque war is about to happen in the GOP.

They'll stay about the same but attempt to increase their Latino outreach, led by party strategists like Marco Rubio. That's my guess. In many ways latino voters align more naturally with Republicans, they generally oppose abortion and are more religious, for example.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Spy Handler]

In what universe is Rick Santorum a libertarian? Do you even know what a libertarian is? Or perhaps in your little mind everything that you dislike or oppose are all equal to one another?

Here are some of the things the Libertarian party supports:

-Legalization of marijuana
-Abortion rights for women
-Gay marriage rights
-reduction of the military budget
-reduction of troops overseas
-reduction of U.S. involvement in foreign wars

Does this sound far right reactionary to you?

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[TheEyes]

The party will go further right.

"We didn't appeal to our core. We didn't pick a conservative enough candidate." Fox news is already spouting this.

The civil war between the right wingers and the plutocrats will heat up. I expect a divorce before the end of the decade, though neither faction can win many elections without the other.

And the plutocrats know it. That's the reason they turned to the right wingers in the first place: they're kinda dumb and they're easy to mold into giving the plutocrats whatever they want (tax breaks for their rich trust fund babies, busted unions, incentives for shipping jobs overseas, etc). All you have to do is pander to them about repealing Roe v. Wade and they're yours.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[tehcyder]

In many ways latino voters align more naturally with Republicans, they generally oppose abortion and are more religious, for example.

So why did they mostly vote for Obama? Just because his name sounds more Spanish than Romney?

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[dintech]

I don't understand why he had to appease the extreme right anyway. They sure as fuck weren't going to vote for Obama, irrespective of anything Romney said or did.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[omnichad]

Funny, I half expect to see Paul Ryan run. He'd make a better president than Romney, anyway. He actually seemed to have a degree more intelligence. What I'd like to see is a pair of candidates so bad that the 3rd parties finally get a run for it. If they hit between 5-7% one year, then the next time around they'd probably win the election. Just think, 5-7% is no throwaway vote amount.

Why vote for the lesser of TWO evils? There are a lot more evils running.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[Just Some Guy]

He was rejected because he was too much of a Democrat and we need some far right wing libertarian reactionary like me to lead America!!

Wait, what? Obama is much closer to Libertarian than Rick Santorum has ever been. I can't properly describe his politics without going all Godwin.

Re:Now what for the Republicans?

[phantomfive]

It's a really good question, and a hard one to generalize (given the vast differences among the various latin countries), but I'll give a brief attempt. (Incidentally, Obama doesn't sound Spanish to me, I think because the 'vam' in the middle is too unnatural to pronounce).

Latin America has traditionally fallen under the 'big man' style of government, where a Big Man gets people to follow him, and becomes the leader. This is different then America, where we consider our government to be the executor of our collective will. That is the difference in broad strokes.

As a result, latin-americans tend to be completely enraptured by power figures who put on a show of caring about them. Peron, Che, Chavez, etc. The actual policies of these people matters little, because in their political tradition the policies of no president are good for the people. It is enough that the leader appears to be trying to help them out.

In other words, Obama fits the same mold as Santa Evita. The key for Republicans, of course, will be education on policies and helping them to see the Republicans also care about latinos (whether true or not).

On behalf of everybody else on the Planet...

[Passout1]

...Thankyou American voting public.

Re:On behalf of everybody else on the Planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't speak for me.

Re:On behalf of everybody else on the Planet...

[GameboyRMH]

My country actually stood to gain short-term from a Romney presidency, because it would be easier to turk yer jerbs. Still I see this as the less-bad outcome, long term.

Re:On behalf of everybody else on the Planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Thankyou American voting public.

Fuck You Too ;^)

Romney REALLY COULD have won it..

[uslurper]

..If he had run as an independent. Changing his views on many subjects in order to please the right-wing extremists cost him many votes. I like the chap. I think he could have won and been a good and moderate president. But being under the weight of the republican party broke him.

Re:Romney REALLY COULD have won it..

[artor3]

Just like they did to McCain. I really wanted McCain as president back in 2000. But when he became the party nominee in '08, the GOP broke him, just like they've done with Mitt.

The GOP needs to ditch the extremists, but I don't see how they've be able to with the insurgent tea partiers dominating their primaries. The inmates are running the asylum.

Re:Romney REALLY COULD have won it..

[Areyoukiddingme]

I saw that too. McCain did multiple appearances on The Daily Show over the years. Before his nomination, he sounded sane and thinking and even justified some of the "maverick" label he had acquired. After he "won" the nomination, the money people of the RNC completely hosed him. They told him what to say, what to wear, what to eat, what to think, and none of it was him. It was some neocon wetdream that is such a tiny minority it continues to astonish me how much power they've acquired over the Republican party, at all levels.

We know where that power comes from, too: money. There are a few completely insane exceedingly rich people who basically control the Republican party lock, stock, and barrel, because of their money. They "donate", they call the shots. And they're NOT conservative. They're ridiculously regressive. Conservatives like to keep things more or less the way they are. That's the definition of the word. Don't rock the boat if the boat is floating and making progress. The people that control the Republican party are anything but conservative. They want to change everything, starting with Roe vs. Wade and working their way down a very long list that would push us back to as close to pre-Civil War society as makes no difference. Even further, in some cases, to pre-Revolutionary War. I swear their ultimate goal is to engender a literal American aristocracy, with themselves as the aristocrats. It's sick, and it's un-American, and they should be stopped.

Re:Romney REALLY COULD have won it..

[Simulant]

How many voters could they possibly lose by ditching their repetitive, bible-thumping, moralistic, jingo bullshit, and who would they lose them to?

The future of America under President Obama

[Adrian Lopez]

Given Obama's terrible record concerning civil liberties and due process (e.g. indefinite detention of American citizens, domain seizures without a trial, a White House sponsored deal with ISPs to disconnect people accused of infringement, significant expansion of presidential powers in the name of fighting terrorism), what does this mean for the future of America? Would Romney really have been any worse?

Re:The future of America under President Obama

[Billly Gates]

Shit he is a blessing compared to Bush. Are you kidding? There was not a week that went by where you didn't read on slashdot about Bush firing Ashcroft for saying Do not do this it is illegal! Or how a new revision to the DMCA or Patriot Act is being made, or how the oath of office changed to make perjury ok, etc.

I really do not understand how anyone can say there is no difference between Obama and Bush. I just don't!

Re:The future of America under President Obama

[lister king of smeg]

+ 5 insightful people here seem to forget obamas failings out of blind fear of those "horrible conservatives creationists" while obama goes about destroying civil liberties.

Re:The future of America under President Obama

[ceoyoyo]

Two trillion dollars to the military.

There's really only two things a military that big is good for, and they tend to go hand in hand.

Re:The future of America under President Obama

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

this election would have no impact on policy that matters.

Sounds a helluva lot like a straight, white male with reasonable health and income.

Re:The future of America under President Obama

[na1led]

As strange as it may seem, most of the population actually agree with Obama's views on civil liberties and due process. We live in an upside down world now.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure people remember where it was when Bush took office in Jan 2001. I'm sure people remember Iraq and pallets of US$100 bills which "disappeared, 4000+ Americans dead and a 2 trillion US$+ cost. I'm sure people remember the 2007-2008 crash. I'm sure people remember 9/11 which was on George Bush's watch. The US Deficit is a product of republicans and George Bush. They took 8 years to destroy the US. It will take more than 4, maybe 6, maybe 8 years to turn the time. Luckily Obama won. Mittens would have just turned around the good Obama and the democrats have done over the last 4 years and returned the US to it's downward spiral into oblivion. I'm not an Obama fan, but as always in US elections it's the lesser of 2 evils.

Re:We need to vote EVERYBODY out!

[czth]

I'm glad to know that I won't be refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition.

I'm glad I'll pay the same for fire insurance when my house is burning down as I would during a monsoon.

Oh, we can fix that - extort people if they don't buy insurance! What a brilliant idea.

Unfortunately, the fines for not buying insurance can be less than the cost of the insurance (due to forcing them to cover burning houses at the same rate as the guy in the monsoon).

Giving economic illiterates coercive power is a wonderful idea.

BTW, do you (AC parent) have any principles behind what you do/don't approve of the government doing/who you approve of them coercing, or is it just generated randomly?

Re:For those who don't like either party...

[czth]

Gridlock, oh sweet gridlock. 'Tis a far, far better thing than either party having the power to enforce its hopes and dreams.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[Maow]

This person does not speak for us.

True - I speak only for myself.

Harper is... uncomfortably far right for many Canadians.

Again, true. But the real problem is he's too dishonest for most Canadians. And this time I think I can speak for most Canadians.

Should only be another election or two before his party collapses on itself and we can move on.

I fear that, by then, there will be decades of work undoing the damage he's caused. But you're probably correct in that the party is bound to implode, sooner rather than later (sooner being relative to the PCs, for example).

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all good with Mormonism? Ok...

Would you consider it irrelevant if he were a Scientologist? Xenu, E-meters, etc.? Not cRaZy enough? ok...

How about if he was a Heaven's gate member? Killing themselves to ride on a UFO...

How about a Satanist? Yeah, I really want a Satanist's finger on the button. Hmm. No.

Tell us, please, where you draw the line on cRaZy.

Because for me, after looking into Mormonism... that's pretty damned crazy -- right up there with the above.

Christianity too... but there's one thing about Christianity... at least it's a nationally shared bewilderment, and I can at *least* snuggle with the idea that the candidate is just pandering, and actually has a scientific worldview instead of just more crazy. Also, we've had a string of Christian presidents, and the worst they've done is nuke a couple cities, murder the occasional US citizen, crush our rights and the constitution, involve us in a bunch of unjustified wars, and lie like rugs, repeatably and dependably. So yeah, Christians are nucking futs, but...

I don't want to step up to even more crazy.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[sumdumass]

Obama hasn't won yet. He needs Ohio and so far, Romney is in the lead with 75% of the vote counted. Not sure why everyone is claiming its over

one guy wins, 300 million americans lose

[LodCrappo]

it happens every 4 years, no big deal. wish the people that get upset about what the republocrats are doing would quit assuming the other republocrats were the solution. we've given them both plenty of chances, and they've both sucked hard and long.

Thank God for computerised voting machines!

[arglebargle_xiv]

Otherwise we'd never have been certain that 93% of people voted Obama and the other 88% voted Romney.

Re:GWB 2.0

[speederaser]

Please, let's stop pretending that Bush started anything. His predecessors were hardly any better.

Yeah, Clinton with his 3.5% unemployment, 3 years of balanced budgets and 8 years averaging 3.7% GDP growth really sucked. I'm glad those days are gone.

[/sarcasm]

Re:GWB 2.0

[sumdumass]

After World War 2, the USA convicted several Japanese soldiers of water boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. The US government hanged them for that crime.

No they did not. Water boarding was listed as activities supporting torture but none of them were convicted for water boarding anyone. You will not find one charge of water boarding against any of the japs or germans convicted of post facto laws

Don't blame me, I voted for King Steve!

[Pawnn]

Can't help but think about this particular piece during elections. Thank you Brian. http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/08/26/episode-455-self-fulfilling-stupidity/

Re:A small victory for sanity

[caseih]

Socialism? Are you kidding? Both major parties are sliding head-long into fascism, not socialism. Methinks you need to read up what socialism really is. Maybe you should actually read what Karl Marx said about capitalism. I think you'll be hard-pressed to disagree with his observations about capitalism, though he was dead wrong about what would happen because of it.

I think you'll have better mileage with the birther argument than the socialism one.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[stymy]

Besides, while I dislike how Harper is trying to turn Canada more into the US, I voted for him mainly due to how good Jim Flaherty, our Minister of Finance, is. Seriously, he has managed to make Canada mostly sidestep the recession, and minimized the damage in spite of how 85% of our trade is with the US, and our dollar is strong right now.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[sumdumass]

You should look at where the term magic underpants came from. The person who coined the term actually said that in order for Obama to not being wearing them, we would have to believe he is a liar. He also said it was a shame that he like Obama because he was a liar.

So lets see, magic underpants or convinced someone is a liar. It sure is a predicament.

Better than the alternative...

[VendettaMF]

But still pretty crap.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[elfprince13]

Florida.

Today I trust FoxNews

[G3ckoG33k]

Fox News, Fox News.

Today, I trust Fox News.

I saw it in the NY Times and the Washington Post.

Yet, I had to countercheck it with Fox News.

Gongrats from Europe

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

So we don't have to liberate you - for now...

Re:Gongrats from Europe

[GodfatherofSoul]

Wasn't Mitt a lowly missionary...in Paris? lol

Re:Gongrats from Europe

[argStyopa]

Whose military would you do it with? We've been pretty much covering your defense costs since 1946.

Re:Gongrats from Europe

[Robert Zenz]

So we don't have to liberate you - again...

FTFY

And before somebody ask, Great Britain is not part of Europe...and I think that's a mutual agreement.

Misleading Media Coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

The electoral college math was obvious months ago. Responsible media outlets (e.g., the PBS Newshour) crunched the electoral college numbers long ago and were honest about how difficult it would be for Romney to run the table with all the swing states. Many mainstream commercial news outlets ignored the reality of the electoral votes, invented a story arc that Romney somehow dominated the first debate but Obama came back, and failed to cover demographic shifts that made an Obama victory obvious. This helped them keep people interested and sell more advertisements, but became so excessive that it bordered on delusional. Now Fox News is orchestrating a debate where embarrassingly Rove is insisting that the race isn't over rather than admit that he was completely wrong.

Watch that first debate again; it is one of the best televised presidential debates ever. It was policy-rich, even-tempered, and didn't feature any distracting, bogus, irrelevant attacks from either side. Lehrer took the high road and didn't throw any red meat question about the 47% out there and focused on real issues. The press loathed that there was no gotcha moment. They replay debate clips from previous elections highlighting sighs and watch-checking vs. policy issues and in the midst of insisting that Obama "lost" the first debate, can't produce a single clip to demonstrate that it was anything less than an even debate from both sides.

The country deserves better, more honest press coverage. There is objective data here: this was not a close race by the electoral college and some people said so long ago. Any outlets that selectively highlighted popular vote polls vs. electoral college math to deceive their audience should suffer appropriate reductions in viewership/readership.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Jeremi]

No they did not. Water boarding was listed as activities supporting torture but none of them were convicted for water boarding anyone. You will not find one charge of water boarding against any of the japs or germans convicted of post facto laws

I'm not sure if you are arguing some technicality (such as the technique being referred to as "water torture" rather than "water boarding" at the time, despite being the same practice)... but in any case, Politifact disagrees with you.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[sumdumass]

Now now.. You don't actually believe that. Like Biden said, they didn't know. They aren't on top of things, no one told them.

Fuck, you act like the commander in chief- the head of the government is supposed to know about these things. Besides, even if they did, it was Bush's fault, he's the one who let 9/11 happen which then required them to pay attention to the calendar and give extra support to these places.

Re:GWB 2.0

[fustakrakich]

A man with a talent for cooking the books. Eh, whatever, the irrational hate is strong amongst the moderators, so screw it, Bush is the 'worst ever', worse even than Andrew Johnson. sheesh!

Other interesting election results:

[gman003]

Maine and Washington (and possibly Maryland) legalized gay marriage. Minnesota had a referendum to ban it, results still inconclusive.
Massachusetts, Washington and Arkansas (and probably Colorado) legalized marijuana. Montana "reformed medical marijuana". Oregon had a referendum to legalize, which failed.
The Massachusetts assisted-suicide referendum is still undecided, but seems to have failed from early numbers
Florida rejected a referendum to limit "Obamacare" ("prevents penalties for not purchasing health care coverage in order to comply with federal health care reforms"), but Alabama approved a similar referendum. That will probably lead to the Supreme Court as a states-rights conflict.
California had a referendum to ban the death penalty, which failed.

Finally, Puerto Rico had a referendum to decide whether to pursue statehood, leave the union, or to remain a non-state commonwealth. While this could be one of the biggest actual changes of the election, I can't find any results as of yet.

Re:Other interesting election results:

[artor3]

Here in CA we also had a referendum to reform the three strikes law so that people with minor third offenses don't face life in prison. That has passed by a wide margin.

Re:Other interesting election results:

[cpt kangarooski]

No, MA only was doing medical marijuana, though we did decriminalize it to some extent a few years ago. Outright legalization hasn't happened here yet⦠but may in the next few years at this rate.

And I hear PR is going to pursue statehood.

Re:Other interesting election results:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the Massachusetts Right to Repair bill, which passed. It essentially forces car manufacturers to release "proprietary" diagnostics information to the market. It's intent is to allow independent repair shops the tools that they need to repair modern cars.

Re:Other interesting election results:

[gamemank]

Massachusetts, Washington and Arkansas (and probably Colorado) legalized marijuana. Montana "reformed medical marijuana". Oregon had a referendum to legalize, which failed.

Correction: Massachusetts legalized medical marijuana. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use.

Re:Other interesting election results:

[Algae_94]

And I hear PR is going to pursue statehood.

