Slashdot Mirror


Project Orca: How an IT Disaster Destroyed Republicans' Get-Out-The-Vote Effort

cheesecake23 writes "Many talking heads have attributed Obama's success to an unmatched 'ground game.' Now, inside reports from campaign volunteers suggest that Project Orca, a Republican, tech-based voter monitoring effort with 37,000 volunteers in swing states, turned out to be an epic failure due to dismal IT. Problems ranged from state-wide incorrect PINs, to misleading and delayed information packets delivered to volunteers, to a server outage and missing redirection of secure URLs."

390 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess this is what happens when your backward, anti-freedom police state party systematically alienates all the programmers and sysadmins and hackers, all the good techs and IT personnel who otherwise might have wanted to help you.

    Good riddance.

    1. Re:Serves them right by therealobsideus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Actually I can see that. And I can personally attest to the amazing infrastructure the OFA campaign.

    2. Re:Serves them right by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1, Troll

      The Republicans probably outsourced IT management to India, but you're fool if you don't believe that Democrats aren't also going to give us a police state. The first four years of Obama's term should have already clued you in.

    3. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because Obama didn't extend and expand the Patriot act or anything.
       
      I just love how the talking points of one party applies to the other with equal force but the big mouths from both parties try to act blameless.
       
      The loss of freedom in the US is a collaborative effort between the two parties but they play it off like it isn't. This keeps the one party system alive and keeps the citizens asleep.

    4. Re:Serves them right by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yes, because Obama/his administration hasn't curtailed freedom at all through increased warrentless wiretapping of Americans, by giving retroactive immunity to telcos who aided in breaking the law, by fighting for punitive laws that would cripple the internet, by negotiating lousy treaties that would reduce freedom, by sending the FBI to foreign countries to seize property ...

      I'm with you. The Republicans of the past 12 years have not been supporters of technology or freedom by any means. But neither have the Democrats.

    5. Re:Serves them right by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's like the argument put forward by Neal Stephenson in Cryptonomicon - the Allies won WWII because they had the best technology, and the reason they had the best technology was because they were't the biggest assholes.

      http://markpasc.org/blog/gems/athena.html

    6. Re:Serves them right by Desler · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Get your facts correct. The bill that gave the telcos immunity passed in July 2008 before Obama was elected. Though he did later defend that bill as president. This was after the House caved to Bush after previously passing a bill that would have not granted immunity..

    7. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Troll

      Good riddance.

      This place is not a lapdop to the Democratic party. I bet we have just as many Greens and Libertarians. What we don't have are a bunch of far rightwing Fascists that love to protect the 1%.

      Keep crying your tears are delicious.

    8. Re:Serves them right by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We can't help it. This stuff is just so hilarious. Instead of doing some honest soul searching and acknowledging the fact that the electorate has changed, the GOP wants to kid themselves with nonsense like this.

      A server crash is completely irrelevant to the fact that you are actively antagonizing anyone that isn't an old white male fundie.

      You run Communist style purges on your own top people and then are surprised when your "true conservatives" tend to be intolerable nutbags.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LMOL keep thinking that zippy...Republicans think the internet is a series of tubes....who do you really think supports technology.....

      As ignorant as Republicans are of technology, describing the internet as a series of tubes was excellent. The metaphor accurately conveys how packets move through routers' FIFO queues during congestion. Links are so fast now that packets spend more time in routers moving through these metaphorical tubes than they do actually being carried on a wire or fiber.

      It's too bad the metaphor was offered by a Republican, otherwise it could have been a teaching tool rather than a joke.

    10. Re:Serves them right by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This sort of counter-bigotry and counter-hatred is as trashy and needlessly spiteful as any the GOP side can muster. Post-election is a time for healing and a time to work towards unity. Slashdot hates the polarized atmosphere of US politics, yet here we are deepening that divide even in a time of victory. Democrats, as the victors, need to be magnanimous, not petty like this.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    11. Re:Serves them right by tylikcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) One can certainly be anti-GOP without being pro-Democrat. I found Obama moderately more tolerable than Romney - which is really saying something considering how I feel about Obama. (Surveillance society? Authorizing assasination? Not even to get in to things like how TSA is basically being used for extra-judicial harrassment, which is certainly a bigger problem than just the Obama administration considering how the courts are punting on regulating TSA.)

      2) Adopting policies that are pro-science and pro-math might do a lot to win over the /. crowd. Pro-sex might help as well ;-)

    12. Re:Serves them right by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Troll

      that's half of it.

      and the other half is that a backward, anti-freedom police state party full of mega-corporate bitches won.

      Past the hot button issues that give the illusion that people have a choice, Obama has done a *wonderful* job continuing the very worst of the Bush-Cheney agenda. what a liar, what a crook, what an empty suit. Even his vaunted "Health Care Bill" does nothing but further enrich big pharmy, big insurance, big healthcare chains.

    13. Re:Serves them right by Bob-taro · · Score: 5, Informative
      It reminds me of an interesting passage from "That Hideous Strength". I loved it, but it's by C.S.Lewis and is not-at-all-subtly Christian, which I'm sure would offend a lot of slashdot readers.

      “But I don’t see how one’s going to start a newspaper stunt without being political. Is it Left or Right papers that are going to print all this rot?”

      “Both, honey, both,” said Miss Hardcastle. “Don’t you understand anything? Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and terrified of the other? That’s how things get done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us–to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is.”

      “I don’t believe you can do that,” said Mark. “Not with the papers that are read by educated people.”

      “Why you fool, it’s the educated reader that can be gulled. All our difficulty comes from the others. When did you meet a workman who believes in the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair Flats. He is our problem. We need to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the highbrow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They are all right already. They’ll believe anything.”

      I often think about especially that last bit when reading slashdot. Of course, later on in the story it says "Miss Hardcastle apparently overestimated the resistance of the working class to propaganda." (or something to that effect).

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    14. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is that what you are reduced to telling yourself?

      You are almost at derp level potato. Get over it, he lost fair and square. Hate, racism and tax cuts for the rich are not American values anymore.

    15. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the laughing got in the way of my typing. I promise if slashdot had an edit function I would fix it.

    16. Re:Serves them right by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can we get rid of the brainless AC posts already? They're all shoot-from-the-lip ignoramuses like this asshole.

      I'm an Obamatron, but I can't abide the Huffpost. So I learned about this fiasco from Newser, which linked a conservative web site which linked John Ekdahl's blog. John's a Romney volunteer, and his scathing description of Orca is informed by his day job as a web developer. And the there's Pudge, who helped design Slashdot, and who I presume voted for Romney, unless he considers him too liberal.

      So obviously there's no absence of IT talent on the right side of the aisle. What is missing is administrative judgment by Romney himself, who obviously bought some IT snakeoil from somebody, and has generally managed to find total clowns to run his campaign.

      People keep telling me about this brilliant guy named Mitt Romney who had a brilliant academic career (MBA and JD from Harvard), did well as a management consultant and equity capitalist, and accomplished great things as Governor of MA, even though the other party controlled the legislature. But I just don't see how that can be the same guy!

    17. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am not democrat, did not vote for Obama either.

      Laughing about the end of these sorts of values is not hate, it is joy. Try not to cry yourself to sleep again. That was a joke by the way. In a few weeks you might even be able to laugh at it.

    18. Re:Serves them right by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      bullshit, most Nazi technology e.g. aircraft was superior.

      now that subset known as "information technology" might be another matter....

    19. Re:Serves them right by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Informative

      Republicans think the internet is a series of tubes...

      Ted Stevens has been dead a while, you can stop pissing on his corpse now.

    20. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's really funny about that is statistics again go against you.

      Jon Stewart, who I do infrequently watch, has an audience far more educated than fox news or the talking radio heads.

      As Mr.Stewart would say keeping fucking that chicken.

    21. Re:Serves them right by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      I didn't say he didn't support it and actually explicitly stated that he did. It is still wrong to claim it was Obama or his administration that granted the immunity since it was since it was pushed for and signed into law by Dubya after he got caught.

    22. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the "War on Women" is not part of this?
      Care to remember all the Republican Rape statements made this election? Or their voice on the radio calling people sluts?

      Or the way they court the far christian and nationalist fringe?

      Only a 10 point difference? That is a fucking landslide compared to the average. What do you think the point difference was for others not in the old white fundie demograpic?

    23. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Laughing at the rage of bigots and hate mongers is good for the country. That is healing the wounds they created. We cannot work towards unity with those who do not want it. They hate us, they curse us to their imagined hell and pray that their gods strike us down.

      I am no democrat, did not vote for Obama, but I sure am glad to see this country moving away from hate.

    24. Re:Serves them right by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I loved it, but it's by C.S.Lewis and is not-at-all-subtly Christian, which I'm sure would offend a lot of slashdot readers.

      C.S. Lewis was a different sort of "Christian" than you're likely to find today; I think it's doing him a disservice to even use that word to describe him.

    25. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If your are counting on more conservative you are guaranteed to lose. Romney shift to the center after the primaries is the only thing that gave him a chance. You desire for a fringe rightwing candidate is about as likely as my desire for the Greens to win.

      Mr.Jindal might have a chance if no volcanoes get in the way.

    26. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just yours.
      Top ten states by % of college graduates - all democrats
      Bottom ten states by % of college graduates - 9 were republican

      https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/266758023177981952/photo/1

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    27. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it the majority of 'Christians' vote for the guy who promises NOT to help those in need?