Maybe. The vote was a non-binding referendum on what people would prefer the status of PR to be if not a commonwealth. The majority vote was to not stay a commonwealth and the majority preference would be to become a state. There's still a lot of work to happen before statehood.

Re:Other interesting election results:

[na1led]

This years election is a big win for the queers and druggies. I guess we know where this country is heading.

Re:GWB 2.0

[spire3661]

Can you say Telecom explosion? Clinton prospered because our ability communicate went supernova.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[dugancent]

He doesn't need Ohio.

Dear Republican Party:

[circletimessquare]

I am a solid liberal, but some of the finest times in my life is having a serious discussion with an intelligent conservative. But tonight, William F. Buckley is rolling over in his grave. The economy is weak. A shallow analysis says Obama should have been voted out. But you didn't deliver.

Because the Right in the U.S.A. has been taken over by shrill blind ideological fanatics and well, frankly, the stupid. So the only guy who could maneuver from the primaries, where the truly crackpot rightwing idiots held power, to the general elections, was an empty vapid lying suit like Romney.

The pendulum swings left and right in this country, your time will come again. But the only way you are going to get there, Republicans, is to use your brain. Stop pandering to the loud shrill dumb voices on the right. Cut them out, excise them, ignore them, marginalize them as they deserve, because they are a liability, not a strength. And thereby be a serious power again. Otherwise, you collapsed tonight, and you will continue to collapse, until you come to grips with the raging Randroids, hatemongers, and assorted narrow minded morons on your side of the fence.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of stupid moronic liberals as well.

But the difference is, they don't hold the power in the Democratic party for now.

Yours,
one happy elated American liberal tonight

The path of lies, empty suits, vile sources of cash, and fearmongering was repudiated, soundly.

All is good in the world.

I sleep the deep happy sleep of the mightily vindicated tonight.

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[Osgeld]

well said

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 to this. Where have all the intelligent conservatives gone?

I am a fiscal conservative but socially moderate, as are, I suspect, a significant portion of mainstream American conservatives. I favored the Republican party in the distant but the current crop of racists, religious fanatics, and plutocrats have corrupted them so far that, appalling as it may sound, Mr. Romney was the *least* defective candidate they could put forward. (Remember the others?) There's no party to represent me anymore.

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[ThatsMyNick]

Well put, sir!

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[GodfatherofSoul]

You know why they took over, right? When Obama won, the *only* fired up element in the Republican party was the extreme Right and we all know why that was. They called themselves the Tea Party under the guise that they wanted lower taxes, even though taxes are already historically low. When someone finally told them that, they decided they were the low debt party (ominously silent while the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were charged on Uncle Sam's card and ignoring the fact that the Bush tax cuts were creating trillions more in debt).

But, since they were the only ones fired up and everyone else in the Republican party was depressed (even mainstream guys like Tucker Carlson were starting to call themselves Libertarian to wash the stink of the Bush years off them). So, even though the Republicans treated their far right wing like the racist, slightly imbalanced uncle who came over once a year for Thanksgivings (polite nods and half-hearted chuckles at his jokes), they decided to give him the reigns.

And, when that happened, they got even MORE fired up. No more being forced to sit on the porch and watch the party from the outside. Now, they had access! And, the more access they got, the more fired up they got. They started winning elections, getting seats on committees, and soon built up enough power to start making demands! They weren't just coming over for Thanksgiving, now they had a room upstairs and their buddies were coming over every night to get wasted and talk about how much the hated that Mexican family across the street.

Now, the Republican party is stuck. They've given the extreme Right so much power and access that they're entrenched. You can't ask them to leave and they've been legitimized for so long you can't call them wrong. Nothing to do but ride it out and hope their rowdy parties don't burn your house down, before they get bored and decide to leave for good.

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[Tablizer]

I am a solid liberal, but some of the finest times in my life is having a serious discussion with an intelligent conservative

Don't let him get away! They are rarer than meteors from Uranus!

Seriously though, In my observation, most conservatives do not rely on logic as we know it, but rather they trust the value of "gut feelings" and "common sense" over subject experts and "mechanical" models of society. They often call it the "wisdom of the human soul" or something like that. They don't trust "experts" because they believe most experts are too heavily influenced by personal, financial, and/or political bias.

There are a few exceptions that have a collection of "pro tax cut" studies and the like, but there are at least as many studies pointing the other way or are inconclusive.

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[tehcyder]

you're so happy that you even bothered to use the shift key. truly a sea change

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[some old guy]

Indeed, the only way classical conservatives in the GOP (e.g. the sainted WFB) will be able to focus on the message of sound fiscal management and individual responsibility is for them to swallow the medicine and distance themselves from the bible-thumping Tea Party types.

Instead of pandering to the trailer-park faction and forcing principled conservatives to go along out of necessity, it should be the other way around.

The alternative is for more and more defection to the Libertarian Party and formation of a religious fundamentalist rump of a GOP.

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[gtbritishskull]

I have found that a lot of conservatives are people who are trying to vote in their own self-interest. They aren't on welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid or food stamps so they are in favor of cutting those programs and reducing their own taxes. I instead believe that if the country does well, then I will have the opportunities to do well. So, I am in favor of strengthening our safety nets (though not enough to foster dependency) and reducing income (and wealth) inequality. Because, I think that will lead to a stronger country with a bigger middle class.

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[circletimessquare]

with all due respect, the European point of view means shit

every society has its own ideological center. what is crazy right in the Netherlands is crazy left in Saudi Arabia

all that matters is what the society itself views about its own society

outside views are... EHEM... a colonial attitude

so fuck off Europe. you have severe brewing problems because of the path of austerity. the USA chose to spend its way out, and is doing far better than you

in fact, if you hadn't noticed, austerity is fertilizing the growth of far right racist parties in Greece and elsewhere. so much for haughty arrogant liberal Europe

to me, Greece smells just like the 1930s German economy on the brink, and we know what came out of that toxic brew politically, don't we you smug condescending asshole?

solve your own damn problems, clean up your own ugly mess, then judge

Europe seems to me to be more racist than ever. your immigrants don't assimilate, they fester in ghettos YOU create and hate on europe, and europe hates them. meanwhile, we just elected the interracial son of a Kenyan whose middle name is Hussein. oh yeah, far right America: right got it

we'll remember your arrogance asshole when you come begging to us again to land on your shores with guns and the blood of our sons to solve your fucking racist problems

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[circletimessquare]

every society has its own ideological center. what is crazy right in the Netherlands is crazy left in Saudi Arabia

all that matters is what the society itself views about its own society

so there is left and right in America: it is defined by America, about America

and while the American center might be far right for you, the American center is far left for some other guy in some other part of the world

what point of view matters? only the American point of view. your point of view doesn't matter, because all you have done is announce your self-chosen outsider status

the only thing your post means is that you are self-centered, and think that only your political point of view is valid

ideology is relative, not absolute. there is no such thing as an absolute ideological center. it changes in all societies and across time, it is constantly fluid

your post has done nothing but announce your own irrelevancy

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[circletimessquare]

you've arbitrarily identified line {XYZ} as the dividing line between left and right. when in reality, the line is fluid and is different for every society. what is radically right in the netherlands is radically left in saudi arabia. that dividing line also moves over time in any society

what i'm saying is: you don't have the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally define what left and right is. what you do get to do is notice one candidate is more left leaning, and one candidate is more right leaning. then strategically pick the more left leaning one for your vote. to give your vote any other way ensures the more right leaning candidate wins

strategically voting is the best you can do, forever, in any democracy possible in any society. nonnegotiable unilateral idealist voting eventually results in self-defeat (tea party fanatics take note as well)

that you are bothered at how far right from YOUR position the balance between the positions of the two major candidates is, doesn't mean anything. all it means is you have a very self-centered way of looking at your world. for example, there's some conservative neanderthals right now out there who think both romney and obama are both far left liberals. they firmly believe this as surely as you firmly believe what you believe about everything being far right. see the problem?

their, and your, self-centered ideological "center" is invalid. you aren't some sort of impartial judge decided what left and right mean. who said you were an authority on that? you aren't. the truth is the american people define it, en masse. not you. your point of view has no authority, it's just your point of view. that you think it matters more than political reality simply means you have a problem with blindness, arrogance, and an undeserved sense of superiority. enjoy your superiority, alone, in your ivory tower. it has no meaning or value in reality

take heart in the simple fact that over short term time spans while the pendulum way wiggle left and right, over the longer time spans, society moves inexorably leftward. i call that progress

but you are an ideological absolutist, and reality is ideologically relative. and your pronouncements from such rigidity results in self-defeating voting strategies, and self-chosen irrelevancy. just as surely as it just did for the far right scumbags who were just handed their asses yesterday. YAHOOOOOO!!!!

Re:Dear Republican Party:

[TranquilVoid]

This motivation is no different from that of liberals. More of them are on welfare or low incomes and so vote in their own self-interest to increase it and so on. Broadly conservatives want a dog-eat-dog world because they are more likely to thrive in it, and liberals want a nanny state for similar reasons.

Of course it's not that simple. Your statements show you are thinking beyond your own self-interest as do many conservatives (who tend to give to charity more than liberals (never been sure if that's corrected for disposable income)).

Re:SOPA Revival

[lister king of smeg]

both party's were paid off by the *iaa's for SOPA ACTA and PIPA it was only the massive public outcry and fear of loosing their jobs and getting blamed for killing the internet that kept it from passing. the problems is the piratesdon't have a lobby.
  (if you aren't an *IAA member your automatically counted defacto as a pirate)

Re:GWB 2.0

[sumdumass]

Water boarding was listed as one of several activities that they called torture but never was water boarding along considered torture. Politicfact references the MTFE but gets confused as to what torture was. Water boarding alone was not enough to charge and convict someone, they needed several of the activities listed before any of the soldiers were charged for torture. We charged them for a pattern of behavior, not a specific act. We also did so in a post facto way (read unconstitutional) which the justification of it became not charging for the acts but the behavior which somehow made it exempt or something.

They kept the Japanese trials a military tribunal because the only Judge on the Supreme court willing to participate in the Nuremberg trials didn't even have a law degree and he later wrote back about how wrong it was.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[Dahamma]

He not only has the clear lead in Ohio, but also Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia. It's not even going to be close.

Rove

[WGFCrafty]

I just watched Karl Rove argue with Fox's results analyst about how calling a state early hurt the team, the "news"caster who introduced them refered to it as cage match 2012. I know whos pocket fox is in but they usually refer to it openly.

Colorado was supposed to be a battle ground

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the fact that marijuana legalization was on the ballot favor Obama? It's projected to win. I would think that many who would otherwise not have voted turned out for that, and voted for Obama.

Re:Colorado was supposed to be a battle ground

[Tastecicles]

they wouldn't have cared who won, either way they're fuckin' celebratin'! Pass the bowl!

Re:GWB 2.0

[fustakrakich]

There's no use arguing with these kids. Apparently they think we used to keep our prisoners in 5 star hotels during Korea and Vietnam and other adventures in Central/South America.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[boudie2]

Unemployment rate in Canada is 7.4 percent, U.S. is 7.9. But yet you still believe the propoganda that we have no problem. And the high dollar has ruined manufacturing sector. If not for the oil sands we'd be deep in it. And congrats to the Americans. Four more years of the same. Yay!

Re:The party retains control

[fustakrakich]

You really wanted 4 years of Bush III and the Moron Tabernacle Choir running the show?

No, I voted for real change, knowing full well it wouldn't happen, but that didn't matter. I don't play the 'lesser evil' game.

Re:GWB 2.0

[greg_barton]

Yep. Thanks, Al Gore!

The GOP started with abolitionists

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be fitting for a black man to defeat the last Republican to hold nationwide office, for the GOP to collapse, and for a 3rd party to emerge. The 3rd party should have some Libertarian characteristics, tempered with the common sense required to form a larger party. GOP would eventually become something you read about in the history books like Whigs or Federalists. For me, the Republican party is DONE for a very long time. I've become a GWB Democrat the way my parents were FDR Democrats. The interesting thing about that is that I've been repulsed into the Democratic Party as opposed to being drawn into it as my parents were. They didn't vote GOP until Reagan, so it's not etched in stone; but GOP is fixed in my brain as the party of GWB, and it will take a long time to remove that stain. I didn't vote for Obama or the Democrats so much as I voted to make sure that the organization behind Romney didn't get the executive power again so quickly. I kept waiting for somebody in the media to say "It's the military-industrial complex, stupid". I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees it that way. Maybe people don't have the guts to say it? I was hoping that Obama would call that out in his first innaugural address. It would have been historic--Ike warning us on the way out, Obama repudiating it on the way in. Alas, it was not to be. He has never repudiated it, but at least he has drawn down forces and isn't planning to blow up the debt even further with a lot of weapons we don't need.

I am glad to know...

[Jafafa Hots]

...that if the President unilaterally decides to have me secretly shot and disposed of, it will be a Democrat doing it and not a Republican.

Re:And

[evil_aaronm]

Nah, two and a half, until the next election cycle. FSM help us...

False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[Paul Fernhout]

You had a choice: http://www.jillstein.org/issues
"FINANCIAL REFORM
        * Break up the oversized banks that are "too big to fail," starting with Bank of America.
        * Create a Corporation for Economic Democracy, a new federal corporation (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory.
        * End bailouts for the financial elite and use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off.
        * Bring monetary policy under democratic control by prohibiting private banks from creating money, thus restoring government's Constitutional authority.
        * Let pension funds be managed by boards controlled by workers, not corporate managers.
        * Regulate all financial derivatives and require them to be traded on open exchanges.
        * Require banks to use honest bookkeeping so that toxic assets cannot be hidden or sold to unsuspecting persons.
        * Restore the Glass-Steagall separation of depository commercial banks from speculative investment banks.
        * Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means nationalizing the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and placing them under a Federal Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.
        * Establish federal, state, and municipal publicly-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities and focus on helping people, not enriching themselves."

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure all of those are good ideas (were toxic assets really sold to unsuspecting persons? And nationalizing banks? Really?), but that's definitely moving in the right direction.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[nbauman]

And a lot more.

EDUCATION

        Provide tuition-free education from kindergarten through college, thus eliminating the student debt crisis.
        Forgive existing student debt.
        Protect our public school systems from privatization
        End high-stakes testing and stop punishing students and teachers for failures of the system in which they work.
        Stop denying students diplomas based on tests.
        Stop using merit pay to punish teachers.

HEALTH CARE

        Provide complete, affordable, quality health care for every American through an improved Medicare-for-all insurance program.
        Allow full access to all medically justified contraceptive and reproductive care.
        Expand women's access to the "morning after" contraception by lifting the Obama Administration's ban.
        Roll back the community drivers of chronic disease, including poor nutrition, health-damaging pollution, and passive dirty transportation.
        Avoid chronic diseases by investing in essential community health infrastructure such as local, fresh, organic food systems, pollution-free renewable energy, phasing out toxic chemicals, and active transportation such as bike paths and safe sidewalks that dovetail with public transit.
        End overcharging for prescription drugs by using bulk purchasing negotiations.
        Ensure that consumers have essential information for making informed food choices by expanding product labeling requirements for country of origin, GMO content, toxic chemical ingredients, fair trade practices, etc.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[aaronb1138]

Unelectable is still unelectable. It's tired and annoying to keep hearing the Libertarian, Green, and similar try to get votes when they know they generally lack well rounded candidates and certainly have none of the publicity needed to get elected.

US citizens are children emotionally and have a strong need to vote for the "winning team." This will always mean a split 2 chance ballot for several more generations.

There are two things the US public likes more than winning though, and they are schadenfreude and reciprocity. To that end, I offer a new ballot option, "No Confidence" which a simple majority would disqualify all candidates on the current ballot from running ever again and force a new election.

We would need to start the actual election process in June, probably with monthly ballots, hopefully finished by November. Elections would definitely get more interesting, and the vast majority who feel like they have no say because they aren't party diehards involved in the caucus system might finally get a voice.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[tehcyder]

I'm not sure all of those are good ideas (were toxic assets really sold to unsuspecting persons? And nationalizing banks? Really?), but that's definitely moving in the right direction.

Unless you nationalise banks, they will be run to make a profit, when at least in the retail and small business sector they should just be a public service like roads or water, i.e. somewhere to keep your money safely and get small affordable loans.

The wankmeisters, sorry investment bankers and traders, who are speculating trillions on derivatives of derivatives of derivatives of bits of paper should just be disbanded and made illegal. I doubt the real world economy would notice much.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[complete loony]

Bring monetary policy under democratic control by prohibiting private banks from creating money, thus restoring government's Constitutional authority.

Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means nationalizing the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and placing them under a Federal Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.

The Federal Reserve is not the primary source of created money, it barely creates any. The Money Multiplier is a myth that is not backed up by empirical evidence.

The real source of most money floating around the economy is credit issued by banks. Sure the banks have to loan money from the federal reserve to meet their liquidity and capital requirements, but this does not constrain the lending of by banks in any way.

So you want to take away the power of banks to create credit and money? Do you think the government is going to set the balance of money perfectly in the economy? At least banks respond to demand quite quickly, and should take reasonable measures to limit their exposure to bad investments.

Banks have a motivation to create too much credit until the economy sags under the weight of debt. Limit the ratio of debt to income in the economy and most of the problems with the current system will go away.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[Boronx]

If you want someone who agrees with you 100%, you'll need to run yourself.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[dkleinsc]

As someone who voted for her, in what was considered a critical swing state no less, I consider it pretty close to a complete victory:
1. The Republican jackass lost.
2. I didn't have to vote for the Democratic jackass who beat him.
3. My vote was among many others that suggested that the Democrats had something to lose if they continued their current trend of embracing Reagan-style conservatism.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[Grizzley9]

You had a choice

Not in my state. There were only two people listed to choose for President, no third parties and being scantron, no write in option. I had thought I saw Gary Johnson had gotten on the ballot in almost all the states but for sure wasn't on mine.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[phantomfive]

at least in the retail and small business sector they should just be a public service like roads or water

Why? I see no reason getting a loan should be government guaranteed.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[Just Some Guy]

You had a choice: http://www.jillstein.org/issues

But then the Green Party fails to resist the urge to let their inner crazy show through, and says things like:

* Create a nuclear free zone in the Middle East region and require all nations in area to join.

Yes, I'm sure they'll happy go along with us "requiring" them to play nicely, all without us having to park 3 carriers a mile off their coasts to "encourage" them.

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[Richy_T]

* Establish federal, state, and municipal publicly-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities and focus on helping people, not enriching themselves."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha

Re:False dichotomy: Jill Stein on finance reform

[phantomfive]

Which is why I voted for myself as a write-in candidate.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

How can believing in any sort of sky wizard not be fair game? since it is pretty much an admission that logic and judgement escape you.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Mitreya]

George W. Bush will forever be known as the President who first sanctioned torture in the USA.

Absolutely, yes. And Obama was definitely the lesser evil in this election

But Obama will be forever known as the President who first sanctioned mass assassinations (in a semi-official way). Even if Obama did not start the practice, he (to my knowledge) is the first to openly brag about the success of the drone attacks, while arguing in court that the program is too secret to admit its existence.

If you think you know better, post a rebuttal instead of modding this down.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[Black Parrot]

I'm sure people remember where it was when Bush took office in Jan 2001. I'm sure people remember Iraq and pallets of US$100 bills which "disappeared, 4000+ Americans dead and a 2 trillion US$+ cost. I'm sure people remember the 2007-2008 crash. I'm sure people remember 9/11 which was on George Bush's watch. The US Deficit is a product of republicans and George Bush. They took 8 years to destroy the US. It will take more than 4, maybe 6, maybe 8 years to turn the time. Luckily Obama won. Mittens would have just turned around the good Obama and the democrats have done over the last 4 years and returned the US to it's downward spiral into oblivion. I'm not an Obama fan, but as always in US elections it's the lesser of 2 evils.

I have often found myself half-hoping that the Republicans would win big and get another eight years to finish running the country into the ground. Apparently that's what it's going to take to make the American public Wake TF Up and see the Republicans for what they are instead of what they claim to be.

Re:ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in p

[Black Parrot]

ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in part

Actually it's what's left of what might have been a decent system, if the Democrats hadn't compromised on issue after issue to secure Republican votes. (And then the Republicans didn't vote for it anyway. I fear and detest them, but I don't call them stupid.)

prediction markets

[epine]

I spent some time watching the Intrade prediction market. The market in the presidential race was extremely distorted. There seemed to be some loss-eating Red whales holding the line at just under 70% for Obama while the polls remained open.

The individual state markets were far more sane, converging to 90% certainty in most of the swing states long before the mainstream media maps. They often went against established voting margins, factoring in the nature of the precincts reporting and yet to report.

States with mixed urban/rural populations usually swung toward Obama as more polls reported. Urban polling stations have more votes and take longer to count. The exception was Ohio which had a big margin for Obama in the pre-voting, but went much closer on the day.

Not only did Nate Silver predict the outcome, but the biggest spike on his graph appears to be the outcome obtained (20% probability assigned to the simulation result where Obama wins with 332 electoral votes).

I don't know, maybe literacy in math ain't such a bad thing, after all.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Black Parrot]

After World War 2, the USA convicted several Japanese soldiers of water boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. The US government hanged them for that crime.

US justice consistently ruled waterboarding a crime from the time of the Spanish-American War until this century. We have convicted foreign troops for doing it to ours, our own troops for doing it to foreigners, and even civilian law enforcement agents for doing it to criminals or suspected criminals.

But no one has the political courage to slap a President and Vice President in prison for it. We'll impeach a president for lying about an illicit blowjob, but not for authorizing war crimes.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[Mitreya]

I'll admit I voted for Rmoney. Not because I like that finger in the wind flip flopper, but I think Obama's policies are disastrous.

Do you really think Romney's policies would have been less disastrous? Did you think that Romney would be able to shake off the control of nutjob right-wing Republicans as President? Or has that question not entered your consideration?
(I am honestly curious)

Re:GWB 2.0

[SvnLyrBrto]

> Bush is the 'worst ever', worse even than Andrew
> Johnson. sheesh!

Worst ever? No.
Worst in living memory? Probably not.

Worst in my own lifetime? Most definitely. And that probably applies to the majority of the /. readership.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Black Parrot]

Bush was a madman who screwed up this country far more then any other president in recent history

No, IMO he was a witless tool who let his handlers screw the country up.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[fm6]

Well, basically because it's over.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[fm6]

Oh please. I have no use for Romney, but I'm sick of all the anti-Mormon bigotry. Most people have rituals that sound silly to some other people. Don't make ignorant fun of theirs and they won't make fun of yours.

Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Red States,
Ha ha ha ha. Sucks to be you right now. How are those guns and religion doing for you now?
Sincerely,
Blue States

p.s. - Please keep the money to pay for another one of our disasters flowing. Thanks.

Dear Republican Party:

[circletimessquare]

the above comment is exhibit A of the kind of shrill blind fanatic that you need to lose in order to win again

Don't you mean the Senate?

[Dan East]

The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states. Civics education in this country is going down the pooper.

I think you're confusing the Senate with the Electoral College. The distribution of electors by state within the electoral college is determined by each state's population. So no, it does not keep any kind of "balance" between large and small states. What it does is keep control of the federal government directly at the State level. The States get to choose who is President of the US, and thus they get to decide what method to use to represent the popular vote of their citizens. A couple states (Maine and Nebraska) are more "democratic" than others, in that they split their electoral votes by district, thus it is possible for some of the state's votes to go to one candidate, and some to go to another.

But the spirit of the electoral college is simply that of the union of separate States into a federal government. When is the last time you, personally, got to vote on ANYTHING to do with the federal government? Never. However, the representatives you elected for your state and congressional district do get to vote. The electoral college is in this same spirit, in that we "elect" individuals to represent us at the federal level.

So why is the electoral college separate from, say, the House of Representatives (IE why doesn't the house decide the president since we chose them to represent us already, and they are even allocated by population just like the electors)? To maintain proper separation of the 3 parts of our government. The electoral college is unique and independent of the legislative and judicial branches, as it should be to maintain balance of power.

Not that I'm an advocate of the electoral system as it stands, but I can see how the concept applies to a union of individual states. Personally, I'm tired of feeling that my vote doesn't count, because it was trumped by urban voters in a few areas of dense population 400 miles from where I live. They have different needs, concerns, demographics, etc, and are not representative of those who live in my region of the state, yet only their voice is heard when it comes to electing a president.

Re:Don't you mean the Senate?

[LynnwoodRooster]

The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states. Civics education in this country is going down the pooper.

I think you're confusing the Senate with the Electoral College. The distribution of electors by state within the electoral college is determined by each state's population. So no, it does not keep any kind of "balance" between large and small states.

Sorry, you're wrong. Electors are allocated to each State based upon the number of Representatives AND Senators they have. Thus a State with a tiny population (Wyoming) has 3 electors - one for its Representative and two for its Senators. Electors are allocated as a State has members in Congress - it is based upon the Senate, as a result.

Re:GWB 2.0

[thegarbz]

No Clinton prospered because your ability to communicate went supernova and the government didn't go out of their way to fuck things up.

Sometimes the mark of good presidency is that they manage to just let the boom go without some boneheaded idea to make insane amounts of money regulating it. Just look at the way Australia rode it's communication supernova. We privatised the biggest government run business screwing the country over for years to come generating a monopoly which was powerful enough to without thought be the first in the world to introduce broadband usage caps.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[Snotnose]

That's pretty much the crux of the problem. The only reason I voted for Rmoney was because Obama is a disaster. I'm not saying Rmoney would have been better, but he hadn't yet been given a chance to muck things up.

The problem is, no matter which major party gets in, the country loses.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

Can you put two and two together looking at this graph?

(Numbers and graph Courtesy of the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities).

Without the Exectoral system elections take weeks

[109 97 116 116]

Without the electoral system our current state of voting would require days or maybe weeks of tallying up all this garbage.

I can't for the life of me figure out why voting equipment and ballots etc. aren't a sanctioned standard equipment set.

Couldn't vote

[hcs_$reboot]

because I'm no American. But I'm SO happy for the world of Mr Obama reelection.

Re:Couldn't vote

[na1led]

You're lucky. This new election brought us legalized drugs, gay marriage, stock market decline, record deficits, and high unemployment.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[khallow]

We need to keep in mind that Obama was a beneficiary of that interesting statistical anomaly. Romney was long considered one of the weaker candidates compared to Obama.

Re:GWB 2.0

[speederaser]

Can you say Telecom explosion? Clinton prospered because our ability communicate went supernova.

I don't buy that argument at all. While Clinton did a LOT better than Bush (both 41 and 43), GDP growth in the 50's and 60's beats the pants off Clinton's numbers. And they did it while paying off the debt from WWII and rebuilding Europe with the Marshall plan and building the interstate system and fighting the commies in Korea and Vietnam and going to the moon.

And most importantly, they did it without a "telecom explosion". They also did it without artificially low interest rates and easy credit fueling a housing bubble. Telecommunications is certainly a significant part of the economy but it just doesn't hold a candle to housing, and housing is where Clinton got a lot of his pop.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[DMUTPeregrine]

I think you're deluded. The public knows what the Republicans are, and they like that. You think people are basically good and reasonably logical, and if shown the facts will change their opinions. This is demonstrably false for most people, they're basically emotional and tribalistic, and will do or believe almost anything to stay a part of their chosen tribe/social group. The fear of ostracism is often stronger than the fear of death (witness soliders dying for their country) and changing the chosen tribe of a person is very, very difficult.

The same applies for most other groups of people.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Nerdfest]

That's why I said 'anyone'. I was still modded 'troll' though, which is strange, as I really didn't think many would disagree that basing decisions on logic and reason was a good idea.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Tablizer]

Reminder of W's 48 screw-ups:

http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2012/04/bushs-screw-ups-reminder.html

Re:GWB 2.0

[Mashiki]

George W. Bush will forever be known as the President who first sanctioned torture in the USA.

Don't worry, Obama will be the first president who sanctioned his own private kill list and suspended various parts of the constitution by executive fiat.

Well, I guess the US should enjoy the ride into Greece. Don't come running to Canada when shit hits the fan.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[DMUTPeregrine]

I think Obama's policies are disastrous too, but I didn't vote for Romney or Obama.

It's a conspiracy

[Belial6]

My conspiracy is that there is a conspiracy to convince us that there are conspiracies. After all, since people regularly get convicted of conspiracy, and only nutters believe that conspiracies exist, then it must be a conspiracy by our elected officials to have enacted laws against these imaginary conspiracies as well as judges and juries to convince us that conspiracies actually do exist.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Tablizer]

Telecom explosion? Clinton prospered because our ability communicate went supernova.

By that logic, one could say that the Reagan Boom was caused by the PC revolution. Spreadsheets, dBASE, WordStar, etc. greatly reduced the cost of common business computing. (Reagan also ran up dangerous deficits, which may have acted in a Keynesian way to further boost the economy, even after the recession ended, which Keynes was against.)

Re:Not Excellent

[isorox]

It is no longer a United States. Time for our half the nation to SECEDE.

It hasn't been united since Clinton was in power

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[aztracker1]

I don't find either Romney or Obama particularly honest or genuine... Obama has pretty much dropped the ball on all of the campaign promises he made.. and you can't trust Romney to follow through on anything.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[Anonymous Coward]

... GWB, one of the worst presidents ...

... what they think of rape ...

... the religious nutjobs ...

... anti-science, anti-women BS ...

And you think these factions will create better policies?

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[aztracker1]

Good god.. if more people like you actually voted for someone different, the suits in political office would actually take notice. Third parties don't have to *win* to be heard... you approach 15% of the vote, and that carries a ton of weight.. even if you lose.

All hail the fiscal cliff

[Snotnose]

Anyone think congress will get their shiat together to avoid this mess? Me neither. So Obama gets to preside over another recession.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[Anonymous Coward]

A third party vote is better than a vote for someone who compromises your ideals. I don't care what anybody says about that.

Re:Blame the system

[hcs_$reboot]

The same thing happened to Bush II. Dems and Reps are on par now.

Re:Changes? [Bipartisanship]

[Tablizer]

Lock that damned Norquist creep out this time. It's hard to compromise when law-makers are signing a Non-Compromise contract.

Re:Just one thing

[hcs_$reboot]

Seemingly /. has a problem handling a post when its parent was deleted...

Re:GWB 2.0

[Tastecicles]

At least Nixon could count (see my previous post concerning national budgets)! What did he do so wrong that deserved impeachment? Lost an eighteen minute bootleg! That's almost worse than sticking your dick in an intern's mouth!

Meh...

[jcr]

I knew a Ruling Party douchebag was going to get the figurehead gig. It doesn't really matter which one it was.

-jcr

And now, a message from the Chinese Premier.

[Tastecicles]

"" (apparently Slashdot doesn't like Unicode. FIX IT, ASSHOLES!)

Translation: "Good morning, America, can I interest you in a set of Chinese language tapes?"

Re:And now, a message from the Chinese Premier.

[Ash-Fox]

Actually, Slashcode handles unicode just fine. On Slashdot, it is just configured it to restrict the characters that can be used because of previous abuse problems.

Re:GWB 2.0

[TubeSteak]

While we're talking about firsts, I believe George W. Bush was the first President to start a war and not raise any taxes to cover war spending.

Re:4 more years!

[AK Marc]

1000 years of darkness starts now!

Re:And

[AK Marc]

Chuck Norris said it would be 1000 years of darkness, not just 4 under Obama.

Re:Not Excellent

[MightyMartian]

Fucking hell, the Republicans have become so delusional they're channeling Jefferson Davis. As I recall, didn't your party refuse that particular invitation and end up going to war to preserve a united United States?

Brett Maverick says:

[meburke]

"You can fool all the people some of the time, you can some of the people all the time, and those are pretty good odds."
          Poker According to Maverick
http://www.amazon.com/Poker-According-Maverick-Bret/dp/B000BHSG62

Re:Brett Maverick says:

[meburke]

Retype:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time, and those are pretty good odds."

Dang! This would have been such a clever response if I'd typed it right the first time! 8-(

Re:we are f***ed

[porges]

A fair number of people have heard the term "fiscal cliff" but don't know what it refers to:

"The United States fiscal cliff refers to the effect of a series of enacted legislation which, if unchanged, will result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit."

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

So, not like Greece.

Re:Blame the system

[tantrum]

Weird, I thought that the count wasn't final yet.

But from my point of view 55.9m votes (Obama) is a bit more than 54.4m votes(Romney), so you must be using some funny fuzzy maths

Re:What the hell

[AK Marc]

Yeah, Green only got 0.3% of the vote.

Re:A Sigh of Relief

[Snotnose]

Better to put them 100 meters out and learn how to shoot your rifles.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[nbauman]

You think people are basically good and reasonably logical, and if shown the facts will change their opinions. This is demonstrably false for most people, they're basically emotional and tribalistic, and will do or believe almost anything to stay a part of their chosen tribe/social group.

It also helps to have scapegoats, like unions, government employees or teachers.

No additional war

[flyingfsck]

Good. If only because each new US president considers it his sacred duty to wage war against some unfortunate small country in order to get his name into the history books. So we are spared one more war for the next few years.

Re:No additional war

[the eric conspiracy]

> Good. If only because each new Republican president considers it his sacred duty to wage war against some unfortunate small country

FTFY

Re:Yeah but,

[kthreadd]

Does he run Linux ?

Yes he does

Netblock Owner IP address OS Web Server Last changed
Akamai Technologies 2.16.157.237 Linux Apache 18-Oct-2012

Obama won!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because once you go black... you never go back.

US Elections and Europe

[NaughtyNimitz]

All of Europe is sighing in relief as Obama is re-elected. Germany, France, UK, Italy , Russia, Belgium, The Netherlands,and so on will rather welcome 'socialist' Obama (again) who will support US job creations instead of Romney's foreign-friendly economic reforms at the cost of "Global Ignorance" as we call it.