      Just doesn't make sense.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    28. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they believe that PEOPLE should help people in need, rather than rely on the government to take other people's money to do it for them?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    29. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the Democrats alienated the good IT people and doing so kept them away from the Republicans. Either your logic or your premise is a little flawed.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    30. Re:Serves them right by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But you can't deny that criticism of the Democratic party/policy/members is a more dangerous affair on Slashdot. One has to be very careful in wording such criticism, and it's often necessary to couch it in a general denunciation of the political right for it to ever be considered for upvoting. For those criticizing Republican party/policy/members the task is much easier, and petty name calling and broad generalizations of entire social groups by those posters are often overlooked. Now look at the moderation in this thread -- the off-topic and overrated votes have been given out with uncommon generosity.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    31. Re:Serves them right by felipekk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But then most of them don't do it. They *might* give their money to the church and then it just goes away...

    32. Re:Serves them right by rainmouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am not democrat, did not vote for Obama either.

      Laughing about the end of these sorts of values is not hate, it is joy. Try not to cry yourself to sleep again. That was a joke by the way. In a few weeks you might even be able to laugh at it.

      You don't need to fabricate things for them to be funny. Sometimes the truth is more hilarious
      http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/study-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-watch-no-news-at-all/

    33. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet they want the government to regulate how other people (gays/women) should live?

      Can't have it both ways.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    34. Re:Serves them right by Onuma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm in a similar position, though I don't ever call myself a Republican, Democrat or any other affiliated party -- I just go with fiscal conservatism, military strength and a stern foreign policy.

      I foresaw the lack of good GOP candidates over a year and a half ago. Called it just like it went down; Romney got the (R) nod and lost in the end to the incumbent. Nothing really surprising at all. I believe Romney had the economic know-how to help get the economy back on track, and the desire to see an America not weakened by diluted foreign policy and appeasement of others. I don't believe it's too much to ask to have a government who doesn't stifle business and doesn't let other nations step all over us.

      The bottom line is that the GOP shot themselves in their collective feet. Obama ran a decent campaign, but Romney and the Republican Party showed just how behind-the-times they really are.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    35. Re:Serves them right by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Except they don't do that either. They just meddle in your private life and leave you to fend for yourself with the consequences.

      They simply aren't willing to "step up" once they've had their little power trip. They will try to suppress those that actually do.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    36. Re:Serves them right by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      one is called slavery

      It's called taxes which is actually a form of an insurance scheme. If you cannot criticize it without making false names for it, you must have no cogent reasons to attack it.

      Attacks like that rich on epithets and short on reasons is why the GOP keeps loosing the moderate middle. Sure, it drives up the ratings of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, but not the ratings of the people that would actually matter (Romney/Ryan) as shown last Tuesday.

    37. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any actual statistics to back that up? Or are you just spinning what you think reality should be into "fact". Because when people actually try and measure it, it turns out they do, and you're wrong: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/who_gives_to_charity.html

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    38. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? Both parties want to have it both ways. Republicans want to regulate morality, and free money, and Democrats want to regulate money, and free morality.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    39. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But.. why didn't they bring in experts in "Intelligent Design"?

    40. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet they want to force others to live on their principles - gays, abortion, drugs, etc.

      You can't have it both ways.

      And being forced to help someone isn't nearly as bad as forcing someone else to not choose their own lifestyle.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    41. Re:Serves them right by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Post-election is a time for healing and a time to work towards unity.

      Reminds me of the Star Trek TOS on the planet where everyone emulates early 20th century gangsters. Kirk says they should stop fighting each other and work towards unity. Mob boss says, "I agree but I gotta be the unity!" Fact follows fiction is what we have today.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    42. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The GOP was not actively antagonistic to "anyone that isn't an old white male fundie." That isn't true at all.

      I've seen that said a lot though. It's like some big lie that people hope will come true if it's said enough.

      Some of us actually paid attention to the entire GOP nomination process from start to finish. The candidates clearly pursued racist, sexist primary voters all along, barely concealing it at all. After Romney won, the racist and sexist rhetoric shifted to a more subdued, dogwhistle form, calculated to be enough to get the bigots to turn out for the general election while letting mainstream GOP supporters (like yourself) fool themselves into not noticing the elephant in the room.

      Let me tell you, 49% of the populace does not meet "old white male fundie" category. Hell, there was only a ten point difference between women who voted Republican and Democrat.

      49% equals a "base" of bigots (who are in fact largely white fundies) plus others who have been fooled. Like you.

      A 10 point difference among women voters is an enormous gap in American general elections, by the way...

      There are problems with the Republican message and its outreach, I can't deny that. But I will deny lies and exaggerations like the one you advanced.

      Of course you'll deny it, but not because it's a pack of lies. Rather, because you're living in a state of denial.

    43. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you actually believe that Republicans want to free money - whatever you mean by that?

      This is what both parties actually do:
      R - tax cuts, spend more on military
      D - tax increases, spend more on people

      Tax and spend is a much better fiscal policy than tax cut and spend. The excess spending on both sides is completely ridiculous. If I had to choose one though, I'd prefer the spending be done on the American people rather than the policing of the world.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    44. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a lot of us christians share the same faith as Lewis, and don't like the "right wing by default" thing . As for the "Christian" title, I think Lewis would have called himself that at any age of history. I won't stop calling myself a christian because of what others do or say. The problem is theirs, its up to the hypocrite to repent or to renounce the faith. Worship of God, love, compassion, humbleness, those things are as much needed and out of fashion today as when Jesus walked the earth.

    45. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You have it right there in your post - tax cuts vs tax increases. Ideologically, Republicans are for lower taxes, thus, less control of government over an individuals money. Of course, both parties have drifted pretty far from their ideological roots, and the Republicans are cutting taxes to please one group, while spending more to please others. Doesn't matter to many voters though, because they've self-identified as D or R, and the actual actions of those parties don't mean diddly.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    46. Re:Serves them right by blueturffan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, if any Republican said/did/thought something at any time, the same belief/action/thought must apply to all Republicans in perpetuity.

      It's a /. thing - like hot grits or first posts, but a lot more annoying.

    47. Re:Serves them right by McGruber · · Score: 2

      I guess this is what happens when your backward, anti-freedom police state party systematically alienates all the programmers and sysadmins and hackers, all the good techs and IT personnel who otherwise might have wanted to help you.

      It probably didn't help that the Republicans consider Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman to be successful at IT.

    48. Re:Serves them right by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 4, Funny

      To paraphrase a Fox News anchor:

      Are these the facts that you cite as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?

    49. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ideologically, Republicans are for lower taxes, thus, less control of government over an individuals money.

      Not any Republicans in my life time. And I remember Reagan getting elected. And tripling the national debt with military spending.

      I think you're thinking of fiscally conservative Republicans. But those don't exist any more. Literally, they've all died off it was so long ago.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    50. Re:Serves them right by Maow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously, this place has turned into such a lapdog to the Democratic Party that I can't stand to read it anymore.

      Mod me down. I don't give a fuck. This is my last slashdot post.

      And the quality of Slashdot just went up.

    51. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. The Nazis had superior technical designs in many instances, and questioning their engineering skills would just be stupid. Yet thankfully they lost, in no small part because these things consumed resources they should've been using elsewhere.

      It's not just about being brilliant, albeit in a twisted way: you have to execute in such a way that your superior tech matters. If the enemy has slightly worse designs but better manufacturing, ability to turn out numbers, better field servicing and greater reliability with an equally intelligent and motivated military, you're in trouble because you have to be perfect all the time and they don't.

      For a good story about this, dig up Arthur C. Clarke's ironic short story "Superiority". It's a good read.

    52. Re:Serves them right by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government funding is allocated for political or bureaucratic reasons, not need.

    53. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Which is why I prefixed it with "ideologically". It's still the thing the Republican party says it stands for - especially in the minds of its long-term voters - even though its actions have pretty much made a mockery of it. But then, the Democrats actions haven't really reflected their ideology (well, their post-slavery ideology) lately either - drone strikes and kill lists, absue of due process, expansion of the TSA, etc.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    54. Re:Serves them right by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      We cannot work towards unity with those who do not want it. They hate us, they curse us to their imagined hell and pray that their gods strike us down.

      Is that from Mein Kampf?

    55. Re:Serves them right by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 2

      It's obvious why your Kama is only 1. You must post inane shit all the time.

      says the AC...

    56. Re:Serves them right by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      3) Not persecuting cannabis users even more than the GOP would be nice too.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    57. Re:Serves them right by tylikcat · · Score: 2

      I was rather hoping the Democrats were going to give being the party of fiscal responsibility a try, as the Republicans had surely left it up for grabs. (That being said, if you were dumb enough to cut taxes when times were good, there still is probably a point in deficit spending when the economy is this bad because cutting spending and pushing it back into recession is... well, to borrow a phrase, how you become Greece.)

    58. Re:Serves them right by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Well, I'm saying I disagree with you.

      How can the Republican party 'stand for' those things when they don't do it, at all, ever in the last 40 years?

      It's a sales point, not an actual platform. Hence, they don't actually stand for it.