Re:Blame the system

[NaughtyNimitz]

Strange, unemployment has actually decreased under Obama. I don't think Romey's taxcut for the rich will induce more jobs: they will happily invest their money in foreign adventures where there are even more tax gifts.

How about us Blue States stop supporting the Red?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2004 Red/Blue split perfectly mapped the welfare states-- slightly different than today but still largely holds true:
RED STATES ARE WELFARE STATES

I think they should get their wish and lose our big gov money we keep sending them then we can get a tax break from all that money leaving our states and going to their states... Then just watch them all turn blue. The Blue states deserve and earned every penny of disaster aid support they are getting and then some.

Re:we are f***ed

[The Wannabe King]

Greece is doing exactly what the Republicans want you to do, cut spending in the middle of a recession (inherited from Bush). Of course the deficit needs to be reduced - in the long run. Now is not the time to do it. People are still willing to lend the US money at cheap rates. Use them to get the economy going, then cut spending and/or increase taxes. I wish more people understood that running the economy of an entire country is very different from running their private economy.

Re:GWB 2.0

[msoftsucks]

And a surplus when he left.

Re:GWB 2.0

[AK Marc]

We'll impeach a president for lying about an illicit blowjob, but not for authorizing war crimes.

History will reflect poorly on Republicans for that one. Clinton was impeached for telling the truth under a silly definition by a judge.

But for explicitly illegal things (contra-arms deals, torture, assassinations, etc.), no sanctions against anyone.

Very simple

[SmallFurryCreature]

Democrats are crooks.

Republicans are evil.

They will both kill your for a dollar but the Democrats won't rape you first then skin you and steal your kids.

Read up on the antics Republicans went through to stop people from voting, 7 hour queues? There are countries just coming out of war that have this sorted better.

Even top economic newspapers said people should vote for Obama because Romney just lied to much and his economic policies made no sense.

People joke about choosing the lesser of two evils but that is still a difference. With a democrat, there is always a chance he will do something decent by accident. With a republican, that will NEVER ever happen.

The funny thing seems to be that Romney as Governor was pretty moderate but got persuaded/forced by the extremist to change his tune and it lost him the election. If you look at the states Romney won in, those are exactly the states no EU person should ever go to, redneck states all and you might think you are right-wing in the EU but you are NOTHING compared to a moderate Texan.

The republicans basically tried to win the election on abortion, gay rights and drugs. These are things the extremists care about but not if it is a choice between their job and something that doesn't affect them. Two states even voted for legal recreational drug use. This puts two American states miles ahead of the most liberal EU countries. That is... well... republican attitudes couldn't be father removed from the voter on the street.

Oh yeah, they also objected to Obama bailing out the car industry because you know, creating jobs, that is something that the voter really hates... and they seriously thought they had a chance in Ohio were Obama basically rebooted the economy?

That it is even so close shows that many Americans would cut of their nose to spite their face. "Oh I hate gays so much I will vote for the guy who hates my guts and thinks I am a leech and should go and die already."

No matter how bad things are under the democrats, the only certainty in the universe is that under the republicans it will be worse.

Re:Very simple

[Danathar]

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If you vote for the lesser of the two you've still enabled evil. It does not make you a better person for choosing "lesser" evil.

I refuse to vote for evil period. It's not my civic duty to choose which set of corporations get government help from political cronies.

Re:Very simple

[DNS-and-BIND]

Are you sure? I have been notified many times that (R) and (D) are but two colors of the same bird. And yet, whenever an (R) does something predictably reprehensible, everyone jumps out and says they are irredeemably and irrevocably evil. Whenever a (D) does something predictably reprehensible, both parties are the same. So, which is it? It can't be both ways. Unless there is massive hypocrisy and denial of inconvenient truths going on.

Re:Very simple

[riverat1]

They had a tea party.

Chinese whispers

[Chrisq]

Wasn't Mitt a lowly missionary...in Paris? lol

Almost right. I believe he was in the missionary position with Paris Hilton.

Eheh

[SmallFurryCreature]

But then, everyone with a brain knows that Romney's economic plans were a disaster waiting to happen. http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/free_market_defenders_agree_vote_obama/

When both the Financial Times and The economist support a (worst ever) socialist for US president over a republican candidate with a business background, then you know said republicans plans must be truly bad. It is not like these newspapers drank the koolaid, they are very reluctant to endorse Obama are sad to do it but they have no choice. Romney would be just to all destructive to tolerate as president.

But hey, you know more about economy then two leading newspapers.

Admit it, you just supported the republicans in thinking their anti-science and hatred of all human beings policies won them your vote. Because they know their economic policies were crap, that is why they kept flip flopping on it. This election wasn't about the economy for the republicans, it was about saving the south from civil rights. And you voted for them.

It is republican maths

[SmallFurryCreature]

It is the same math that says you can lower taxes, increase military spending and still reduce debt.

You are just one of the silly 99% who don't get it. Neither do those lefties at the The Economist or The Financial Times.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Raenex]

You've got that totally backwards. Obama would have trounced any of the other candidates. Romney had the best chance because of the economy, despite his flaws of being a flip-flopper, money-grubbing elitist. I challenge you to cite any poll that shows one of the other candidates doing better than Romney in a comparison poll.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[Tom]

So why are the tax cuts not eliminated?

democracy != elections

[Jesrad]

In a proper democratic system, all votes should be given equal weight.

Democracy has little to do with elections.

Election is a monarchic or rather an aristocratic process, historically it is the method by which peers of the realm select one among themselves to rule as king. The ancient greeks who defined the very word 'democracy' held no election for public offices, they only had elections for the top military mandates and IIRC Socrates explicitly lambasted elections as being aristocratic in nature. Compare that to the fact that all the main european monarchic dynasties of the middle-age started with an election: Pepin the short was elected king of the Franks, establishing the Carolingian dynasty that assumed the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, Hughes Capet was elected king of France and founded the long Capetian dynasty of french kings. Conrad of Franconia was elected king and basically established the kingdom of Germany, Arnulf of Carinthia was elected king of eastern Francia (which covered pretty much the whole of eastern Europe), etc. In most of eastern Europe, kings succceeded each other through election, for centuries. Even the title of emperor of the Holy Germanic Empire was attributed through election (with quite the same campaigning, mudslinging and corruption going on as in nowaday's elections).

Democracy stands for 'the people themselves manage the institutions and hold the final authority', whereas an election means pretty much the opposite, as it's a method for choosing one person to manage institutions himself and hold that public power and authority over everyone else.

Like most of your contemporaries you have no clear idea of what democracy actually looks and feels like, my guess is you most probably aren't familiar with concepts such a emergence and legal polycentrism, or their foremost place in the history of civilisation.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[cold fjord]

If they can't beat Obama in this economy, with his results, they really need to stare at their navels and figure out why people hate them so much.

A mystery? No.

Re:GWB 2.0

[gmuslera]

And this time US citizens also gave their full consent and approval to a lot of new things that did this government. So they could enhance and extend those laws knowing that is something wanted by the population. Fasten your seat belt.

Re:GWB 2.0

[tehcyder]

Please, let's stop pretending that Bush started anything. His predecessors were hardly any better.

Yeah, Clinton with his 3.5% unemployment, 3 years of balanced budgets and 8 years averaging 3.7% GDP growth really sucked. I'm glad those days are gone.

[/sarcasm]

Yes but Clinton had non-penetrative sex with someone who wasn't his wife. So the Bible says he will go to hell.

Everyone can relax...

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Bird is safe now.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[GameboyRMH]

Really? I'd heard of it well before the 2008 election...

Re:GWB 2.0

[tehcyder]

Sticking your dick in a willing intern's mouth is not a crime, unlike organising a burglary, genius.

Clinton only got in trouble because the ridiculous puritanism of the religious right in America meant he had to lie about a trivial indiscretion.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[tehcyder]

he murdered two American citizens in Yemen

Just like he murdered an Afghan citizen (Osama bin Laden) in Pakistan. Murder is murder irrespective of nationality. If you can justify killing OBL you can equally well justify killing some of his lieutenants who happen to be US citizens.

This is regardless of whether the idea of killing OBL was right or not. I'm just saying that there is no logical reason to approve of one and not the other.

Nerds Win

[ideonexus]

Congratulations to the real winners of last nights race: Nate Silver, Sam Wang, Intrade and all the other "Quants" (statisticians) who never characterized this election as "close" or a "tossup," but stuck to their Bayesian models predicting Obama as a heavy favorite. If their predictions were wrong, they would be looking for new jobs today, but the hiney hobbit pundits who characterized these brilliant nerds as "effeminate UnAmerican eggheads" will pathetically deflect responsibility for their own failed predictions this morning--but the nerds know the score. Science works bitches.

Re:Nerds Win

[u38cg]

No-one is interested in putting a pundit on screen who thinks it's a done deal.

Re:Nerds Win

[omnichad]

All that says is that, unfortunately, people are robotic and vote with the party they voted for historically. This means no one put any thought into their vote. Good for them keeping their jobs, but bad for America. What if America actually looked at more than two candidates and actually voted for the best choice based on the needs our government has at this very moment? That would be terrible for statisticians, but good for America.

Re:America the plutocracy

[EmagGeek]

Who do you think pays all the income tax in the US? The poor?

Re:Now what really matters...

[EmagGeek]

Why is the color of the President's skin so important to you? Why would you actually be moved to tears just from the amount of melanin in the President-elect's skin?

The belief that the color of a person's skin has anything to do with their quality as a person... let's see there's a name for that... what was it? I can't remember...

It's hard to take advice about how to be a quality person from a racist.

There was never "Democracy" in Greece

[Kupfernigk]

This myth is constantly repeated because most classicists weren't terribly good at sociology. In "Democratic" Athens you got the vote if you were a male citizen, which meant you had to be able to enter war as a hoplite, i.e. an armored soldier with a couple of servants. In the modern USA this would mean, in practical terms, that the vote was only given to male armed forces members with the rank of Corporal or above. Athenian democracy was in fact a military oligarchy which extended the vote down the ranks. 95% of the Athenian population didn't have the vote. It was far from "mob rule". Socrates had served as a hoplite and we now know he was probably executed because he was in favor of removing the popular vote and limiting government to the aristocracy - i.e. the military officer class. (I got this years ago from a woman professor of Ancient Greek, whose view on Athenian democracy was that, if anything, it was little better than Sparta - where at last upper class women had equality with upper class men.)

Meanwhile, the UK started to adopt democracy in 1832, and if anything has improved in the last few years. I notice no increase in "mob rule". If anything, the chief proponent of mob rule - Rupert Murdoch - has rather lost influence recently.

Supreme Court - 4 Years from Now

[EmagGeek]

If you thought the SCOTUS was going to be a reasonable check against the power of the other branches, just wait 4 years, when Obama will have appointed fully 5 of the 9 justices.

With the GOP losing more ground in the Senate, it will be harder to moderate those appointments as well.

There's also the issue that he no longer needs to run for re-election, and can now get a move on to being "flexible."

All bets are off, now. Game over.

/. Where Libertarian Sophists come to Cry

[tyrione]

I think I found where all the LP flock reside: On SLASHDOT. The mere concoction that Obama is a jerk and criminal or that the Dems and GOP are the same or virtually the same tells me this sophist parlor of misfit toys will forver find solace amidst their idiot buddies who fight over IT domination between Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, etc. Grow up children.

Re:/. Where Libertarian Sophists come to Cry

[Ash-Fox]

Why so tense, Tyrione?

Donald Trump

[tehcyder]

As he's just called for a revolution on twitter, couldn't he be arrested as a potential terrorist and locked up in Guantanamo Bay for a few years?

Re:Donald Trump

[EmagGeek]

No more than the hundreds of ghetto bunnies that posted death threats against Romney on twitter yesterday.

There's a difference between blowing off steam, and a legitimate threat.

The word "revolution" also has many meanings. I suggest you study a dictionary, put down the caffeine, and use your brain for a little while.

Re:Donald Trump

[GameboyRMH]

I guess we'll find out soon enough:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/donald_trump_loses_it_calls_for_revolution/

Thanks, nearly went through this whole thread without receiving any delicious schadenfreude from sweet conservative butthurt.

Re:Donald Trump

[Cro Magnon]

It is now official. Donald Trump is revolting!

Re:Why I did not vote for a presidential candidate

[EmagGeek]

If you cut spending, you have to cut social programs. If you think you can keep your social programs yet also cut spending, you are looking for a solution that does not exist.

People need to take personal responsibility for themselves, and that is all there is to it. 49% of all households in the US are dependent upon one government social program or another. It's no wonder we have reached the perpetual welfare state.

The Republicans can pander to the religious folks all they want. The 1st Amendment is not going anywhere, and thus the separation clause is not going anywhere. The GOP also does not believe that women are second class citizens. You are simply drinking the kool-aid on that one.

The problem is that not enough voters are smart enough to understand that there are protections against what they fear in the GOP, and they are easily influenced by a silver-tongued snake-oil salesman.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[swalve]

Then why are all the economic indicators going up?

Re:ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in p

[Straif]

You can always tell good legislation when they back load all of the big affects to happen after the next election.

While a lot of the benefits of the ACA have already been put in place the fun stuff that actually puts the strains on business (and is what is making companies across the US switch people from full time employees to part time and drop their health plans altogether) doesn't kick in until this year or next.

But of course the 800,000 jobs the CBO predicted would be lost because of the ACA is just a 'rounding error' according to Obama's team

The finer, whiter point

[ThatsNotPudding]

They voted *against* Obama, period. Saying he was a Muslim and not an American citizen was just their 'modern' way of shouting "Nig*er!"

The only hope the US has is that the old-school, lily white race quickly shuffles off their demographic mortal coil - and that the grandkids once and for all reject unvarnished racism.

Re:The finer, whiter point

[cas2000]

well, they've got a point you know.

he's black - how could he possibly be a real citizen? he's not even a real human being.

may as well elect a chimp to be president. or, worse, a woman.

Re:Blame the system

[chill]

Wow, way to look like a sore loser -- and an idiot.

As of 7:54 a.m. on Wednesday we have:

Obama: 59,516,481
Romney: 56,914,721

In case you're having problems with that, 59.5 million is MORE than 56.9 million.

Where do we go from here?

[SonnyDog09]

I can see Greece from my house. That's where we're headed. First, people will become more addicted to getting their "Obama money." Then, the masses will revolt when their government handout gets trimmed. As Margaret Thatcher observed, " The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." We will get there much sooner with Obama in charge.

Seriously?

[PopeRatzo]

Wait, the election was YESTERDAY?

No wonder the polling place was closed...

An empire in trouble

[concealment]

Without considering the winner, this election spells trouble for the USA.

First, the population is clearly split down the middle over values, which means constant infighting and that a large segment of the population will always be disappointed and possibly look to secede. We've had this problem before. The values of the hives (dense cities) seem to clash with the values of the suburbs and rural areas.

Second, the major issues of our time went un-addressed because they are too difficult to bring up in a campaign. There is still no plan to balance the budget, which will require cutting either entitlements (50% of budget; Dems stronghold) or the military (25% of budget; Republican stronghold). We still have problems with corruption, the economy and a hostile world that's getting more armed and dangerous by the day.

Third, non-issues dominated the campaign. The media makes a big deal of these "unjust wars," but from a broader foreign policy perspective they exist to check (1) rising middle eastern radicalism, generally by reducing the technological level of those nations to keep them neutered, and then bringing them into our global capitalist economy, a strategy that worked in Viet Nam and South Korea; and (2) Russian and Chinese designs on theater domination in Europe and the Middle East, using Russian oil as a carrot and new militarism as a stick. Further, while abortion and gay marriage are important in their own right, they're not the most important problems we face or anything close. They're flag-waving issues.

Finally, what makes me queasy is that this ultimately came down to a contest between identities. Some people "see themselves" as one side or the other, and it's usually from a self of class standing or social and cultural identity. This makes these elections more of a battle of demographics than anything else, which is going to ensure class conflict, ethnic conflict, gender conflict and other forms of highly divisive politics.

I don't need to look at the election results to see that these pervasive problems are cracking the USA and Europe. The USA is trending toward where it was in 1861, a nation divided. The EU is falling apart in much of a similar way, with the central states wanting a more federal union and others wanting to break away.

It seems to me that our inability to talk honestly about our political motivations ensures demagoguery and therefore continued fracturing of the electorate and ongoing internal hostility. This means that we do not act as nations, but as large committees that can never take decision action, and it leaves us wide open for these empires to be replaced by rising powers in the East.

On behalf of everybody else on the Plant...

[junglee_iitk]

... Go read a book.

Re:If you work for Locheed...

[GameboyRMH]

Haha fuck those amoral death dealers. Everyone in the defense industry, when questioned about how they feel about working there, says "I sleep just fine on massive piles of money" or something of similar insensitivity and dismissiveness. So fuck 'em.

Re:Blame the system

[f00zbll]

I would think a "geek" would know to wait until all the votes to come in and then look at the math. Did you go to Mitt Romney's school for the rich, where 1+1=5? On this planet, 1+1=2 and there's even a proof for it. Not that anyone other than a hardcore math major should/would read it. Obama was a so-so first term president. hopefully he'll do a better job. No, I didn't vote for him, but now that he is there "we" the people need to keep him accountable.

Re:GWB 2.0

[swalve]

Was it well known in 2004? I don't remember. Anyway, what is sickening is that much of America didn't just accept it, they cheered for it. Either because "those people" deserved it, or in some "24" fantasy of torture saving the world.

Re:GWB 2.0

[swalve]

I doubt that's even remotely true. Regardless, one gives up the protection of citizenship when giving material support to our enemies. These killings happened on the battlefield.

Populist Reform

[Tenebrousedge]

We want proportional representation and instant runoff because they are mathematically more fair: they represent people's view's better. Vox populi, vox Dei. They also are somewhat more populist* in effect, although that should not be surprising.

Out of the available options, first-past-the-post (simple plurality) is actually the least fair method.

*The opposite of populism is elitism, and what that has to do with US politics is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[the eric conspiracy]

Given that Mr. Romney has pretty much the same set of advisers as Bush the Younger used I think the argument that he would have had better policies is very doubtful.

We are talking about a President who gave us a massive tax cut in wartime. Sorry, but that doesn't work on ANY planet. Simply the economics of that sort of action are going to be a disaster. Which they were.

Re:GWB 2.0

[swalve]

The 12 year old little whores you speak of were barely even born yet when Clinton was president. Plus, virtually nobody puts cock in their mouth unless they think it's a good idea. Second, why are these concerned parents letting their little innocent flowers watch the news when it contained such shocking material? Third, even if the president went around ranting about how awesome cocksucking is, why do they think their kid is going to listen to him rather than their own moral teachings? If they had raised their kids the way they imagine they did, their kids would simply shake their heads at the "immorality" of it all.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Clubbah]

Well they/we had something even better than the telecom boom, they had worldwide devastation of any economic competition. Who are our primary competitors economically and how were they fairing after WWII? They were all rubble and some didn't even have their own government.

I give that generation credit, but they didn't do it in a vacuum.

Re:GWB 2.0

[dkleinsc]

Seriously, thank Al Gore. All the techies are very clear that he was the geeky guy in government who made sure that they had the funding and support they needed to create the Internet.

but the flaw is a human one

[electrosoccertux]

The flaw is a human one.
*FDIC can be good thing, and it can be abused.
*Monetary policy under democratic control would definitely be abused by the people getting elected-- "sure we'll have a bit of inflation if it means the economy keeps doing well so I get re-elected...and a bit more...and a bit more..."
*Pension funds managed by boards controlled by the workers, what happens when the majority of workers are older retiring soon and pass reforms to raid the coffers leaving the youngins high and dry?

Rest of that stuff is pretty good though, specifically
-Glass-Steagall
-un-suspension of mark-to-market accounting ("require banks to use honest bookkeeping")
-pretty much everything else you listed

Re:but the flaw is a human one

[ultranova]

*Monetary policy under democratic control would definitely be abused by the people getting elected-- "sure we'll have a bit of inflation if it means the economy keeps doing well so I get re-elected...and a bit more...and a bit more..."

How is this abuse? You get re-elected if the economic boom helps people more than the inflation hurts them. Which is exactly as it should be.

*Pension funds managed by boards controlled by the workers, what happens when the majority of workers are older retiring soon and pass reforms to raid the coffers leaving the youngins high and dry?

The majority of your workforce being about to retire would cause bigger problems than this, methinks.

Re:but the flaw is a human one

[electrosoccertux]

because the bust doesn't come until after the election, and wreaks havoc everywhere and for years like the housing bubble did for Japan (2 decades+ lost) and for us.

Re:ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in p

[waddleman]

Actually, the Democrats had to compromise to get the votes within themselves. There was no expected votes from Republicans, except maybe Senator Snowe. Senator Nelson was bought out by the Cornhusker kickback, which was removed in the reconciliation process anyways.

I blame the Obama voters

[srobert]

Obama voters, I blame you that Jill Stein didn't win. Romney, (and Johnson) voters are innocent by virtue of their ignorance. But you who voted for Obama should have known better.

switch people from full time employees to part tim

[Joe_Dragon]

switch people from full time employees to part time has been going on for years.

at least now they can buy a plan outside of the work place at a good rate under the ACA and no more mcdonalds mini med joke care plans.

Re:ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in p

[Joe_Dragon]

It forces Catholic institutions to pass out condoms, against their moral beliefs, with a "we'll just pretend that isn't happening" decision by Obama. Don't you feel better now, since Obama can change a religions basic tenets by executive order?

why should your job be able to control your health-care plan???? Your plan should be under your control.

Two words:

[danaris]

Grover Norquist.

To expand somewhat, particularly if you haven't heard of him (I don't know how closely you follow the bizarre inanities of US politics), Grover Norquist is a conservative lobbyist and activist who has, through means I haven't particularly explored, managed to convince enough of America that taxes are, in and of themselves, bad, that it's nearly impossible for a Republican to get elected without signing his pledge. This pledge effectively states that those signing it will never ever raise taxes, and seems to be getting interpreted lately as meaning they will never do anything that increases the share of revenue the government collects.

This idea, that taxes are the source of all our government's financial problems, has now been sold to a huge proportion of America, whose grasp of math apparently extends to, "Taxes are money that I pay out of my pocket. I like having more money in my pocket. These people are telling me that not only will I be happier if I'm paying less taxes, we'll all be better off if we pay less taxes and the government gets shrunk!"

Unfortunately, particularly in times of crisis, people want simple answers to their problems. The answer, "Well, if everyone making more than some very low yearly income pays a little more, and we make the very rich pay a lot more, we can do a lot better for everyone because of this, that, and the other," just doesn't have the same appeal as, "We can fix everything in America by letting you keep more of your money!"

This, of course, becomes even more true when you look at the effect the very rich can have on the landscape, because they are able to essentially buy public opinion for their ideas (not even getting into their ability to actually buy legislation for their ideas). Furthermore, America has a special vulnerability to their blandishments due to our historical culture of "rugged individualism" and whatnot: there's still a strong streak in American culture that believes that not only does everyone have a right to the fruits of their own labours, but everyone in America has a real chance to somehow become very rich themselves (see some politician this past election cycle boldlyand utterly falsely proclaiming that "we are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves"). And people who believe that they will, someday Real Soon Now, be rich themselves, do not want to see there being serious restrictions on the rich or attempts to steal away their hard-earned money, because "That's gonna be me someday, and I wanna keep all my money for myself!"

tl;dr version: People are stupid, especially about money and what it means for a society.

Dan Aris

Re:Two words:

[khallow]

This idea, that taxes are the source of all our government's financial problems, has now been sold to a huge proportion of America, whose grasp of math apparently extends to, "Taxes are money that I pay out of my pocket. I like having more money in my pocket. These people are telling me that not only will I be happier if I'm paying less taxes, we'll all be better off if we pay less taxes and the government gets shrunk!"

I take it you disagree? Do you have reasons why?

The answer, "Well, if everyone making more than some very low yearly income pays a little more, and we make the very rich pay a lot more, we can do a lot better for everyone because of this, that, and the other,"

There's at least a trillion dollars gap between what we spend and what we collect in revenue. How would you cover that gap?

Re:Two words:

[quax]

If I may interject, with regards to your first point, governmental services can leverage ultimate scale and provide investments that do not have to be short term profitable (infrastructure such as the Interstate system are a good example).

As to point number two: I would like to highlight that the US spends more on its military than several of the next larges powers combines. Plenty of room to cut.

Re:Two words:

[khallow]

If I may interject, with regards to your first point, governmental services can leverage ultimate scale and provide investments that do not have to be short term profitable (infrastructure such as the Interstate system are a good example).

That's not a selling point. Yes, government services can squander public funds on a scale that is staggering. Interstates may not have been a next quarter short term investment. But they started paying for themselves very quickly. The kind of "investments" that can only be rationalized on true long time scales, generally are spending that doesn't generate positive return on investment in any time scale.

IMHO the long time scale is chosen to dodge accountability for mishandling the money. Most education, health care, and pension spending fall in this category.

Re:Two words:

[quax]

As education, health care and pensions are handled just fine by many other governments the world over (quite satisfied with the way things work up here in Canada), I can only conclude that the US suffers from especially malevolent public servants. Really sorry to hear that. Maybe you should move?

Re:Two words:

[jp10558]

The thing that amazes me is that at a certain point, money is like a high score or something. It's not particularly necessary or even useful in "extra" amounts. I'm not arguing that I wouldn't like more money - I suppose to some extent everyone would like to "do that one extra thing" that more money might allow. But I think the research shows pretty clearly that past a certain point, more money or more things doesn't make you happier.

I mean, I'm not even making that much on the grand scheme of things, and unless I look at entirely new classes of stuff to buy (say extra houses or something), I'm currently slightly stressed because I feel like much of the "stuff" I already have is sitting idle - I just don't have the time to use it. And even if I were to become rich enough to not work - there's only so many games I can play, so many places I can go, so many foods I can prepare, etc.

So within my "class of goods" if this makes any sense, saving 15% or whatever from a tax cut isn't going to impact me noticeably - and that's at well under the 250k most of this blathering is about. Paying an additional, what, 5% under the Clinton era rates (if you're in the average 60k a year range) is likely to be unnoticeable also, except in so far as you treat it as a score. But if your tax return goes from $1k to $700 - will you really notice? Even if the return goes to$0 - it's a once a year sort of "bonus".

Re:Two words:

[khallow]

American culture has a strong rejection of government

This creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

What's the mechanism here? Are my bad vibes interfering with the proper operation of government?

Should you be paying me money to keep me from self-fulfilling you into a bad end? I foresee you becoming an alcoholic, losing your dog, nobody likes you at work, your car is busted, your basement fortress of solitude leaks, computer fan starts whining, etc. But if you send money now, I'm sure I could be mistaken!

But amusingly, despite this culture against government, it's never quite enough cut all those government jobs or change their system. Oh sure we got people like khallow here talking big, but who won the election again? Apparently the guy who will do a horrible job.

In a country with a true "strong rejection of government", Obama would not have been reelected. Instead, when things don't work, somehow it's the mean old naysayers who are making things break rather than the people who actually did or as usually is the case, didn't do it.

Re:Two words:

[danaris]

I'm not going to go into long rants about why Keynesian economics works and Reaganomics doesn't, or about what the functions and dangers of the national debt actually are. I doubt I'd convince you on those points anyway.

What I will say is this:

Signing the Grover Norquist pledge means that you will never, ever vote for a measure that increases the revenue the government takes in. This means that, as time goes on and takes this to its logical conclusion, the revenue the government takes in will go to 0. This will also mean that the government's ability to do anything will go to 0.

That means no police. No army. No judiciary. All gone, because the people who make it up need to be paid for their work, and without any taxes, government and everything it does will cease to exist. It leads to honest-to-goodness anarchy, and, in effect, the dissolution of our nation.

This sounds like a "slippery slope" argument, but it's not. There's no "until X happens" in the Grover Norquist pledge. It's just "never raise taxes." Will it stop before it reaches that point in practice? I think it probably would, because I don't think even the American electorate is that stupid. But that's not what any of them are saying. All they're saying is "taxes bad. Less taxes good."

And how many people do you know who wouldn't just keep nodding their heads if that were continued one step further, to saying, "No taxes for everyone is even better!"

Dan Aris

Re:Two words:

[khallow]

The same mechanism that got you to reply as I expected ;)

So no mechanism then.

Are my bad vibes interfering with the proper operation of government?

How should I know? I was not talking about you specifically, but American culture as a whole. But hey, if you are so insecure and defensive about it... maybe? I can't run your life for you, it's up to you to fix your own problems.

Again no reason given.

Ok, since you don't have a defense of your claim, I'll advance my own theory on what's going on here. You're just employing a standard religion argument. Bad things are happening because we're not trying hard enough or aren't pure enough. The obvious rebuttal is that if this were going to work, it would work even with some detractors present. Since it doesn't, we don't need to libel a bunch of people for noting that the system isn't working.

The thing people just don't get is that the US government is split between the state and federal levels. The federal government was never intended to do all the things it currently does. One gets that by bending the rules, and once you start bending the rules, corruption follows naturally.

In a country with a true "strong rejection of government", Obama would not have been reelected. Instead, when things don't work, somehow it's the mean old naysayers who are making things break rather than the people who actually did or as usually is the case, didn't do it.

Ah yes, the no true Scotsman argument, or should I say no true American argument.

If it's a correct observation, then it's not a fallacy. Here, it is a correct argument. Obama is strengthening the central federal government at the expense of everyone else. Romney might be as bad, but I don't see evidence for that. So yes, I would expect people who strongly reject government to vote strongly for Romney.

When something breaks, it's always the other guys' fault, and those guys are certainly no real Americans. They don't stand for real American values. They don't stand for what God^H^H^H FSM^H^H^H Founding Fathers wanted. "We", who are the real Americans, are the poor tragic victims getting blamed

Do you always get hysterical when someone disagrees with you? Sure, I'm tired of getting blamed irrationally for other peoples' bullshit. So yes, when something breaks, I'm not going to take seriously the "it's the fault of the people who said, correctly, that it wasn't going to work". The burden of proof is on the people with the wonderful plan. When it fails, they're the ones who fucked up.

I find it remarkable that you have been so far unable to come up with a reason for your opinion in your prior post. There's no reason to expect naysaying to have more self-fulfilling power than the optimistic point of view. These things aren't fragile flowers that will die, if someone thinks negatively about them.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

I see you can't. Who mixes opportunity cost of revenue not taken and spending on the same graph except to be deceptive? "Non-partisan groups" with partisan axes to grind.

That yellow was spent on something. It didn't magically burn up, leaving IOUs. And of course as the other replier noted, why are those tax cuts still there, if they're so harmful? Where's Medicare on that graph? It's all Booshes fault, right?

If you can't get those taxes back, then there's another solution. Don't spend it.

Re:GWB 2.0

[ceoyoyo]

Without actually reading the source material, it sounds like you might be technically right, but I'm not sure it refutes the OPs point (never mind that it only even tries to refute one of his points).

So you needed a pattern of behaviour? So if you applied the thumb screws or waterboarded, no hanging, but if you did both together, hanged? That somehow excuses introducing the practice of waterboarding?

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[khallow]

We are talking about a President who gave us a massive tax cut in wartime.

Compared to a president who tried to impose massive environmental restrictions in the middle of the biggest recession since the Great Depression?

Simply the economics of that sort of action are going to be a disaster.

Heh.

Ugh. So glad I live in Canada

[DarthVain]

I know he is supposed to be a leftist democrat, however if any politician up here ever gave such a speech I would assume them a right wingnut from the Canadian Heritage Party (christran right wing party in the west). Basically loony toons that get no votes.

And this guy was your "normal" guy... The differences between Canada and the US couldn't be more stark.

I have no doubt that our PM is likely more religious than many of our previous PM's, however likely they most that would be said about it might be "yes I believe in god, and that is a private affair for myself and my family".

Either we are more secular, or more private... either way religion has little if any role in our politics. The day ANY party starts a sermon, is the day they forever lose my vote.

Re:Ugh. So glad I live in Canada

[Phroggy]

I have no doubt that our PM is likely more religious than many of our previous PM's, however likely they most that would be said about it might be "yes I believe in god, and that is a private affair for myself and my family".

The quote wasn't from a speech, but from an interview that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney gave for the midsummer 2012 issue of Cathedral Age, the magazine of the Washington National Cathedral. It did not receive much press coverage. The President doesn't speak publicly about his religious beliefs very much, although he doesn't dodge such questions when asked.

Re:Ugh. So glad I live in Canada

[DarthVain]

LOL issue of "Cathedral Age"?

OK that makes sense, sort of.

Then again, the simple fact that they are granting an interview to a church magizne pretty much makes my point.

If Bible Weekly came to a Canadian politician other than the nutters, they wouldn't be getting an interview I don't think, particularly from a party leader.

Re:Ugh. So glad I live in Canada

[Phroggy]

Washington National Cathedral is a bit more than just "a church". Wikipedia

Re:A small victory for sanity

[ceoyoyo]

Care to elaborate on how Marx was wrong? Most of his predictions about what would happen because of capitalism seem to have come true. Pure capitalism destroyed itself, usually violently, and was replaced by mixed economies.

Second Term = Whatever I Want To Do

[Rastl]

A second term president has no real reason to care about the public since they can't be elected again. Things that would have been a factor in trying to gain that second term no longer apply. They can try to do anything and everything they feel like doing without the possibility of serious repercussions.

Expect even more unpopular, unsupported and unsustainable things coming out of the White House in the form of Executive Orders that bypass the entire legislative process.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[geekoid]

". And I don't give two shits what the slashdot crowd thinks, "
How closed minded.

"The President doesn't get to decide who lives and dies..."
See: EVERY FUCKING WAR.

Drone strike are very effective. And attacking the country, telling other people how to attack the country, and being in a tent with people plotting to attack the country and helping those people make you a legitimate target. Did didn't order men to creep into his home and murder home.

You should read the legal writing on it.