      But yes, the Democrats are now becoming militarized too. I think they're getting addicted to the kickbacks, too.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    59. Re:Serves them right by couchslug · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bullshit. The Republican base are still as dedicated to vengeance and pursuit of theocracy as ever, and still control the House so they can and will still stonewall progress.

      The polarization of US is no accident. One cannot sit idly by waiting for ENEMIES to have a group hug. The US is too large to be one country, and as nature takes its course regionalism and the desire for self-determination rear their heads again. (The US has helped break up far smaller countries under UN auspices, but enforces Federal unity at gunpoint.)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    60. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's see gays - that's one I'll have to give you. The gay marriage thing is debatable, but too many Republicans would even outlaw gay relationships if it weren't for the recent, and baseless, supreme court decision.

      drugs - that's just like the Democrats. Both parties support laws against drug use and both parties have made it clear that when they're in charge of the national government they won't look the other way when states legalize drug use.

      abortion - right to life trumps other rights. You can't kill someone just because they're inconvenient.

      hiring - the Democrats tell you who you have to work with.

      hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.

      renting - the Democrats tell you what you can and can't do with your property, and what restrictions you can put on who enters your property

      running a restaurant - the Democrats tell you whether you can smoke and Bloomberg (Democrat who switched parties but not stripes so he could run) even wants to tell you how big your drinks can be.

      racism - the Democrats forbid people from rejecting racism. Either hire based on race (and do school admissions based on race) or face the wrath of Democrats

      heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for

      money - the Democrats take your money so they choose how it is spent

      money - the Democrats take your children's money (though Republicans at times have joined them in doing so) so they can decide how your children's future earnings will be spent today.



      The only freedom Democrats seem to respect is sexual freedom. To them all other freedom's are subject to government whim. And on sexual freedom they are so extreme that they work to remove the responsibility that should come with all freedoms and instead have everyone pay for it whether or not they participate, or even approve of it.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    61. Re:Serves them right by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Funny
      As someone said on twitter:

      "The Rape guy lost" "Which one?" Your party has serious issues if people have to ask "Which one?"

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    62. Re:Serves them right by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Obama is better than Bush was at respecting privacy, civil rights, and not murdering foreign citizens overseas?

      Hell, the guy can't even close gitmo.

      Face it, when it comes to the growing police state both Elephants and asses are wrong.

      My problem is I'm a fiscal conservative but social liberal. Up to now my preference for low taxes/small gov'ment and gun rights has overshadowed the Repub asshattery. But I can't overlook said asshattery anymore, not to mention the ass party grows the gov'ment as much if not more than the dems.

    63. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If the war had depended mostly on technology, Germany would have won. They pioneered coordinated troop/tank/air assaults, pioneered use of submarines, had by a vast margin the best aircraft and missile technology, and for large portions of the war had by far the best tanks, submarines, and guns (the 88). They also had radar and very capable radar-equipped night fighters.

      The allies did not have and did not win because of the best technology overall. They won because Germany made some strategic blunders in knocking out the Soviet Union and because the Soviet Union then was eventually able to overwhelm Germany with numbers of everything. Only about 20% of WWII in Europe involved the US and UK (as measured by number of combatants, number of casualties, number of tanks or guns, or amount of territory involved). Now, if the war had lasted long enough for the US to use atomic bombs against Germany, that technology advantage could have ended up being the determining factor.

    64. Re:Serves them right by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting.

      However, the NYTimes exit polling gives a more nuanced version of this. For those with college degrees, a majority voted for Romney. For those with Post Grad degrees, Obama was the overwhelming choice.

      Source (scroll down to "Education"

    65. Re:Serves them right by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Wow. I was expecting to find the "you guyz stupid" comment much further down. Congrats on the tolerant first post AC, BTW.

    66. Re:Serves them right by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Does the book also cover absolute numbers, and percentages of income and wealth?

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    67. Re:Serves them right by eqisow · · Score: 1

      It turns out governments are made up of people. Specifically, people you elect to represent you and do your will. For example, social program that help the poor.

    68. Re:Serves them right by glassware · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who do you think the Government is? A magical socialist fairy entity?

      The government is the people. The government is us. The government is the most effective way to help people that has ever existed.

      What you are saying is "We'll rely on the crumbs that fall from a wealthy person's plate to feed the poor."

      It doesn't work.

    69. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If God had wanted the Republicans to win this election, He would have provided them with an honest candidate.

      Not one who shakes his Etch-A-Sketch every time he addresses a different constituency.

    70. Re:Serves them right by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it kinda is. Check the recent survey. Democrats outweigh everyone, but the greens/libertarians represent more than the general population. Which is kinda what it felt like already.
      Seriously, I know it's fun to poke at the other "side" or make them out to be the Anti-Christ, but it really doesn't get anything accomplished.

    71. Re:Serves them right by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Germans had some really great technology and science, they were more advanced than the allies in many areas.

      Other factors come in to play though:
      - computing was very early stage of development and a few key individuals made some big leaps.
      - sabotage of Norwegian heavy water sources slowed Germany's nuclear projects
      - US was a strong ally with an intact domestice infrastructure far away from front lines and air raids

    72. Re:Serves them right by Medievalist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet the Democrats also keep on spewing the hate against anybody who dares to disagree with them or challenge their plans. Imagine that.

      When, exactly, did the self-proclaimed liberal Democrat gunman come into your church and try to murder your children? Because that's the bar for hate your team has set. Your people - particularly Ann Coulter - called for violence and hate and Jim David Adkisson answered that call.

      I have to say I'm in awe of the of the Knoxville Unitarian Universalists, though. If that had happened in my church I would not have let that man leave the building alive... maybe that's because I'm a registered Republican? The Knoxville UUs held the man for police, and although several of them sacrificed their lives to protect their fellow Americans, nobody there took revenge.

    73. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges. The NY Times data only shows swing states.

    74. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More bitching, moaning, and whining. Hop on that BMW and ride it out of town.

      The Republican Party has become the party of old, white, angry men. No young people: they went with Obama. No minorities. Not many women. And campaign money mostly spent on hate advertising. As a political party, it is a morally and ethically bankrupt institution, and completely out of touch with every significant constiuency in the USA.

    75. Re:Serves them right by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm sorry, but my parents had their bumper kicked in and shit poured all over their car for driving around with a Romney bumper sticker four weeks before the election. Two old 70 year old non "fundie" people with bad knees in a 2001 Honda accord. So should I assume that all Obama fans are just hateful violent dicks, or assume that they just happened upon the jerkiest of the group? Or how one of my staunch democratic friends said "well, maybe it was the bumper sticker, they shouldn't have had that", like it's acceptable?

    76. Re:Serves them right by Medievalist · · Score: 2

      Wait, you're still mad at Jimmy Carter?

      Get a slashdot ID, you're fun to have around. Seriously.

    77. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government isn't a magical socialist fairy. But it's not "the people" or "us" either. The government is a collection of individuals who have leveraged their connections, and often their pre-existing wealth to get into a position where they control all the lawyers, and all the guns.

      No, what I'm saying is stop perpetuating the poor as a class by latching them firmly onto the assistance teat, and work at integrating them into society as contributing members. What you're saying is we'll rob from the rich to feed the poor - where "rich" is anyone richer than me.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    78. Re:Serves them right by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't say he knew all the foreign policy answers, but even his ignorance is better than Obama apologizing for everything

      I liked when we apologized the living fuck out of Libya.

      Bin Laden didn't even acknowledge Obama's apology to him. What a dick.

      We're apologizing all over Iran's economy right now. Fun!

      I'd be shocked if we're not doing some serious apologizing to Syria via proxies. Gotta be careful on that one, or we might end up apologizing to the Russians.

      Of all the weird propaganda to come out of the last four years, the idea that this president has been insufficiently assertive on the international stage is easily among the strangest and most terrifying.

    79. Re:Serves them right by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      They lost me at republican and IT.

      What do truckers and housewives know about computers?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    80. Re:Serves them right by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I've been getting the very strong impression for about a year now that the "close race" has been mostly a fabrication of the media that wanted some sort of excitement attached to the election.
      When most of the criticism can be paraphrased as "he didn't fix all of Bush's mistakes in four years" they are not trying hard enough to present themselves as an alternative to the current Government and could do nothing other than fail.

    81. Re:Serves them right by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they believe that PEOPLE should help people in need, rather than rely on the government to take other people's money to do it for them?

      Governments are (made of) people, my friend.

    82. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Fine, people should help people in need with their own money, rather than using their government positions to take other people's money to do it for them.

      Is that better, mr. nitpicker?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    83. Re:Serves them right by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Because they believe that PEOPLE should help people in need, rather than rely on the government to take other people's money to do it for them?

      So why then vote for the bunch that would not let people help people in need and turned back all the volunteers going into New Orleans? You really are misrepresenting what the faction that took over the Republican party stand for. They are the merchants in the temple at best and the guys that drove the nails in at worst. How's that for putting it in "Christian" terms.

    84. Re:Serves them right by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that late development by the nazi rocket scientists in the V2 program, the Saturn V, got us to the moon

    85. Re:Serves them right by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      You have it right there in your post - tax cuts vs tax increases. Ideologically, Republicans are for lower taxes....

      No, the Republicans were in favor of "tax cuts" and spending more on the military, but not spending more because they would make that back through closing "loopholes" to make it up, so actually, they would end up raising taxes to certain people (but never said what loopholes) and overall to make up that other $200 million a year. Over all, the Economist had this to say about his whole economic plan: "For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says." and while they didn't like it, they had to back Obama.