Of course you don't care, because you don't think.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[omnichad]

And this is why we've been on the same two party system for about 150 years.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[geekoid]

I'll make fun of all of them, there stupid, show weak thinking, and infect society with flawed logic.

Mormonism is a horrid cult. Many of then regularly violate the law but still maintain their not for profit status.

And I don't make ignorant fun. It's far better to understand the religion and then make fun because I like to watch them squirm in a vain attempt to make series of logical thoughts.

Speak for yourself

[bogie]

"What is truly scary is...this is it folks, this is the BEST the parties have to offer. Kinda sad isn't it?"

Obama may be no Bill Clinton, but with a less Obstructionist opposition he could have done a lot of good the last four years. How do you deal with a party that says we will not negotiate on anything and will go to the wall on every issue regardless of the consequences?

What's insanely scary is the leadership of the Right has just said this morning that they have no intention of trying to compromise AT ALL PERIOD for the next four year. They said it is 100% on Obama to come to them. What the fuck McConnell?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/07/McConnell-stiff-arms-Obama-Senate-Dems/UPI-55861352214084/

Re:Speak for yourself

[Draknor]

In a properly functioning representative democracy, an obstructionist party that was preventing real progress would be ousted in the next election. The fact that Republicans weren't ousted means:
(a) Approximately half the country does not agree with the direction I think the country should go on social, fiscal, and foreign policy issues
- or -
(b) Stances on real issues are clouded or obfuscated by FUD & hot-button / polarizing issues.

I tend to think the real problem is (b) -- and I feel validated when I read articles like this that suggest most people actually APPROVE of most of the provisions of ObamaCare. So all the rhetoric about "repealing ObamaCare" is really just FUD designed to demonize & confuse voters about the real issues -- which I find rather disgusting.

If you think about it, the win makes sense

[Cro Magnon]

Obama already had the 47%. He only needed another 3. Romney only had 1%. He had to get another 49 to win. Obama had an unfair advantage!

Re:The party retains control

[geekoid]

Real change. You are their bitch, aren't you? The economy has improved every year under Obama. It's recovering faster then pretty much every other country hit by the crisis.

Instead of run the number logically and in context, just make vague unverifiable claim.

There has been a ton of change in the last for years. So I don't know what you mean by 'real change' Of course it's just a vague statement used as a underhanded ad hom attack without actual having to back any point or plan.

Re:The Repubs really need to do some soul searchin

[omnichad]

They would have been cheaper, as long as he was prevented from cutting taxes.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[fm6]

Making fun of ritual clothing isn't ignorant?

Every cultural group has criminals. Italians, Irish, Jews, Blacks, all famous for their gangsters. (My dad used to complain that gangster movies never showed Jewish gangsters, a slight upon our proud Jewish heritage.) The Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts include pedophiles. I dunno what affiliations you have, but I'll bet I could guilt you by association if I wanted to.

I'm an atheist. If I were a bigoted atheist, I could dismiss all religions as cults. But I'm not a bigot. You certainly are.

Re:The party retains control

[fustakrakich]

Apparently civil liberties is a non issue to you, like the 'economy' is for me. My trade does not live or die by Wall Street.

Re:Without the Exectoral system elections take wee

[geekoid]

And? it takes a week to get an accurate count of votes. So what?

Re:4 more years of the same

[geekoid]

"Obama had two years of majority support"

please stop spreading lies. That is provably false. It was started by Joe Scarborough at MSNBC

And you talk(incorrectly) about two years. interesting what about 6 years?
Republicans and blue dog 'democrats' had the presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2001 – 2007.
And how did that work out?

Re:we are f***ed

[geekoid]

Mod up.

Right now is the time to borrow money to build infrastructure..or any bond project, really.

Re:Trade you 1 Stephan Harper for either candidate

[geekoid]

He didn't drop the ball, the republicans called a time out for years then blamed Obama.

I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[Weaselmancer]

I don't think anything that has been done has actually added any significant safety.

How about ending our presence in Iraq? Do you think that has anything to do with your safety? It does. Allow me to explain.

Check out this wiki page. Give it a good once-over, then let's talk about the contents.

You'll find that a good base number for civilian deaths in Iraq is a little over 100,000. That seems to be the average agreed upon number. We'll go with the AP number, 110,600 deaths. AP is reliable, and it's a decent average for the most conservative estimates for loss of life. Now note the time period. "March 2003 to April 2009." That's 6 years and one month. Are you with me so far?

On 9/11, the terrorist attacks accounted for the loss of 2,977 lives. Now let's look at those numbers and see what they mean.

110600 / 2977 is 37.15. So what that means is that we have killed 37 times more civilians than the 9/11 attackers did. The 9/11 victims and the civilians in Iraq are alike - all innocent people that did not deserve to die.

March 2003 to April 2009 is a period spanning 6 years and 1 month. That's 73 months. And 73 / 37.15 is 1.96. That's almost exactly two months. That means that what we've done to Iraq is like a 9/11 style attack every two months for over six years. Remember how pissed off we were after 9/11? Imagine that every two months for six years running.

110,000 families missing a loved one. A child they raised, a mother they loved, a father that will never come home. 110,000 families that have a good solid reason to absolutely poisonously passionately hate our guts.

Still feel safe? It took only 19 guys to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

My point is that it absolutely matters who is President. Decisions will be made that will affect your safety directly. You need someone at the helm that makes good decisions.

It matters. A lot.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[Nerdfest]

I agree with you, but pulling out of other countries isn't something that US citizens traded freedom for. Things like the TSA and warrantless wiretapping are.

Re:we are f***ed

[LynnwoodRooster]

Greece is doing exactly what the Republicans want you to do, cut spending in the middle of a recession (inherited from Bush). Of course the deficit needs to be reduced - in the long run. Now is not the time to do it. People are still willing to lend the US money at cheap rates. Use them to get the economy going, then cut spending and/or increase taxes. I wish more people understood that running the economy of an entire country is very different from running their private economy.

Wait, I thought our President declared the recession over, back in 2009? And that we're well into a recovery? Isn't it about time we start looking at spending (which has DRAMATICALLY accelerated in the last 4 years), and passing a budget? Or do we have to wait until we're $22 trillion in debt first, before we start look at cutting spending?

Obama wins the presidency

[na1led]

Colorado legalizes marihuana, Maine passed same sex marriage, welfare on the rise. Maybe I'm just old fashion, but I guess that's what the people want.

Re:GWB 2.0

[phorm]

I don't think that it was the "GDP growth" sucking that got Clinton knocked out.

Re:GWB 2.0

[elfprince13]

a) No. They don't, the Constitution is pretty clear about standards necessary to convict for treason.
b) They didn't all happen on the battlefield.
c) The administration has been in court defending it's right to assassinate journalists on equal footing with terrorists, after an injunction was obtained to prevent exactly that.

Who cares about the founding fathers?

[sjbe]

Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution?

Who cares what the founding fathers intended? These are the same people who declared "all men are created equal" while not giving equality to blacks or women or indians. They weren't a bunch of infallible holy wise men. We face situations today that they could not possibly have envisioned. There were no weapons of mass destruction, global communications systems, airplanes, railroads, computers or automobiles. There was no industrial scale pollution like we currently face and climate change was not a concern. Energy policies in those days concerned how much oats to feed your horse. The world is different and the laws that govern it must necessarily be different.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your premise (that the constitution has been rather abused in many places) but worrying about what the founding fathers thought is absurd. It just doesn't make logical sense to worry about what a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago might have thought.

Re:The different is...

[AlienSexist]

Almost... The media will only hint about it more often when a Republican does it. The slaughter line will actually be just as long.

Removing a (fig) leaf

[sjbe]

Colorado and Washington passed marijuana legalization for recreational use.

Maybe now we'll give up the fig leaf of "medical" marijuana. It's amazing how many previously healthy people suddenly developed conditions that could only be treated by smoking weed. I don't care if people want to smoke weed but for almost all of them claiming it was for medical purposes was nothing more than an end run around the law.

THIS JUST IN!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Running unopposed, President Robomney exceeded all expections by winning with nearly 100% of the popular vote.

Re:GWB 2.0

[dcw3]

Bush was the one who got tens of thousands of Americans killed

Not to let him off the hook, but your numbers are way high.

Re:GWB 2.0

[dcw3]

Good thing Gore invented the Interweb. How do you suppose things would have looked w/o the bubble? And I don't mean to let Bush off the hook, but we can't blame him for the housing bubble, just like we can't give credit to Clinton for this one.

100% truth

[circletimessquare]

the republican party will shrink the middle class and increase the poor. which means less spending and less business and a weaker country

strengthen the social safety nets, and the middle class grows, and the poor shrink, and there is more spending, and more business, and a strong economy

it's not that complicated

Re:100% truth

[gtbritishskull]

I agree. But, try to explain that to a Republican. They think that the only way for the economy to grow is for the rich ("job creators") to get richer.

Re:100% truth

[circletimessquare]

oh sure. after the already rich make an extra million moving your well-paying job to china, if you line up outside their gates every morning, they might let you come in one time and wash his car for a buck

trickle down economics in action!

Re: EDUCATE THYSELF

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah. The CIA hired out some special forces to terminate one of their operators.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24198

Of course, this was the decoy, the original having been decommissioned somewhat earlier, at an inconvenient time to influence the conflict over Pipelineistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0Z96IIQyVe0

I LOVE Operation Treadstone.

Nice how there was no independent forensic examination of the cadaver. But I guess anybody who asks for science here is the moral equivalent of a "birther".

Re:A small victory for sanity

[dcw3]

To the immature jackasses who modded the parent Flamebait, shame on you. Naive, maybe for Slashdot, but spot on for his assessment of the GP's (Pdoink) post. Take your food fight back to high school, and leave the serious debate to the adults please.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[firewrought]

Can you put two and two together looking at this graph?

(Numbers and graph Courtesy of the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities).

The bad thing about the right's ideological radicalization over the past decade is that there is no such as thing as "non-partisan" anymore. Anyone who puts forth numbers, facts, arguments, etc, against them is automatically part of the liberal media conspiracy.

The example of the hour, of course, is the right's attack on Nate Silver. To be fair, Nate did support Obama in this election, but his analysis was based on raw number crunching, not wishful thinking (like these eight conservative pundits who predicted a Romney win), which is why he was able to correctly predict the outcome of all 50 states (assuming no FL surprises). Meanwhile, the Red States guys were predicting a 3.5% win for Mitt the day before election. (Not to mention their hilarious exit poll that favored Mitt 5.4% with a 1.44% margin of error!)

They just stripped away all statistical corrections that professional polling organizations normally use in order to get the result they want even when the underlying reality was completely different . Now that the cold light of day has shown them wrong, we'll see if an apology, methodology change, or indeed any indication of humility or self-growth is forthcoming, but I'm not holding my breath.

Unfortunately, most complex things (global warming, taxation policy, etc.) aren't resolved simply and quickly like this polling "controversy". Right-wing ideologues will continue to manufacture misinformation and attack anyone who disagrees with them, and because of that: truth is dead, in a sense. (This can apply to left-wing ideologues too, but it's right-wing ideologicalization that has been more prevalent over the past decade.)

Re:Sixty Million Morons

[DeadCatX2]

So all you Blue Staters, don't come to me for help because I'll slam the door right in your fucking face.

I'll bite, just because this one is too sweet to pass up.

I'll have you know that "you Red Staters" are subsidized by "us Blue Staters". Without us, you are well and truly fucked.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

For every federal tax dollar, the following states get over $1.50 back in federal aid: Kentucky, Virginia, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, New Mexico. Those are almost all red states.

For every federal tax dollar, the following states get less than $0.82 in federal aid: Colorado, New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey. Those are almost blue states.

So, please, if *you* don't want *our* help then I would be more than happy for you to send all that extra federal aid back to the government so we can start paying down our debts instead of having you Red Staters freeloading off of all the hard working Blue Staters.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[sumdumass]

I bet you did. i bet you heard everything before it was ever associated with anything bad with a certain person.

Re:GWB 2.0

[Remus Shepherd]

...and the internet happened because of the National Information Infrastructure bill... ...which was proposed by, written by, and championed by Al Gore.

See, Clinton wasn't responsible for the boom in the late 90's. It was an entirely different Democrat!

And the ability to count to three, apparently.

[Brannon]

"The only two things that differentiate America from the rest of the world are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and an almost fanatical devotion to the gun."

Re:And the ability to count to three, apparently.

[Richy_T]

Whoo.. oh I can't be bothered.

What about Lindh, and Awlaki's son?

[DeadCatX2]

But the key here is that a US citizen should get due process. Even John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" guy, got due process. He was indicted by a Federal grand jury. He ACTUALLY took up arms against the United States and trained with the Taliban and was captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield (his unit even surrendered!), and he got a trial that wasn't a military commission.

Meanwhile, Awlaki never actually took up arms against the US. The most they can claim is he gave speeches that were probably protected by the First Amendment. You want to claim he is guilty of being a traitor, that he has committed treason against his country? Show the evidence in a court room (I recall something about treason in the Constitution and some other stuff about witnesses and overt acts...). You don't just get to blow up people who are not on a battlefield and not actively engaged in hostilities.

And for that matter, Alwaki's son, Abdulrahman, was a 16 year old American Citizen. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki committed no crimes and did not plot war against the US, yet he was summarily executed by drone strike. How the fuck do you defend killing a minor just because his father was an alleged terrorist who was never even tried or convicted of any crime?

Re:GWB 2.0

[sumdumass]

lol.. Yes, they used a pattern of behavior. and the importance of it which seems you lost completely is that the single act was never claimed to be torture by the MTFE as was stated. If you water boarded someone, it wasn't torture and wasn't prosecuted unless you pulled fingernails off or inserted bamboo shoots under them and beat the prisoner. They did not trial anyone for water boarding, or any other single offense as torture.

Whether water boarding is or is not torture is not what under consideration here. Its whether or not people were trialed and convicted of water boarding. The saying is wrong and inaccurate. John McCain was wrong and inaccurate, politifact is wrong and inaccurate and anyone who repeats the myth is wrong and inaccurate. At no time in US history was anyone connected with the tribunals in the gar east or Nuremberg trials ever charged or convicted of water boarding.

Its like saying Obama isn't the real president because he swore to the wrong oath and ignoring the reality that he did swear the right oath. If you are going to use incorrect information for an argument, prepare for the truth. Now, water boarding may very well be torture, but we certainly didn't charge and prosecute an enemy for it.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[GameboyRMH]

It's not just me:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22magic+underpants%22+%22magic+underwear%22&hl=en&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A01%2F01%2F2008

If this reuse of "magic underpants" was so well-known that it left the term tainted forever I'd think it wouldn't be so obscure...

Re:we are f***ed

[The Wannabe King]

Technically, you left the recession in 2009 as the GDP growth has been positive since Q3 '09, but a very quick look at the world economy makes it obvious that you are not out of the woods.Most likely the stimulus spending in the US is what got you out of the recession early. Cut spending too soon and see the economy tank again. Remember, the debt was not in itself the direct reason Greece is in big trouble, it's that investors lost confidence in the Greeks' ability to pay it back. Tank the economy AND combine it with a debt that is too large (again - in the long run) to really watch things go down the drain.

This is not a small, private economy. For an individual it makes perfect sense to cut spending if the debt gets too high. For an entire country it is difficult to do that without destroying the nation's ability to pay on the debt it already has. Here is a car analogy: If your personal debt feels too high, it is NOT a good idea to sell the car to repay some debt and save on gas if that means you cannot go to work.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[Black Parrot]

I think you're deluded. The public knows what the Republicans are, and they like that.

I disagree. Most people think the Republican party is about social and fiscal conservatism, and traditional values. But if you watch what they do when they have power, it's obvious that they're just the plutocrat party.

People like what they *think* the Republicans are. But the plutocrats are just exploiting the knee jerks of bigots (Southern strategy, new Southwestern strategy) and people who want to force their religion on everyone else. They talk a lot and throw them a bone now and then, but don't ever act in a way that suggests that they actually give a shit.

Before the 2006 election, leaders of the religious right were complaining that they have been bringing lots of votes to the table and getting very little to show for it, even though Republicans had had full control of the government for the past 5+ years.

*That* is what Republican posturing is all about: get the votes by fair means or foul, then run the country into the ground for the short-term interests of the rich.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Frequency Domain]

The problem with +7 Knickers of Seduction is what happens when you remove them?

Re:A small victory for sanity

[Frequency Domain]

Never mind, I had just hit "submit" when I figured it out. Just pull a "Weird Science" and wear them on your head.

National Democrat, local Libertarian

[DeadCatX2]

As living in a "lean blue" state, I chose to vote Democratic nationally. I shudder to think of the GOP getting a majority in the Senate.

Although I am also fed up with Democrats as well. That's why in local elections, I have begun voting Libertarian. They stand more of a chance locally than nationally, and everyone always says that the way to get a third party going is from the local level first, up through to the state level and then national.

I think in the future, Libertarian is going to start taking off. The reason being that there's a lot of Republicans who want to be rid of the social conservative issues and a lot of Democrats who want to be rid of fiscally liberal issues.