    86. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is it wrong to hate someone who supports discrimination and racial/socioeconomic hate?

    87. Re:Serves them right by poity · · Score: 1

      Read your post and see all the "they" sentences. In your mind, every person connected with the GOP is the same. It is the same rationale that underlies all bigotry. It's obvious you are not a Democrat, as I don't believe any reasonable Democrat would want you as a fellow member.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    88. Re:Serves them right by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families.

      This is another one of those things I call a "true lie" - it is a shallow literal truth that is used to obscure a more meaningful truth.

      It is literally true that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But it is a lie to say that means conservatives are more charitable. That is because the entire difference in charitable giving is accounted for by religious donations. When you take those out of the equation, both groups give roughly the same amount of money.

      When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

      --The Chronical of Philanthropy

      The problem with religious charity, aka tithing, is that it is not truly charitable. It is about giving money to something that benefits the giver whereas true charity is altruistic with no expectation of benefit to the giver. Religious donations are charity as defined by the IRS but are not charity as defined by common usage of the term.

      In extreme cases the money can be "laundered" such that it counts as an IRS charitable deduction but then is used for something that is not deductible. One such example is the way the Knights of Columbus -- a religious charity affiliated with the catholic church -- spent $1.9M between 2008 and 2009 to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington State. If a secular person wanted to donate money to a group like the Human Rights Campaign who advocate for gay marraige, it would not be considered charity.

      Same thing with the way Mormons are expected to pay a 10% tithe to the Mormon Church. But the Church turned around and spent $22 million of that to defeat the pro-gay-marraige Prop 8 in california.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    89. Re:Serves them right by fm6 · · Score: 2

      Not fair that you called a troll, but surely being taxed for things you don't want isn't slavery. I don't feel enslaved by W just because he spent $4 trillion on the stupidest war in human history.

      And you're taking a simple-minded view of the whole help those in need thing. Poverty, hunger, disease are all bad things in themselves, but that's not the only reason to spend tax money on them. They happen to be things we can't ignore. They screw things up for all of us. The economy is less resilient, because there fewer consumers. Bad things like disease don't always confine themselves to the bad part of town.. And worst of all, people with sucky lives tend to become criminals. You can hire more cops, but really, the most cost-effective way to cut crime is to make people's lives suck less.

    90. Re:Serves them right by poity · · Score: 1

      So how do you want to proceed? Butt heads forever, or find avenues of progress with moderates in their camp? Look at how hardliners on the right want to deal with Iran. Now, look at how you want to deal with Republicans. If the Democratic administration can reach out to moderates in adversarial countries, then so too can they reach out to moderates in adversarial political parties.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    91. Re:Serves them right by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      So the take-away on this is that charities should be outlawed since they put a heavier burden on the conservatives who as a group have lower incomes, and taxes with government disbursements should be used instead, since this more fairly distributes the burden across the higher income liberals as well as the conservatives.

      Yeah, that makes sense. At least it makes sense in being a reasonable inference from the stipulated findings of Mr Brooks.

      But somehow I doubt that is the conclusion that the poster and Mr Brooks draw from those same findings.

      --
      Will
    92. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Republicans have also killed of the wing that governs.

    93. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      what? so you are now saying that all the chest thumping Republicans do is just for show?

    94. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Not really....and anyone who says that has never been a slave.

      If you think you are a slave, leave the country and see if anyone here tries to stop you.

      We have legal precedence since the 1790's and a constitutional amendment that says the congress can tax pretty much anything it wants...The constitution also allows that same congress to decide how it spends those taxes...in the case of modern era America, it spends in on military, and social programs (that includes corporate welfare). you must have been mistaken in your understanding of the government you and your ancestors were born under.

    95. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      and are reasons why the smart ones who know how to govern (Huntsman) are never selected to run.

    96. Re:Serves them right by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Their conjecture has been proven wrong, if history is anything to go by. A society made up of many non-uniform parts can prevail over a society that is made up of relatively uniform parts. It's fascinating, as it seems to undermine the earlier precedent set by the Spartans, who, with their relentless focus on a uniform society, managed to clobber Athens, a somewhat less uniform society.

       

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    97. Re:Serves them right by Onuma · · Score: 1

      We didn't apologize for inciting violence in Benghazi, but we did apologize for one person exercising his first amendment rights to make a [horribly produced] video which supposedly caused such attacks -- then we backpedaled and said it was a terrorist attack. Don't forget that we allowed an American Ambassador and 3 others to be killed without taking any action, because when 2 military General Officers tried to act in the defense of our people they were relieved of command. How's that for "strong foreign policy"?

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    98. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      they are not legally "someone" until they are viable outside the mother.

      want to outlaw Abortion? based on current SCOTUS rulings, just find a way to create an artificial womb and you have outlawed abortion.

    99. Re:Serves them right by emaname · · Score: 1

      They get caught up in the Pro-Life stance. I have friends and family members who focus ONLY on that. They can't (or won't) accept that the Right Wing extremists are not actually Pro Life. They have NO problem sending our youth to war to die for a lie. Nor do they have a problem contributing to and maintaining economic conditions that condemn so many people to live and ultimately die in poverty. Nor do they care if some greedy corporatists gamble with the money of others and lose causing those folks to lose their retirement funds and consequently being unable to afford their homes or healthcare.

      Anyhow being Pro Choice doesn't mean you agree with abortion. It means you want to allow people to have the freedom to choose even though you personally might not approve of abortion.

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    100. Re:Serves them right by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the Nazis did, for a time, enjoy technological superiority. However, they had two things working against them.

      1.) Hubris -> from what I understand, their scientists made mistakes, and possibly due to political infiltration, this made it impossible to back-track and fix certain things. If you are a society where some mistakes cannot be repaired because being seen to have made a mistake may impact your lifespan....you're ultimately screwed. Even the best of scientists will make mistakes, and frequently a lot of them. Having to worry about them, or dedicate time to hiding them / playing damage control takes time away from other things.
      2.) Stupidity -> their little fear campaign worked wonders for solidifying their power-base across Germany, but it also scared some of the top scientific talent right into the Allies hands. Scaring Einstein into the US's hands was, without a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest things the Nazis could have done. It gets better: supposedly there was an effort to cleanse the sciences of all influences from lesser races. So, German scientists had to spend time, if this bit of history is correct, re-deriving various common parts because the language or ideas surrounding them were dreamt up by 'lesser beings.' Apparently, the political leadership did not like some of the symbols used in common descriptions of things in the sciences; in essence, it would be the equivalent of asking mathematicians to re-derive the concepts behind algebra because the word behind the practices themselves come from the Middle East. That level of stupidity, once it achieves critical mass, acts as a poison.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    101. Re:Serves them right by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Moderates in the Republican camp became Democrats a long time ago. What we need to do, and what I think is likely is that the Democratic party will split into two groups: one liberal, and one moderate conservative (the latter dominates the party right now â" Obama is very conservative). Meanwhile, unless our systems of elections are radically changed nationwide, there will be no room for a third party, and the hardcore conservatives who currently dominate the Republican party â" the theocrats, the bigots, the plutocrats, etc. â" will get totally marginalized and have no effective voice in politics. Eventually, sadly, someone in the conservative camp will eventually try to enlist some of them to help win an election, ignoring the lesson that the Republicans have taught us between 1964 and today: that they're basically cancerous and will destroy from the inside anyone who allows them in.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    102. Re:Serves them right by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Stay the course until demographics and public demand further weaken the GOP, whose style can only get more adversarial.

      The Dems DO NOT "butt heads" which is why the GOP blocking strategy has succeeded in pushing them so far to the right.

      The GOP/Christian Taliban are locked hopelessly into their current state, and that's actually an advantage because they have NOWHERE to go but further Right. Good. The GOP is now an evil Superstitionist party and should be encouraged to damage itself in these ways which it is institutionally unable to consider as damage!

      Let the GOP wallow in their bigoted mindset until they choke on the blowback they so relentlessly provoke.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    103. Re:Serves them right by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Eventually, sadly, someone in the conservative camp will eventually try to enlist some of them to help win an election, ignoring the lesson that the Republicans have taught us between 1964 and today: that they're basically cancerous and will destroy from the inside anyone who allows them in."

      That's hardly "sad". US conservatives sold their souls to the Santorums of the Christian Taliban base long ago in exchange for being used as window dressing now and then. Any who didn't jump ship deserve what they get.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    104. Re:Serves them right by blade8086 · · Score: 1

      Here's my pro sex policy:

      Go !@#$ yourself.

      wocka

    105. Re:Serves them right by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1

      Yes! God help anyone who doesn't bow at the alter of hipster political correctness. All the great things worth having are the result of capitalism and greed. Taking shit from people and giving it to others in the name of fairness can only end in the collapse of this civilization, but how hip is it to admit that?

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    106. Re:Serves them right by blade8086 · · Score: 2

      The majority of christians dont - there are christians all over the board.