Re:Sixty Million Morons

[Richy_T]

Works until you start to consider the efficiency of use of that dollar in the public sector than in the private sector. $1 left in the private sector >>> $1.50 going to government waste and corruption.

who cares what i say

[circletimessquare]

listen to what the american people just said with their vote

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[Bigby]

Very good post. I would add that neither Obama or Romney would make any bit of difference.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[_DangerousDwarf]

The majority of those 110K deaths were NOT at the hands of American or coalition troops, but at the ends of their own countrymen.

My state has done this - they're insane

[alispguru]

Maryland has joined the compact. I predict they will stay with it until the popular vote goes Republican one year.

Maryland is not remotely a battleground state - our presidential numbers are reliably Democratic + 10%. So sending our electors to vote for a Republican candidate because of a relatively obscure law/compact will obviously be understood by the voters...

NOT.

Re:with a 51+ Senate Majority

[DeadCatX2]

Uhh...the Constitution says that all spending bills must originate in the House. You can't just pass a budget in the Senate and then have the President sign it.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[Weaselmancer]

Two points.

1) Do you think that makes us any less responsible? If you were to bomb Kansas halfway to hell and remove their infrastructure, destroy their food and water distribution the same thing would happen. It wouldn't be the fault of the people living there. It would be the fault of the people dropping the bombs.

2) Let's say you are right though, and let's say the number is hugely inflated. Let's say we are only directly responsible for one tenth the number. That still means we've done 37/10=3.7 times worse to them than 9/11.

No. We don't get out of it that easily by saying crime went up and therefore we aren't responsible. We are.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[Qwertie]

Obviously it makes a difference in general who is president. The point being argued is that the particular two candidates we got aren't likely to be that much different.

Back in 2008 I certainly thought and hoped Obama would be a big change from Bush, but it seemed like nothing changed. He continued or expanded Bush's policies of warrantless wiretapping, the Bush tax cuts, increasing executive powers (in often-unconstitutional ways, such as the war in Libya remaining unauthorized by congress), continuing the war on drugs, etc. The Wall Street "reform" bill was the smallest imaginable response to the horrendous behavior of the financial firms. Troop deployments were not immediately decreased but merely shifted around. There was that new "insurance care" bill, but if Romney had won his presidential bid in 2008, isn't it possible, even likely, that we would have ended up with something similar from him?

You mention Iraq--we hope neither candidate would start another war the way Bush did, but do we really know they wouldn't? And Obama didn't really bring peace to Iraq, did he?

Re:The party retains control

[Magius_AR]

The economy has improved every year under Obama.

Nope, GDP growth has been declining since 2010: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth+chart#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=1226034000000&tend=1320642000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

It's recovering faster then pretty much every other country hit by the crisis.

You do realize that this crisis hit different segments of the world at different periods of time, right? China's "crisis", for instance, is just starting. And you're also wrong that we're recovering faster than the rest of the world: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth+chart#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&idim=region:ECA:LAC:EAP&ifdim=region&tstart=1226034000000&tend=1320642000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Magius_AR]

I challenge you to cite any poll that shows one of the other candidates doing better than Romney in a comparison poll.

I can show you an equal:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/

He also had a lead in favorability:
http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll

He also had a lead among independents:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/

If the Republicans didn't coup him into nonexistence, he would have beat Obama.

one man's prayer is another's witchcraft

[cas2000]

Saying you're going to pray for someone is a condescending put-down and dismissal. It's saying you're ignorant and misguided and can't help yourself so I'll ask my invisible magical friend to fix you.

It's all that and more if the person being "prayed for" is religious in any way - it's also a threat of witchcraft, invoking (fictional but still scary to a believer) divine powers.

If you want some glimmer of understanding about how non-christian but still religious people feel about being "prayed for" by christians, consider how a christian would feel about the following "blessing": 'May Satan bless you, keep you safe in his arms, and guide you to wisdom"

I'm an atheist so I'm not worried by the witchcraft elements (it's just superstitious mumbo-jumbo), but I'm still offended by the condescension of people offering to "pray for me". smarmy self-righteous fucks.

Re:we are f***ed

[Magius_AR]

Right now is the time to borrow money to build infrastructure

That would have been a fantastic idea 4 years ago -- now we've already pissed away all that money on things like payroll tax cuts and bank bailouts. We don't have a few more trillion to toss around on infrastructure. It's funny how they give Romney such a hard time for advocating tax cuts when that's exactly what Obama has brought to the table for the past 4 years.

Re:A small victory for sanity

[sumdumass]

lol.. I bet you are right.. I didn't say you were wrong. But I will say the most popular use of it does so in claiming Obama is a liar and that is why certain people like him- because he's a liar.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Raenex]

If the Republicans didn't coup him into nonexistence, he would have beat Obama.

You can't say that with any confidence. First of all, the poll had him 50% to 45% losing to Obama. Second, you have to run the gauntlet. Who knows what would have happened, but it definitely would have been an interesting race, at least offering a stark contrast.

Re:GWB 2.0

[greg_barton]

I agree. Not being sarcastic.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[grouchomarxist]

Along these lines there is a report that up to 3300 people have been killed by our drone attacks in Pakistan, while only 41 were the intended Al Qaeda targets. This is another situation that could blowback on us.

Re:GWB 2.0

[swalve]

Who said anything about treason?

Re:GWB 2.0

[elfprince13]

You did, even if you didn't realize it.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Who Cares

[hackus]

I do not want to worry everyone, but the trends in the USA political system seem to indicate:

1) Passage of laws Stalin, Mao even HITLER would have a wet dream if he could pass the Patriot and NDAA acts.

They just recently passed, and will take time to "execute" fully. Anyone paying attention to the news knows, there are not 1 billion terrorists in the world.

There are people like me though and others that track what this political system is doing and it is buying Ammo for domestic use on a scale totally unprecedented in USA history. What exactly the government is going to be doing with that much sniper and hollow point bullets I can't be sure since it is for domestic government institutions.

So I will let history be the judge and suggest you all have something to worry about that is more important and it has nothing to do with the president.

You better pay attention to the banks who are funding these purchases, particularly the Federal Reserve.

2) We all know that for a civilization to function, you can't have corruption on a scale that we have seen in the past 10 years in military conflicts being authorized Constitutionally illegal, by an arguable dictator. (i.e. Bush and Obama have authorized actions clearly illegally with regards to military deployment.). Destruction of the confidence of trade and monetary stability by Paulson, Corzine and others that have stolen my money and others, stand up in front of Congress on Public Television and with a straight face declare they have no idea what happened to hundreds of billions of dollars.

You know there is a reason why the entire Stock Market is 85% machine trades now. You either have to be a crook or a fool to participate unless you have inside knowledge or can get permission to break the law and steal money without penalty.

3) A populace in the USA now mainly based on dependence who have thrown away the freedoms and liberties many people died for and are laying in graves, in exchange for slavery of a welfare check and food stamps for "safety".

I can't believe people would not attempt to destroy those who put them there rather than being held on a leash for a food stamp debit card and welfare check. It would seem this political two party system has chains of gold for everyone to wear. The destruction this is having on the future of the country is heart breaking. Millions of people who will never ever consider any possibility other than what their government handlers will tell them what is possible.

The government has stolen billions and given it to corporations to move and build factories anywhere, just as long as they are not here, paid for by you the tax payer. The American response?

Who Cares, just give us our Welfare Check and Food Stamp Card. Not a single attempt to move against this government even while whole cities lie in ruins.

Like a frog in a pot slowly being cooked, people sit idle and watch as the dead lie in graves for nothing and a future of slavery.

Safety will be a key concern, of course for the ruling class, but not for any of the hundreds of millions who will sit in abjec poverty as this trend continues to fulfill a future of complete and utter repression of the human spirit.

You know I have a great interest in history. One of my interests is the MAYAN's, when at the height of the MAYAN civilization 800 A.D. or so Europe was gripped in the Dark Ages the MAYAN city states were at their apex and began experimenting with an industrial age inventing materials science which yielded concrete, advances tools harder than steel.

They too succumbed to tyranny and butchery and finally destruction of all of their culture. They stopped, they stopped exploring science, they stopped exploring mathematics, they stopped exploring engineering. The result? The ruling class used fear and declared we cannot keep you safe from hunger unless we sacrifice hundreds of people to the Gods. We can keep you safe from hunger, if you give us all your sons, daughters for sacrifice

Re:Who Cares

[bledri]

The instant you liken a political system to Stalinists and Nazis that is not actively slaughtering millions of it's own people, you loose all credibility.

tr;dr - Too ridiculous, didn't read.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

If you don't know why these tax cuts are still there you obviously did not pay any attention.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

In the last crisis a lot of money indeed "burned up" as the credit supply and hence money in circulation shrunk (M3).

Econ 101.

Macroeconomics != Microeconomics

Opportunity cost makes only sense in the latter context. Most of the yellow wasn't spend but saved or put into investment vehicles, and had therefore very limited stimulus effect. If you want to stimulate the economy with tax cuts you have to tailor them to the lower income segment where the incentive for additional consumption is much higher. The Bush tax cuts on the other hand are structured exactly the other way around.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

Indeed, the winger comments further up the thread unfortunately illustrate your point.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

Opportunity cost makes only sense in the latter context. Most of the yellow wasn't spend but saved or put into investment vehicles, and had therefore very limited stimulus effect. If you want to stimulate the economy with tax cuts you have to tailor them to the lower income segment where the incentive for additional consumption is much higher. The Bush tax cuts on the other hand are structured exactly the other way around.

Economic activity != good for us. The big problem with investment is not that it has limited stimulus effect, but that it has an even weaker targeting effect than encouraging consumption. At least with consumption, you can encourage one round of spending mostly in your target region before the money flees to better places.

Against that, you have to weigh that investment goes directly into the future. There is profound long term impact that doesn't happen with consumption. The consumer just gets something now while the person selling them the goods or services in question also has little reason to make any long term changes. The spurt from the consumption is going away after all.

The Bush tax cuts on the other hand are structured exactly the other way around.

Sounds good then. To work properly IMHO, they would need in conjunction increased incentives to invest in the US rather than other places.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[Jane Q. Public]

Mod this person Secretary of the Interior.

Re:Get ready for...

[cas2000]

There won't be any mountain high enough so the silver lining is that the "elites" will vanish (but unfortunately they're more of a symptom than anything else), and that still won't be worth the misery and loss across the globe.

that's like saying ticks are a symptom of lyme disease, rather than the parasitic bacteria-carrying cause.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

Just one simple counter example: One of the best 'domestic investment' over the last five years was gold. Worked like a charm for me.

You'd need massive capital controls to direct investment the way you envision. Freedom it ain't. I rather pay higher taxes but retain my economic liberty to invest my money the way I see fit. Apparently your mileage varies.

Re:GWB 2.0

[stymy]

Not to mention leaving the White House just before the bubble burst.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Magius_AR]

First of all, the poll had him 50% to 45% losing to Obama.

No it didn't -- it was 48% to 46%, in favor of Obama.. And no I can't be certain of it, but considering how strongly Romney fared, I have a great degree of confidence. Ron Paul had Romney licked in practically every category Romney failed to materialize voters (such as the youth vote, the moderates/independents, and across-the-aisle support). Moreover, there's the fact that the deficit/economy was the public's #1 concern and that was Ron Paul's whole spiel (whereas for Romney it was more of an afterthought). Also Ron Paul had nothing to fear of the "flipflop" accusations, because he's rock solid. And he's far more personable than Romney -- hell, everyone loves a doctor. All these facts together summed up with the closeness of the existing race...I'm fairly certain Ron Paul would have taken it.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Raenex]

No it didn't -- it was 48% to 46%, in favor of Obama..

Sorry, I was looking at all respondents instead of just registered voters.

And no I can't be certain of it, but considering how strongly Romney fared, I have a great degree of confidence.

Yet Romney failed, and they were at the same position in the polls.

Ron Paul had Romney licked in practically every category Romney failed to materialize voters (such as the youth vote, the moderates/independents, and across-the-aisle support).

For him to be equal in the polls that means he was losing in other categories.

Moreover, there's the fact that the deficit/economy was the public's #1 concern and that was Ron Paul's whole spiel (whereas for Romney it was more of an afterthought).

Ok, this is completely backwards. Romney was the economic candidate because he had the business pedigree. That's why the Republicans held their nose and chose him. Ron Paul's who spiel was Libertarian, not just the economy.

Also Ron Paul had nothing to fear of the "flipflop" accusations, because he's rock solid. And he's far more personable than Romney

I agree, and this is ultimately what held Romney back as a candidate. That and his tough stance on illegal immigration he took to win the primary drove away the Latino vote.

All these facts together summed up with the closeness of the existing race...I'm fairly certain Ron Paul would have taken it.

Again, ignoring the polls, and also ignoring Ron Paul's downsides which would help explain them. He advocated an isolationist foreign policy, a return to the gold standard, and the legalization of drugs. It's so far off the current status quo that it would be a hard sell. Only running the gauntlet would tell you how this played out.

Third parties vs. reforming Democratic party

[Paul Fernhout]

Yes, you make a good point on third parties. I like the "No Confidence" option idea you outline. However, here is another alternative, basically doing something like the Tea Party did in moving the Republicans more rightward, but for the Democrats moving leftward/Green/other(basic income?), from sociologist G. William Domhoff:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html
===
So what should egalitarian activists do in terms of future elections if and when the issues, circumstances, and candidates seem right? First, they should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs. That gives them an organizational base as well as a distinctive new social identity within the structural pathway to government that is labeled "the Democratic Party." Forming such clubs makes it possible for activists to maintain their sense of separatism and purity while at the same time allowing them to compete within the Democratic Party. There are numerous precedents for such clubs within the party, including liberal and reform clubs in the past, and the conservative Democratic Leadership Council at the present time.

This strategy of forging a separate social identity is also followed by members of the right wing within the Republican Party. By joining organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, they can define themselves as Christians who have to work out of necessity within the debased confines of the Republican Party. That is, they think of themselves as Christians first and Republicans second, and that is what egalitarians should do: identify themselves primarily as egalitarians and only secondarily as Democrats.

After forming Egalitarian Democrat Clubs, egalitarian activists should find people to run in selected Democratic primaries from precinct to president. They should not simply support eager candidates who come to them with the hope of turning them into campaign workers. They have to create candidates of their own who already are committed to the egalitarian movement and to its alternative economic vision of planning through the market. The candidates have to be responsible to the clubs, or else the candidates naturally will look out for their own self interest and careers. They should focus on winning on the basis of the program, and make no personal criticisms of their Democratic rivals. Personal attacks on mainstream politicians are a mistake, a self-made trap, for egalitarian insurgents.

In talking about the program, the candidates actually do much more than explain what egalitarians stand for. By discussing such issues as increasing inequality and the abandonment of fairness, and then placing the blame for these conditions on the corporate-conservative coalition and the Republican Party, they help to explain to fellow members of the movement who is "us" and who is "them." They help to create a sense of "we-ness," a new collective identity. As candidates who present a positive program and attack those who oppose it, they are serving as "entrepreneurs of identity," an important part of the job description for any spokesperson in a new social movement.
====

Some issue I have with the Greens, BTW, even though I though voting Green made sense as a protest vote where I lived (e.g. I have problems with a push for "full employment" instead of a "basic income", or a push for expanding schooling instead of better supporting self-education and homeschooling, or an implicit push for population limits in various ways versus moving into space habitats, etc.):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227495&cid=41864225

Even in the case of Obama as president, such Egalitarian Democratic clubs could be useful in the sense of, as Ralph Nader cites, "Make me do it" regarding progressive change, like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to reformers:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/15-0

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

You'd need massive capital controls to direct investment the way you envision.

I'd say rather their absence. The more you try to control people and keep their stuff, the harder they try to leave. I believe the US would keep more capital just by being a better place to start a business and employ people. But that would mean that the people who are employed would need to make some sacrifice in the process.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

So far the US has a very hard time to compete with China. Reducing the American worker to the standing of a Chinese one and hollowing out the US industrial sector seems to me to be a poor way to secure American prosperty and power.

By all accounts my birth country, Germany, is much more competitive with regards to China, and somehow they manage to do this with strong trade unions and a comprehensive wellfare system.

Re:switch people from full time employees to part

[Straif]

switch people from full time employees to part time has been going on for years.

But you don't usually write legislation that makes that the most attractive move for small to medium companies to make.

The fines the ACA forces on employers who don't provide health care is (this is only applied to companies with more than 50 employees - another incentive to lay people off):
                                      (# of full times employees - 30) * the per employee fine amount

So while part time workers count towards the 50 employee check but are not part of the penalty formula.

By that formula it's extremely attractive for companies to cancel their health care coverage and limit workers hours and reclassify them as part time (which means a lot less income and not just a name change) and because of other penalties, taxes and conditions it's not even necessarily worth their while to hire additional part timers to pick up the slack.

There are already larger companies starting to reclassify their subsidiaries as independent entities to make it easier to minimize their number of full timers for this formula because it just makes financial sense to drop health care for your employees if the cost of the fine is millions less than the cost of care.