      Many Catholics (one of the largest voting blocks in the country) for example tend to vote democrat (see also Kennedys, Hispanic Americans, etc)

      As for the so-called 'religious right' - aka 'moral conservitives' - they vote for this because:

      a) They are mostly protestants that theologically descend from John Calvin and other various 'predestinationist' nonsense -
                roughly (in a non nuanced way that many voting in this way are likely to understand it): if you are poor, god is
                punishing you for your own sins, therefore, to get out of poverty, stop sinning. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
                This is also a convenient way of dismissing the guilt from the legacy of poverty wrought by the slave system
                which many of them are descendants of, as well as immigration and us imperialism.

      b) They also believe that the *state* should not have any say in helping those in need, but it should be up to communities,
                some going further and taking the line that state assistance, being inherently secular in this country, actively destroys
                one of the major attractors to the church, further leading to 'moral decline' etc.

      Much as democrats are often influenced by socialist ideas (omg cant say socialist in the US) and 'futureism'. Which, come to think of it, many anglican / episcopalian , methodists, etc. tend to vote democrat or are much more even (but are much less vocal about their belifs impact on their voting)

      You can't really understand current US politics without understanding:

      a) the protestant reformation viz. colonization of america and english politics
      b) the english civil war
      c) the US civil war.
      d) moderate socialism (e.g. 'new deal' / social democrat stuff) and progressivism / trade unions / etc.

      and these things are not really discussed sociologically in the mainstream press because they challenge peoples identities and are not easily reproducible to polarizing, adrenalin fueling, dopamine releasing soundbites. and socialism / unions / etc is just taboo essentially.

    107. Re:Serves them right by Burning1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      drugs - that's just like the Democrats. Both parties support laws against drug use and both parties have made it clear that when they're in charge of the national government they won't look the other way when states legalize drug use.

      Democrats aren't really united on this one. Libritarians are united in favor, conservatives tend to be united in opposition. Still, it tends to be the democratic states that legalize drugs, and push for reduced sentencing. Trend seems to be towards legalization, and much like gay marrage, I suspect it's the liberals that will make it legal, when it happens.

      abortion - right to life trumps other rights. You can't kill someone just because they're inconvenient.

      A person has a right to life (unless they are a criminal, appearently.)

      A fetus is not a person. The rights of the fetus are trumped by the rights of the mother during the First Trimester. The SCOTUS established that in Roe vs. Wade. It's a good read.

      hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.

      You're in favor of indentured servitude? How about human slavery and the sex trade? Both are situations a person may find themselves voluntarily, either due to misinformation or via social or economic pressure. Let me guess, if they make that decision, it's their own fault?

      renting - the Democrats tell you what you can and can't do with your property, and what restrictions you can put on who enters your property

      Your in favor of the landlord being able to enter a unit you are renting at any time, for any reason?

      running a restaurant - the Democrats tell you whether you can smoke and Bloomberg (Democrat who switched parties but not stripes so he could run) even wants to tell you how big your drinks can be.

      Your freedom to smoke vs. my freedom to be smoke free. You're still welcome to smoke on your own property. You're still welcome to make your kids breath your smoke during the most critical time of their development.

      It's also illegal for me to enter an establishment naked, or with a huge boom box.

      racism - the Democrats forbid people from rejecting racism. Either hire based on race (and do school admissions based on race) or face the wrath of Democrats

      Such laws will go away when racism goes away.

      heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for

      Nope. They simply require that you have health care, which prevents you from placing a drain on the rest of society by abusing the hospital system.

      money - the Democrats take your money so they choose how it is spent

      You assume that democrats do not themselves pay taxes. BTW, you'll find that blue states tend to send more money to washington than they take in. Red states tend to recieve more federal money than they pay in taxes.

      money - the Democrats take your children's money (though Republicans at times have joined them in doing so) so they can decide how your children's future earnings will be spent today.

      President with the best debt record in the past 40 years: Clinton.
      President with the worst debt record in the past 40 years: Regan.

      Bush Sr. was the last conservative president who really addressed spending.
      Spending under Obama has been trending downward over the past 4 years. It remains to be seen whether or not he spends more than Bush Jr. He does recieve props for taking responsibility for Afghanastan and Iraq war spending rather than hiding the debt for someone else to deal with.

      Seriously, how is it that conservatives still believe this shit about their parties fiscal responsibility?

    108. Re:Serves them right by Burning1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe Romney had the economic know-how to help get the economy back on track

      First of all, I'm not actually convinced that the economy is in trouble, based on the gross numbers. GDP is back to it's steady climb after the hit it took in 08. What we're actually looking at here isn't a poor economy, but instead general issues with the cost of living for poor and middle class families, dwindling employment, and low upward mobility*.

      Those trends started in the 80s. This was also the decade that we made a move away from Keynesian economics, back towards classical economics and the idea of trickle-down economics. Ever since then, the lower and middle class have seen their real income fall, asset ownership decline, and the cost of living increase.

      I'm not convinced that the guy saying "More of the same!" actually has the ability to fix those issues.

      * AKA the American dream. For many, that dream is dead.

    109. Re:Serves them right by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      No, I mean it's sad for everyone else that someone will eventually let them back in. Then we'll have to go through all the work of smashing them and containing them again, and they'll cause damage in the meantime.

      It's like Aliens: Paul Reiser deserved what he got, but everyone else suffered for it.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    110. Re:Serves them right by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The problem with religious charity, aka tithing, is that it is not truly charitable. It is about giving money to something that benefits the giver whereas true charity is altruistic with no expectation of benefit to the giver.

      That may be true of religions that demand tithes, such as Mormonism, but is not true of most Christian religions. Most pastors encourage tithing but don't require it. And at least at my church, most of what is tithed goes to the poor. And a Christian is not only encouraged to tithe, but to "give alms"; that is, drop a few bucks in the homeless guy's jar and not let anyone know you did so. From your link:

      1
      : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
      2
      a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
      b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
      c : public provision for the relief of the needy
      3
      a : a gift for public benevolent purposes
      b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
      4
      : lenient judgment of others

      Religious giving covers all four definitions except #3.

      One such example is the way the Knights of Columbus -- a religious charity affiliated with the catholic church -- spent $1.9M between 2008 and 2009 to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington State.

      Agreed, that's not charity. But how much of what is given to the Catholic church (one of my least favorite churches) goes to stuff like this compared to feeding Kenyans?

      Same thing with the way Mormons are expected to pay a 10% tithe to the Mormon Church.

      Not expected; Mormons are required, unlike most Christian faiths. Calling that "charity"s like calling income taxes "charity." BTW, I like that church even less than the Catholic church.

      IMO, there should be no deductions for charity; a tax dodge isn't charity.

      But back to the conservative vs liberal, don't paint conservatives as Christians and liberals as Godless heathens. The fact is, Christ wasn't only a liberal but a radical liberal. Caiaphas and the other pharisees were conservatives, who executed him for his radical talk of feeding the poor, housing the homeless, giving free medical treatment to the sick, paying your taxes without bitching about them, speaking out against the rich and powerful.

      Anyone who considers himself a conservative Christian has some serious mental wars with himself, if he's ever actually read his bible.

      To anyone calling himself a Christian who says "God hates fags", you're wrong. God loves gays, but he hates gays' sins as much as he hates yours or mine, and the gay-basing Christian's sins may be worse; homosexual acts weren't on Moses' tablets, but adultery and covetness are. Oh yeah, Christ's main message was forgiveness and tolerance and nonjudgementalism.

      People should read more.

    111. Re:Serves them right by jbeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lolwut???
      The Democrats as the party of hate and racism. Ok....
      Yeah, the Democrats sure showed their true colors when they demanded cops have the right to inspect the papers of anyone who looks Spanish. Oh, and let's not forget how they kept saying Romney must have been born in another country against all evidence to the contrary. And their hate sure was in fine form when several of their candidates stated rape babies come from God so women just have to live with it, and the Democratic Party candidate refused to even retract their endorsements.
      What's that, that was all the GOP and Romney? Why, that's crazy talk.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    112. Re:Serves them right by nuonguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How the fuck did this get modded insightful?

      Let's see gays - that's one I'll have to give you. The gay marriage thing is debatable, but too many Republicans would even outlaw gay relationships if it weren't for the recent, and baseless, supreme court decision.

      And this makes them far more dangerous than you're willing to acknowledge. What do you think the Santorum/Robertsen types would do if they managed to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal? They would ban the music you listen to, the video games you play, and then they would go after the way you dress, which church you go to, the group you congregate with etc. Once thugs have gained power, they seek more power. Doesn't this totally remind you of the taliban? ...

      abortion - right to life trumps other rights. You can't kill someone just because they're inconvenient.

      Wrong. Nice right-wing inflammatory rhetoric. This is about the right to make your own medical choices without government interference.

      hiring - the Democrats tell you who you have to work with.

      Wrong. Prohibiting hiring discrimination is not the same thing as discrimination.

      hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.

      Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

      running a restaurant - the Democrats tell you whether you can smoke and Bloomberg (Democrat who switched parties but not stripes so he could run) even wants to tell you how big your drinks can be.

      Bloomberg can't do that thankfully, but no one should have the right to force me to inhale their smoke. Plus, there ought to be enforcement for kitchen sanitation practices. Nice try though.

      racism - the Democrats forbid people from rejecting racism. Either hire based on race (and do school admissions based on race) or face the wrath of Democrats

      Yeah, this is the same thing as yelling the N-word to a staffer on his way to work. (that's sarcasm, btw)

      heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for

      Wrong. This about making health care companies provide you what you paid for. This is about prohibiting local monopolies.

      money - the Democrats take your money so they choose how it is spent

      You mean like how I'm paying for wars that I didn't support? Oh, you mean paying for Haliburton for services they didn't deliver? You mean giving money to oil companies?

      money - the Democrats take your children's money (though Republicans at times have joined them in doing so) so they can decide how your children's future earnings will be spent today.