End result, the average take home pay goes down, fewer companies provide health care and now workers who previously had health care covered by their employer are now forced to spend even more of their money on buying plans themselves.

Re:We have a winner - Big Bird

[dcw3]

See subject

Game

[tranquille]

Somebody had to win.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

Reducing the American worker to the standing of a Chinese one and hollowing out the US industrial sector seems to me to be a poor way to secure American prosperty and power.

I first have a quibble with what you wrote. The US industrial sector has already been hollowed out. What has kept us going industrially is new industry creation. Second, the US worker is already being reduced in standing. It's just being done via inflation and poorly thought out regulations and laws (and large scale underemployment).

By all accounts my birth country, Germany, is much more competitive with regards to China, and somehow they manage to do this with strong trade unions and a comprehensive wellfare system.

They have three things in their favor. First, strong protectionist systems (particularly the regulatory system) and second, they're the best competitors in their protected block. Germany props up its economy with exports to the rest of the EU, especially to the weakest countries like the PIGS. Germany is doing great. Greece, Spain, Italy, etc aren't.

Third, they're getting an economic boost from building up East Germany. Eventually, those trade advantages are going to settle down, then we'll see where Germany goes.

In comparison, how is the US going to do a Germany? It doesn't have a vast protected trade block it can exploit.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

You are correct that the PIGS have been a net benefit to Germany, but where its economy shines are in areas that are not at all protected: Cars and machinery. Both items that sell very well in China.

Protectionism in the EU is all about agriculture. Please check your facts at bit more carefully.

As to your contention that new industry creation keeps the US going: While it is true that there is fortunately still great innovation happing, the rate has not been steep enough to compensate for the outsourcing loss to Asia.

Would also like to point out that companies like SpaceX could not exist if the government through NASA wouldn't have artificially created a marked in the first place (very good policy IMHO). And of course there'd be no Internet without the government either, just AOL and Compuserve walled-gardens.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

Protectionism in the EU is all about agriculture.

Here are some counterexamples. ISO business and environmental standards are a great counterexample. It's harder to achieve compliance with ISO standards if some of your inputs come from non-certified suppliers. Such standards favor environments where most of the businesses are so certified.

The EU thus gains a substantial trade advantage over countries without widespread ISO certification. For example, I understand China is only recently overcoming this obstacle with large-scale ISO certification in recent years.

There are other certifications like the EU Ecolabel that cover areas which tend to be weaker in the developing world (such as working conditions and degree of pollution).

The EU legal system also has developed a recent habit of fining companies a fraction of their global revenue. That affects global companies more significantly than EU-only businesses since it is possible to incur a large fine on a small side business and can be a big risk for a foreign business trying to enter an EU market.

As to your contention that new industry creation keeps the US going: While it is true that there is fortunately still great innovation happing, the rate has not been steep enough to compensate for the outsourcing loss to Asia.

So you agree that there's a lot more manufacture in the US than there would be in the absence of new industry creation.

Would also like to point out that companies like SpaceX could not exist if the government through NASA wouldn't have artificially created a marked in the first place (very good policy IMHO).

NASA had to be forced to accept private space launch in 1984. It's worth noting here one of the bizarre things about the space age in the US. Namely, the bizarre abandonment of commonly accepted philosophical and economic principles. The first thirty years had a program that had a surprisingly socialist model (with private contractors). But it does go a long ways to explaining the stagnation of space development since the 50s.

And of course there'd be no Internet without the government either, just AOL and Compuserve walled-gardens.

Nonsense. You already gave two examples of walled-gardens that existed in the real world. Instead, what changed things was Metcalfe's Law, namely, that there's more valuable in a single large network for interaction services than in several small disconnected components. Services that could allow you to interact with the people you wanted to interact with, were more valuable than services that prevented you from doing so.

The same forces would have unified any other internet attempt.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

"Metcalfe's Law" - just because you call it a law doesn't make it so, especially in economics.

You seem to argue from a libertarian standpoint that assumes that markets naturally blossom and always create the best outcome.

Markets are created by fiat. If there was no government that enforces a level playing field you won't get a libertarian utopia but at best a Mad Max world.

None of the EU regulations that you cite are WTO accepted barriers to free trade. They are simply good governance. Apparently you never saw a regulation that you liked, that's the only explanation I have for arguing against policies like the Ecolabel that are designed to improve working and environmental standards.

From my point of view this doesn't even go far enough. IMHO democratic countries shouldn't have engaged in free trade with communist dictatorships like China to begin with. Free trade should have been the price for democratic reform and compliance with basic human rights. An opportunity squandered. Now the world has to content with an ever less free America in decline and Communist mandarins emasculated to the hilt with economic power and clout.

Well, at least we can agree on one thing:

"So you agree that there's a lot more manufacture in the US than there would be in the absence of new industry creation."

Yes, and the sky is blue in absence of clouds ,and during daytime, unless you happen to be near one of the poles in the winter.

Re:I disagree, rather strongly. Here is some math.

[CHIT2ME]

Ya Ya! The ragheads already hated our guts without Iraq. But, you fail to mention that a large portion of those 110,600 civilians killed in Iraq were killed by fellow Iraqis, and other groups in Iraq. The only thing arabs like more than killing Americans is killing arabs. I believe your math and your conclusions need some updating!

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

"Metcalfe's Law" - just because you call it a law doesn't make it so, especially in economics.

I called it that because that is its name. It's also worth noting that it actually works in practice and played a significant role in the development of the actual internet. After all, there were walled gardens like AOL and Compuserve and those don't exist any more.

You seem to argue from a libertarian standpoint that assumes that markets naturally blossom and always create the best outcome.

Show us that isn't true first.

None of the EU regulations that you cite are WTO accepted barriers to free trade.

Of course not. The EU is not stupid about signing away its trade barriers. You asked for non-agricultural examples of protectionism and I gave you them. I didn't say they were illegal.

Markets are created by fiat. If there was no government that enforces a level playing field you won't get a libertarian utopia but at best a Mad Max world.

Hawala networks in the Middle East are a counterexample to the claim that the "fiat" has to come from government rather than the market participants.

From my point of view this doesn't even go far enough. IMHO democratic countries shouldn't have engaged in free trade with communist dictatorships like China to begin with. Free trade should have been the price for democratic reform and compliance with basic human rights. An opportunity squandered. Now the world has to content with an ever less free America in decline and Communist mandarins emasculated to the hilt with economic power and clout.

And how would that have helped? My view is that the wealthier China is, the freer it will become. Also, we want their stuff. And the US would have declined anyway, due to the obstacles put in the way of industrial activity. I just don't see the point of your strategy.

"So you agree that there's a lot more manufacture in the US than there would be in the absence of new industry creation."

Yes, and the sky is blue in absence of clouds ,and during daytime, unless you happen to be near one of the poles in the winter.

You know that's not going to stop a slashdot pedant. Too many loopholes left. As to my original assertion, "What has kept us going industrially is new industry creation", I see no reason to correct it.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

What's in a name? "Metcalfe's Law" will have a hard time accounting for the fact that Facebook manages to tie people back into a reservation.

"Show us that isn't true first."

Spoken like a true ideologist.

"You asked for non-agricultural examples of protectionism and I gave you them. "

So WTO does not classify it as protectionism but it is nevertheless protectionism because you say so.

Alright then.

Hawala networks are transactional networks (think visa, paypal) not markets (e.g. ebay).

"My view is that the wealthier China is, the freer it will become."

That's a hope not a strategy.

"Also, we want their stuff."

Because the Western world greedily gave them the IP to build marketable stuff. What exactly did they produce that was of any interest before the Western world invested and started outsourcing?

"What has kept us going industrially is new industry creation", I see no reason to correct it.

As well you shouldn't. My point was that it is valid but kinda obvious.

As to the Internet, have you been around when AOL was blanketing everything with their CDs?

The reason these walled gardens went away was the pre-existing Internet that offered interesting content so that these services hooked up to it.

Led to an influx of really unsophisticated users into newsgroups who thought that AOL invented the Internet (fortunately nowadays everybody knows that Al Gore did that :-)

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

Messed up my italics at the end of my previous post.

Trust you'll sort it out.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

What's in a name? "Metcalfe's Law" will have a hard time accounting for the fact that Facebook manages to tie people back into a reservation.

Why? Facebook is Metcalfe's Law in action. What's happened to all the Facebook competitors? It's a pretty big reservation.

"Show us that isn't true first."

Spoken like a true ideologist.

Ideology isn't wanting reasons for why you say things. I can't be bothered to figure out your reasons for why you say things when you can't be bothered to explain them either.

"You asked for non-agricultural examples of protectionism and I gave you them. "

So WTO does not classify it as protectionism but it is nevertheless protectionism because you say so.

It's not WTO's job to classify all forms of protectionism. And as you note, some forms of protectionism aren't recognized as being within the purview of the WTO. But again, you asked for examples and I gave you examples.

Hawala networks are transactional networks (think visa, paypal) not markets (e.g. ebay).

Hawala networks are both transactional networks and markets. They aren't like Paypal because the network isn't owned by a single entity. With Paypal, you have to use Paypal or you can't use the network. With Hawala networks, you can always change brokers. So there's a collection of services being offered by these brokers and a bunch of customers who want to use these services. That's standard market fare.

"My view is that the wealthier China is, the freer it will become."

That's a hope not a strategy.

That's an educated opinion based on observations of what happened to Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Because the Western world greedily gave them the IP to build marketable stuff. What exactly did they produce that was of any interest before the Western world invested and started outsourcing?

So what? They're producing now.

As to the Internet, have you been around when AOL was blanketing everything with their CDs?

The reason these walled gardens went away was the pre-existing Internet that offered interesting content so that these services hooked up to it.

And these preexisting services were privately created.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

"And as you note, some forms of protectionism aren't recognized as being within the purview of the WTO."

I note no such thing. I am pointing out that you cannot just make up your own definition of protectionism. If the WTO is doesn't call it protectionism it is not protectionism.

You cannot just make up your own definition.

You can also not re-write history: The Internet is older than AOL or Compuserve and the interesting content there was user generated (FAQs) or provided and hosted by research agencies such as NASA and CERN (where the web was invented).

And no, Hawala networks are not markets just because they are not owned by one entity. It still just remains a money brokering system.

The tendency of yours to just make up your own "facts" is simply flabbergasting.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Magius_AR]

Yet Romney failed, and they were at the same position in the polls.

That was crazy early in the race, and ignores the debate bump. Ron Paul would have fared just as well if not better (because Obama wouldn't have the "you're a corporate raider" card to play -- in fact, he'd have very little ammunition against Ron Paul except for going after some of his kookier ideas like the gold standard).

For him to be equal in the polls that means he was losing in other categories.

Not true -- it simply means he was an unknown to many. Keep in mind, Ron Paul never got the kind of mainstream media spread that all the other candidates got. Even in debates, he was rarely ever given speaking time. If he was put center-stage into the public light where people could actually see him and hear him, his polling numbers would have increased.

Ok, this is completely backwards. Romney was the economic candidate because he had the business pedigree. That's why the Republicans held their nose and chose him.

Kind of. Republicans allowed him to take the spot because he was a stooge for rich people, a "safe" choice, and somehow they believed could reach across the aisle (given his governorship in Massachusetts). They didn't want a maverick like Ron Paul to rock the boat -- they wanted a career politician that was as dirty as they were. Also, Romney's pitch was more about job creation, not deficit control.

He advocated an isolationist foreign policy, a return to the gold standard, and the legalization of drugs

Ya, not sure how all that would have went down. Though I feel like the isolationist view would have actually been a boon for swaying the anti-defense-spending Dems. And the drug legalization as well would have captured a number of younger Democrats. His base would have been voting for him no matter what if he got the nod. The gold standard stuff I can't speak for, but his harsh criticism of the Fed and push for an audit of the Federal Reserve would have been a huge hit in the populace. They can't stand what went down with the banks, and he really could have taken Obama to task for that.

Only running the gauntlet would tell you how this played out.

Certainly true. I would have loved to have seen that race.

Re:Bring back pen and paper voting

[Raenex]

On the one hand, you say it was crazy early in the race and Ron Paul was an unknown, but on the other you use poll numbers to back him up. Being the focus of negative attack ads highlights the biggest problem areas. Ron Paul never had to go through that, unlike people like Santorum and Gingrich. You admit he had some "kookier ideas", but claim his poll numbers would have risen.

Returning to an isolationist policy might have pulled in some Democrat voters, but it would lose many Republicans (he got booed at the primary debates for his foreign policy), and even most Democrats don't want to withdraw militarily from the world. Auditing the Fed would be popular, but returning to gold would be hammered as a recipe for disaster. Legalizing drugs would have captured some voters, but would have lost others.

The idea that "His base would have been voting for him no matter what if he got the nod." is untested. It's one thing to be elected to the House in a Texas district, where he is only a single vote. It's quite another to be elected President where he can actually implement many of his ideas, especially with regards to military as Commander in Chief.

You finally at the end admit it would be "certainly true" that he would have to run the gauntlet to know how it would have played out. I would have love to have seen that race too, but we didn't, and my guess is that Paul would have lost in a landslide because he was just too different from the status quo.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

If the WTO is doesn't call it protectionism it is not protectionism.

This is an erroneous argument from authority.

You cannot just make up your own definition.

Ok.

Definition of 'Protectionism':

Government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs, quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention.

They have in mind tariffs and other such things. But regulation that has the effect of inhibiting foreign competition in turn is restricting international trade. Hence, my examples are cases of protectionism just as you requested.

You can also not re-write history: The Internet is older than AOL or Compuserve and the interesting content there was user generated (FAQs) or provided and hosted by research agencies such as NASA and CERN (where the web was invented).

BITNET, UUCPNET, and FIDONET are more examples of private networks. FIDONET is particularly interesting since it is a truly independent part that merged with the internet (well, so is Compuserve and AOL, but apparently those don't count). And most users contributed their content as private citizens or employees of private businesses or non profits.

It always puzzles me how the US government can meddle in the early days of the formation of the internet and inherit credit for everything. Why aren't we blaming academia and associated businesses (like AT&T) instead for the internet? They are the ones who actually made the internet happen.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

You are stretching your own definition of protectionism to the breaking point. Any regulation that a foreign entity does not like fits your description.

I.e. all safety regulations, environmental, health e.g. to regulate smoking.

Taken to this extrem the term becomes completely useless.

As to the role of government in the creation of the Internet, of course the credit goes to the individual scientists. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how many of them held jobs at publicly sponsored institutions versus private ones at the time, and in case of the latter where working with public grants. Really not rocket science to figure that out.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

Any regulation that a foreign entity does not like fits your description.

No, it doesn't. Making stupid arguments doesn't help your case. I see I've reached the limits of what persuasion can do. Either you'll come some day to see the wisdom of my words, or you'll dwell in ignorance for the rest of your life.

As to the role of government in the creation of the Internet, of course the credit goes to the individual scientists. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how many of them held jobs at publicly sponsored institutions versus private ones at the time, and in case of the latter where working with public grants. Really not rocket science to figure that out.

Once again, because there was some government assistance, government gets the credit. However, the thinking person can see that academia helped more than government to create the open standards that make up our internet. And that's further evidence for my original assertion that the internet would be open even in the absence of government support.

Let us also keep in mind that the US government has supported all sorts of walled gardens in its time (eg, PLATO, the AT&T monopoly).

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time until we descend to name calling.

Fortunately, the US electorate is also "too stupid" to see your "wisdom".

I'll happily keep dwelling in my "ignorance" up here in Canada, where good governance as a concept is fortunately not contested.

Anyhow, nice talking to you. Take care.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[khallow]

I had cause. You have about half a dozen posts where you keep claiming things that aren't true, playing semantics games even when the definition has been laid out, employ various fallacies, particularly the appeal to authority, and finally just make up stuff about what I supposedly said.

Fortunately, the US electorate is also "too stupid" to see your "wisdom".

Nothing fortunate about it. I see it as abandoning the rule of law because you get a little free stuff from government.

Re:.... and the US deficit continues to balloon

[quax]

See, that's the problem. Your first paragraph summarizes precisely how I felt about your comments as well.

Re:Gimmiedats

[riverat1]

What makes you think for a minute that your money will shield you from "the coming economic and social collapse"?

About the "red states" and "blue states"

[robsku]

Btw, as European only recently having started learning more about US politics, I was not long ago very confused of terms "red states" and "blue states", thinking they would mean the opposite, but from the discussion it soon became clear that blue referred for democrats and red for republicans - what's the story of these colors when every "American" associates "the reds" with "commies"? And right wing extremists most certainly paint democrat party as commie hitler satan puppykitten killers :D

Just a funny odd observation from outsider - who doesn't really see a major left party existing in US, and it's just colors anyway...

PS. Excellent post.

PPS. Never mind the question, I'll just leave it here as (interesting?) observation - the wikipedia article explains the story behind the colors - and that:

Before the 2000 presidential election, the traditional color coding scheme was "Blue for Republican, Red for Democrat,"[2] in line with historical European associations (red was used for left-leaning parties).