      The only freedom Democrats seem to respect is sexual freedom. To them all other freedom's are subject to government whim. And on sexual freedom they are so extreme that they work to remove the responsibility that should come with all freedoms and instead have everyone pay for it whether or not they participate, or even approve of it.

      What about warrant-less wire-tapping? Indefinite detention? You cannot support either party if you care at all about personal liberties.

      If you think you're informed or balanced, you're not. You're just wrong. Lay off that fox news crack pipe.

      I don't know a lot of people who are happy with the Democrats but you made me think about how they're different than this group of Republicans and that makes me support the Democrats more than I did before. Thanks, I guess?

    113. Re:Serves them right by davester666 · · Score: 1

      One of the chief 'R's got on the air after the election saying he was OK with raising tax revenue, but not by raising the tax rate for anybody [he wants to lower them for rich people], but by eliminating the tax deduction for charitable giving.

      So it's like kicking the poor in the nuts from the front AND from behind, by reducing donations to third parties that help them as well as by reducing direct gov't help to them through social programs [via negotiating these reductions in exchange for this so-called tax increase].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    114. Re:Serves them right by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      IMO, there should be no deductions for charity; a tax dodge isn't charity.

      Maybe there should and maybe there shouldn't, but no matter how you slice it, calling giving to charity a "tax dodge" is inaccurate, to say the least. That's typically a line from people that have never done their own taxes, and so don't understand how those deductions work.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    115. Re:Serves them right by lennier · · Score: 1

      Scaring Einstein into the US's hands was, without a doubt, one of the absolute dumbest things the Nazis could have done.

      In terms of politics, sure. Einstein was a celebrity and his presence in the USA lent moral support to them. As would having the support of, say, a high-level opera singer or chess player.

      In terms of actual science? I can't really see it. Since 1915 he'd been on one dead-end track after another with his Unified Field theories, none of which in the end bore any fruit. He'd been at odds with the subatomic physics community since Solvay in 1927, his theories were bogged down in calculation difficulties and predicted the wrong results, and his post-1905 theoretical contribution to the Manhattan Project was zero. He wasn't on the team that built the bomb, and General Relativity wasn't used in its theory. Quantum theory was, but that wasn't based on GR at all, and remains incompatible with it.

      From what I understand, if Einstein had stayed in Nazi Germany and been a full sympathiser of the regime, his preoccupation with relativity wouldn't have helped them get a bomb any sooner, and might even have slowed them down.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    116. Re:Serves them right by lennier · · Score: 1

      Post-election is a time for healing and a time to work towards unity.

      .. until the next election cycle starts in a year, then it's time for hatred and savage mauling! Then healing and unity! Then some viscious partisan rancor again! Then peace love and mung beans! Every eighteen months like clockwork!

      Or, we could act like civilised grownups all the time, even while we're politely but firmly disagreeing with people who, when it comes down to it, are actually and in reality just plain factually wrong.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    117. Re:Serves them right by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Liberal "charitable" giving to things like nature funds and PBS is charitable in the tax-code way... but it is not feeding a hungry child, or caring for an elderly person and is not therefore, strictly speaking "charity" at all.

      I agree somewhat. First the disagreement - "nature funds" generally do qualify as charitable in the lay sense of the term because the donors do not expect to receive anything in turn. Now the somewhat agreement -- things like PBS are not completely sefless because while PBS does educate everybody who wants to take advantage of it, the donor is almost certainly taking advantage of it themselves too. However, it is only the extremists who categorize PBS as a liberal cause, for example even the Koch brothers donate millions to PBS programming. So far I have not seen any evidence to suggest that conservatives care less about cultural and educational donations than liberals and so I feel confident in believing that those sorts of charitable donations are fairly evenly distributed across the spectrum.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    118. Re:Serves them right by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Religious giving covers all four definitions except #3.

      I'm going to disagree that #4 is even relevant to the discussion. As for the others - the money spent on the poor and needy typically comes with some level of proselytization. I recognize that there are religious charities who do not overtly proselytize, but even when they aren't forcing people to convert in order to receive the "charity" simply being there and identifying as a religious organization is a form of proselytization and would not be occuring if it were not for the charitable donations in the first place. You touched on this a little bit with the idea of alms, but none of these studies have measured the rates of unclaimed charitable deducations so nobody can draw conclusions either way.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    119. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Where've you been the last 60 years?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    120. Re:Serves them right by KagakuNinja · · Score: 1

      Your lengthy screed fails to recognize the facts that 1) alcohol is a dangerous drug which is already legal, and 2) alcohol is as bad, or worse on the "developing brains of minors" and "negatively affecting others" scale. Legalizing pot is a no-brainer, because it is safer than alcohol and tobacco in every way, and less addictive too.

    121. Re:Serves them right by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      There is a much more succinct way to make parent post's point: There are currently way too many college graduates who have been educated beyond the level of their intelligence.

      I am unsure whether parent post is itself an example of this. It does seem to be using a lot of verbiage in a pattern that is associated with undergraduates who are more interested in passing the course than in learning the subject. That's the "baffle 'em with bullsh*t" pattern.

      --
      Will
    122. Re:Serves them right by swillden · · Score: 1

      Same thing with the way Mormons are expected to pay a 10% tithe to the Mormon Church. But the Church turned around and spent $22 million of that to defeat the pro-gay-marraige Prop 8 in california.

      That wasn't done with tithing money. It was money raised from the members of the church specifically for that purpose. In fact, I don't think it would even be legal for tithing (tax-deductible charitable donations) to be used to fight a political battle. In any case, I know that requests for donations were made, to support that battle, and that it was made clear to the members that such donations would not be tax deductible.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    123. Re:Serves them right by MyHair · · Score: 1

      It's like the argument put forward by Neal Stephenson in Cryptonomicon - the Allies won WWII because they had the best technology,

      Really? It's been a while since my history classes, but I thought it was the U.S. ability to manufacture more tanks and ships and trucks and things. The Sherman was outclassed but was sent in much larger numbers. And their bomber's couldn't reach the U.S. factories whereas the German factories were having to move into hollowed-out mountains and such. The Germans had ballistic missles, cruise missles, superior tanks and were on the verge of intercontinental flying-wing bombers.

      They also were fighting a two-front war.

      Japan put a prototype jet fighter in the air during WWII.

      I don't think the Allied Forces had superior tech in WWII.

    124. Re:Serves them right by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      bullshit, most Nazi technology e.g. aircraft was superior.

      now that subset known as "information technology" might be another matter....

      Beg to differ on that front. Nazi aircraft engines were superior for a time, but the P-51 Mustang pretty much wiped out Nazi air superiority in early 1944. Once the problem was defined the Allied solution was more than effective. Same with tanks: hello bazooka! U-boats were probably the Nazi's best technology, but that was more due to the experience level and tactics of their commanders being superior than the tech itself. Germany had an early lead in tech because of complacency by other nations. It was Allied know-how (i.e., tech; a lot developed by German defectors) and perseverance that ultimately won that war.

    125. Re:Serves them right by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      I'm going to avoid your other points. Most of them are matters of opinion, yelling at a cloud is unproductive, but how could you possibly consider Michale Bloomberg a Democrat? The guy ran as a Republican and is now independent! And yet that somehow doesn't count, because his "beliefs" are Democratic?

      Sure, the Republican party endorsed him and he ran as a Republican, but we all really know he's a Democrat! Look, he restricts freedom, and hating freedom is a Democratic value!

      And banning smoking indoors was a pretty unanimous bi-partisan effort. But in your equation, Democrats are the only ones in government who impose their beliefs on the public, so s be damned! It has to be attributed to them.

      Please.

    126. Re:Serves them right by westlake · · Score: 1

      I guess this is what happens when your backward, anti-freedom police state party systematically alienates all the programmers and sysadmins and hackers, all the good techs and IT personnel who otherwise might have wanted to help you.

      Bull.

      The geek is for hire like anyone else.

      Fox News, for example, is a division of News Corporation one of the largest, most diverse, and technologically sophisticated media enterprises on the planet.

    127. Re:Serves them right by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      I don't know why people would be offended by CS Lewis. I don't think anyone here dislikes rational religious folks, just the crazy kind. I'm a fervent atheist and Screwtape Letters is one of my favorite books.

    128. Re:Serves them right by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      I think one of the great ironies of Romney's campaign is that if he stuck to his true beliefs, which are quite obviously (IMHO of course), much more moderate and pragmatic than what he showed in the campaign, he probably would've beat Obama. But he swung hard to the right in order to win the primary (both now and in 2008), while Obama had the freedom to campaign more to the center.

      I think Mitt by himself would have made a great president. Mitt + the national Republican party was an abomination waiting to happen.

    129. Re:Serves them right by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Basically every post so far in this thread and most of the posts to come will be wild speculation and name calling anyways, I dont even know why youre bothering with facts.

    130. Re:Serves them right by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      That wasn't done with tithing money. It was money raised from the members of the church specifically for that purpose. In fact, I don't think it would even be legal for tithing (tax-deductible charitable donations) to be used to fight a political battle. In any case, I know that requests for donations were made, to support that battle, and that it was made clear to the members that such donations would not be tax deductible.

      It does seem that there is more to the story. Apparently the $20 million was raised, as you said, via a specificly created non-charitable organization. However, it seems that the current tax code permits up to 20% of a religious organization's spending to be used on non-candidate politicing such as citizen initiatives regarding "moral questsions." So, given the vast amounts of money they do collect, they probably could have laundered $20M just fine.

      Citation for both points: SFGate - Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    131. Re:Serves them right by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      They hate us, they curse us to their imagined hell and pray that their gods strike us down.

      Excuse me, during the GOP convention several slashdotters repeatedly stated what a good thing it would be if the tropical storm drowned the lot of them, and this to rousing support from most.

      What, exactly, do you call that?

      Im sure its always been this way-- but my increasing awareness of how polarized politics is makes me absolutely sick. Why cant people accept that others differ in how they view governance without thinking we hate you? Im a republican, and simply dont think the government should be involved in much more than very rudimentary safety nets; can everyone accept that this isnt because I eat babies or hate poor people?

    132. Re:Serves them right by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      We happily apologize-by-hellfire-missile to people in a dozen countries we're not at war with if someone there looks at us funny. The notion that the events in Libya went down as they did because Obama or some significant part of his command structure is unwilling to use force doesn't seem plausible.

      It's likely that it was a fuck-up of some sort (not yet clear what sort), but it's not part of a pattern of squeamishness over *ahem* apologizing big-ass holes in people until they're dead.

      Military officers catch massive amounts of shit if they disobey orders, even if the orders were dumb. I can't say that strikes me as unusual; more like standard procedure.

    133. Re:Serves them right by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Religious charity is not tithing. Tithing is an old name for tax, specifically church tax. Unless it is a tax it is not tithing (tithing btw means 10%).

    134. Re:Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's obvious why your Kama is only 1. You must post inane shit all the time.

      1 seems enough to do some serious damage

    135. Re:Serves them right by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Because hate also does damage to the person doing the hating.
      In other words : because it's not good for you to hate anything : your time is better spend loving those you care about.
      Just ignore the haters, they are not worth your energy.

    136. Re:Serves them right by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      In terms of politics, sure. Einstein was a celebrity and his presence in the USA lent moral support to them. As would having the support of, say, a high-level opera singer or chess player.

      Replace Einstein with Niels Bohr then. He left much later living in Denmark which despite being occupied by Nazies refused to discriminate against Jews or people of partial Jewish descent like Bohr, but he did travel to the US to join the Manhattan project after his friend and prodigy Heisenberg came up to Copenhagen and asked weird questions about the physics behind how to build a nuclear bomb.

      Antagonizing Bohr was definitely not their best moment, and on the way to the Manhattan project Bohr also helped convince the otherwise Nazi-sympathizing Swedes to accept the Danish Jews in case they needed to be evacuated (which they did a few months later).

    137. Re:Serves them right by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      you are using the word "dangerous" in an odd context. Even the most rabid Democrat on Slashdot lacks the ability to reach through the screen and strangle you. You may have meant "disapproved of", or "likely to be condemned." Possibly even "harshly moderated".

      I would have agreed with you many years ago, until I made the unfortunate mistake of clicking a goatse link.
      It may not be physical strangulation, but as far as psychological damage goes, it's not far off.

    138. Re:Serves them right by router · · Score: 1

      Music? You do know that Tipper Gore (Mrs. Al Gore) was cofounder of the PMRC, who absolutely tried to control the music we listen to. They all the same man, two sides of the same coin.

      This music witchhunt, that was during the time when climate change was the most important thing in the world, to Al, that he never did a damn thing about, in all his years of public service.

      Or something.

      andy

    139. Re:Serves them right by TheLink · · Score: 1

      the Republicans are cutting taxes to please one group, while spending more to please others.

      If the US Government keeps spending more money than it doesn't have, you end up with inflation.

      So your US dollar becomes worth less. This in effect taxes everyone in the world with net positive amounts of US dollars (which includes Japan, China etc).

      But it also taxes the US citizens. Now if the US Gov was spending that money on US citizens then it makes them rich at the expense of the rest of the world, which is good for the USA. However they are spending the money on wars that don't appear to be making the average or median US citizen better off. Just makes a rich minority richer.

      --
    140. Re:Serves them right by gtall · · Score: 1

      Also, Germany had Hitler, let's just say the gene for military genius was suppressed in him. The mistakes he made in Russia, even after Napoleon showed how not to do it, were epic. And he managed to create a two front war with Germany in the middle. What did he think the Russians and the Americans were going to when they got pissed?

    141. Re:Serves them right by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the christian right wing of the Republican party, it tends to be mostly evangelical/baptist (just look at where the red states are on the map - you'll find a baptist church on practically every street corner).

      These churches tend to strongly encourage tithing. Sure, theologically they wouldn't consider it required to be considered a christian, but they also wouldn't consider not beating your wife required to be a christian. In practice, anybody who doesn't tithe is viewed in these churches almost the same as somebody who beats his wife.

      What those tithes get used for varies greatly by church. However, a huge percentage of that goes to the operational expenses of the church - many christian leaders teach that this is where it actually ought to go, with more charitable uses being funded by offerings beyond the tithe. Much of this is spent on manpower. If every small congregation of 40 people wants a pastor who works full time at that church, well, guess where all the tithes are going to go. When you get to megachurches you end up with a lot of infrastructure (huge buildings, AV, theatrical effects, etc), and then a lot of staff to maintain all of it plus the requisite 12 pastors with two secretaries each. When you get to denominations there is even more overhead for all the administrative levels, though denominations are more likely to have less staff per congregant at the individual church level.

      Sure, churches do give a lot to the poor, but compared to the kinds of expenses involved in just running the church it isn't much.

      In contrast, if I were to go to the local astronomy club and toss $10 in the dues jar to pay for the upkeep of the club equipment and rent, that wouldn't be considered a charitable contribution.

    142. Re:Serves them right by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, they're definitely for tax cuts. Well, for everybody but the unborn kids they like to campaign on. They'll be the ones who get to pay for the huge spending spree.

    143. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No I am just referring to their base.
      They seemed to only court those voters and all their media seems geared for it.

    144. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yes, several slashdotters did. Who are normal folks, compare to the repubicans that have had both their politicians and media personalities make those sort of claims.

      Do you see the enourmous difference?
      Republicans want to limit the rights of homosexuals, how is that just a different view of government? Was apartheid just a different view of government?

      You were a republican, that party does not want you or barry goldwater or the sane version of McCain anymore. You need a new party.

    145. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The racial biases of the parties flopped 50 years ago. Read about the southern strategy.

      Republicans who oppose gay marriage are depriving people of a civil right. Nothing makes that right.

      Republicans who oppose abortion also want to limit womens rights. Nothing makes that right.

      Republicans claim to be about freedom, then focus on limiting it.

    146. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You can say the same thing about McCain. Had he run in 2008 as the McCain of years past he would have easily won. The republican primiaries and the GOP itself prevent that. The primaries demand fringe rightwing talk and the GOP will saddle any moderate with a fringe right wing VP.

      I wonder if they will continue giving away elections like this.

    147. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Only if define "great things worth having" as wealth and a good deal of that coming from destruction. Like Bain capital did when it destroyed healthy companies, or turned smaller ventures into walking corpses of debt and sold them on the stock market.

      Greed is killing our healthcare industry. Capitalism was unchained and nearly killed our banking system.

    148. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Libertarianism in the US is based on a very liberal school of though that of the Anarchist Libertarians| left anarchism. The idea that capitalists have taken this mantle is unfair to real anarchists, but also fitting in that they have taken some of the tenants.

    149. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So your solution is to deprive them of due process and their lives.

      The constitution will thankfully not allow that.

      Can we kill you the next time you drive slightly tired? Or answer your cell phone while driving?

      Your solution would cause more harm than the issue it claims to solve. It is also immoral to such an extreme I cannot express it.

    150. Re:Serves them right by jtseng · · Score: 2

      From Wikipedia:

      Adkisson's manifesto also cited the inability to find a job, and that his food stamps were being cut.

      And he blames his problems on Democrats and liberals?! WTF?!?!

      --

      Sanity.html - Error 404 not found

    151. Re:Serves them right by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      so....the haters should criticize people for hating them? Sorry they have No standing to do so....If the Dali Lama criticized "liberals haters" for hate speech against racists that would be a different story. Rush Limbaugh criticizing "liberal haters"....sorry..no.

    152. Re:Serves them right by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      That's only because game designers think it's cool because it's from Asia and boost it's attributes. Actual state-of-the-art melee, before guns, longbows, and crossbows ruined it, was armor and a polearm or 2-hander.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    153. Re:Serves them right by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      That is the goal -- argument from moral intimidation until people flee.

      Don't deny it. Also, religion has been using it for thousands of years. QED Politics is religion.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    154. Re:Serves them right by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The correct solution would be to make it tax-free for other groups to donate, too, not to use the power of government to tax the people to discourage speech in election persuasion.

      Search the butthurt of your feelings -- are you truly opposed because of "too much money" corrupting politicians, or "too much money" maybe persuading people to vote against what you want?

      Given the polarized nature of politics, it should hardly come as a surprise the money follows the position rather than the other way around.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    155. Re:Serves them right by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      All I'm saying is : Don't spend energy on all those people hating ( you can't change them anyway ), spend it on loving the people you care about.
      Haters don't deserve your energy.

      This explain it better than I possibly can .

    156. Re:Serves them right by ais523 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm British, and was watching the debates in 2008 (I didn't in 2012, too busy at work). McCain seemed entirely reasonable before and after the election, but during it, he was insane, presumably in an attempt to win the Republican vote. At the moment, I'm not convinced it's possible to win the Republican primary and also win the election. Perhaps that will change over the next few years.

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    157. Re:Serves them right by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

      and who is the government for, anyway. "Of the people,for the people" and by the people rings a bell? The government serves the people and serves to create, coordinate and direct efforts and money to improve the lives of it s citizens. All you are doing is ignoring what Jesus tell you to do, and using GOP rhetoric to provide an excuse.

      --
      Republican leadership = Idiocracy
    158. Re:Serves them right by swillden · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the LDS church has never availed itself of that 20% option. In general, the church scrupulously avoids politics, limiting itself to periodically reminding the members to actively participate in the political process. Granted, in areas where Mormons are numerous merely reminding them to vote will have an impact on outcomes of votes around moral questions.

      The decision to semi-officially endorse that members should participate in the Prop 8 campaign was an unusual and large change from normal practice, and even then the church was careful to maintain its official/legal distance.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    159. Re:Serves them right by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I agree that a reasonably intelligent and honest conservative could have beaten Obama. But with the right-wing crazies determining who wins the primaries, there was no way such a person could be nominated.

      And I have to question whether Romney qualifies as such a candidate. You talk about his true beliefs. WTF are they? When he was Governor, he was pro-Choice (there's a video somewhere where he's getting very emotional about how banning abortions just causes dangerous back-alley procedures), pro-gun control, pro health care reform. Then when he was trying to persuade the crazies to support him in the primaries, he was against all those things,. Then when he was debating Obama he tried to paint himself as a centrist, as if he'd never said any of the crazy stuff. Either the guy totally lacks any core beliefs or he's willing to lie about them; either attitude is beneath contempt.

      And intelligent? Look at the all the mistakes he made as a candidate. You can blame his campaign team, but he chose them.

      The man would have been a disaster as President.

    160. Re:Serves them right by swalve · · Score: 1

      And yet the Democrats also keep on spewing the hate against anybody who dares to disagree with them or challenge their plans. Imagine that.

      Guess it only counts as hate when you're disagreeing with a liberal, not when you're bashing rural, religious, old, or uneducated people, huh?

      Got a cite for this hate-spewing you talk about?

    161. Re:Serves them right by swalve · · Score: 1

      The government is simply one way PEOPLE organize to help one another.

    162. Re:Serves them right by swalve · · Score: 1

      But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

      "No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

      These examples are all still giving to charity where the giver gets to decide the worth of the recipient. It's easy to give blood when they know it will go to someone somewhat like them. They get to choose which homeless guys to give to. They get to choose to give money to non-religious charities that are aligned politically with themselves. Sure, they might give more. But that giving doesn't help people who they don't like, and that's the problem.

    163. Re:Serves them right by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I think it's possitively halarious that 6 Billion dollars were spent on campaign advertising, and nothing happened for it.

      Another good laugh is to view the groups of people at each of the presidential parties on the election night. One party was represented by all walks of life, the other was the largest collection of angry people recorded, ever. I think someone should submit this fact to the Ginnuess staff.

      The One-Liners that the Tea Party generated have not grown old either; for example, "How many of you need to hide your money in the Grand Caymons?" It just doesn't get old!

    164. Re:Serves them right by fm6 · · Score: 1

      McCain drives me crazy. For a long time he was the arch-conservative liberals could admire, because he tried to deal with liberals honestly and fairly, because he refuses to take himself too seriously, and because he's been through a lot of nasty shit and faced up to it with courage and dignity.

      Then in 2008 he seemed to decide that he wanted the Presidency bad enough to abandon his own core values. I see to recall a lot of his long-time aides left him about then. During his previous tries at the job, he got screwed over — this time he seemed to want to be the one who did the screwing. Wackiness ensued.

      He's tried to be less crazy since, but really, it lacks conviction.

      In hindsight, I have to wonder how much of this craziness is about appealing to right-wing voters and how much is about appealing to right-wing donors. I can't see any other explanation for McCain jettisoning his first choice for running mate (Joe Lieberman) in favor of Sarah Pain, a lady who managed to more than any single person to elect Obama.

    165. Re:Serves them right by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      It took me a couple of seconds to see that your comment was one of Irony. What I think as completely ironic is when Billy Graham, a Morman Clut Believer, was "persuaded" to change his views, just before the U.S. election; truly amazing, and funny.

    166. Re:Serves them right by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I guess this is what happens when your backward, anti-freedom police state party systematically alienates all the programmers and sysadmins and hackers, all the good techs and IT personnel who otherwise might have wanted to help you.

      The Republicrats? The Democans?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    167. Re:Serves them right by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Fix your damned GOP and quit trying so hard to put the blame for your failings on those GD liberals.

      The rest of your hateful rhetoric is disgusting, but this point is dead-on. There are those of us trying to do just that.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    168. Re:Serves them right by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      That's not capitalism, it's corporatism. And the "banking system" hasn't existed in a free market since 1913.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    169. Re:Serves them right by LifesABeach · · Score: 1
    170. Re:Serves them right by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Instead of Hate, consider Pity.

    171. Re:Serves them right by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

      "No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

      These examples are all still giving to charity where the giver gets to decide the worth of the recipient. It's easy to give blood when they know it will go to someone somewhat like them. They get to choose which homeless guys to give to. They get to choose to give money to non-religious charities that are aligned politically with themselves. Sure, they might give more. But that giving doesn't help people who they don't like, and that's the problem.

      That's not a problem, it's why it works better. Because forcing people to deal with a faceless and dispassionate bureaucracy when they need help means people often don't get the help they need, and many people abuse the system that don't need the help at all.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    172. Re:Serves them right by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Typical zealot, justifying usurpation of freedom by demanding absolute safety for all people at all times....especially The Children!

      People smoke pot now. They will continue to smoke pot regardless of what the law says. Therefore nothing can provide you with the perfect safety you demand. Better hide under the bed.

    173. Re:Serves them right by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Back to the conservative Armageddon bunker with him!

    174. Re:Serves them right by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Can someone please tell me where this "dog whistle bigot" codebook is? I really want to know about those coded messages.

      49% equals a "base" of bigots (who are in fact largely white fundies)

      Well no wonder there are so many racial fights.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    175. Re:Serves them right by hardihoot · · Score: 1

      Is Bobby Jindal some other dude that you don't like and hope will be molded by those around him into the magical fairy president that you want?

      I like Bobby Jindal. He does not need to be molded into a candidate with core conservative values because he already has them. There will never be a president who 100% espouses what I want because a political candidate must forge an alliance among diverse individuals into a common cause to get elected. Politics is taking many different people with different viewpoints and throw them enough bones so that they vote for you. Romney threw me more bones (albeit very few) than Obama so I voted for Romney. My preferred party, The Constitution Party, is too small to affect an election just as the Green Party. So, you vote for the one who can at least in some way implement your vision for America.

      I will auto-vote for Jindal for the following:

      Jindal signed a law that permits teachers at public schools to supplement standard evolutionary curricula with analysis and critiques that may include intelligent design

      "The Theory of Evlolution" otherwise known as "An Opinion on Human Origins as pronounced by 'scientificly minded' chest beaters and hand wavers" is ridiculous and should not be taught as fact. I am all for a candidate who will trounce this.

      Jindal opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage.

      The redefinition of marriage is anathema and must be discouraged and squashed at every opportunity. Just as I do not uphold prostitutes, schizophrenics, and drug addicts as people to be admired and emluated, so I do not uphold homosexuals as anyone to be proud of. They are sick people who need help and counseling, not encouragement in their wrong ways. Homosexuality is a mental illness. Activist sociologists and psychiatrists declaring it otherwise is abhorrent and untruthful.

      Jindal has stated his support of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. He has opposed efforts to restrict gun rights and has received an endorsement from the National Rifle Association

      Boo-RAAA. He gets my vote.

      Voting for someone that you don't like in the hopes that he will change after starting the job is asinine.

      My first choice for the Republican nomination was Herman Cain but he did not make it so I was stuck with the choice of not voting, voting Constitution Party, or not voting at all. I certainly would not ever, under any circumstance, have voted for Obama so I was forced to vote as best I could.

      --
      A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
    176. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Calling the Democrats the party of "Hate" and "racism" is weird. They ARE one of the two main parties favoring centralized authoritarian government, but they aren't the ones pushing hate and racism.

      FWIW, I didn't vote Democratic, because I couldn't force myself to vote for a president that signed a bill giving himself the right to order any citizen killed without trial. He's got many other major flaws, starting with the way he voted for secret courts back while he was a Senator, but I might have overlooked those to oppose Romney (who is even worse, and is supported by followers who are worse than he is...well, that can be said of everyone, but still...).

      As to the integrity of the election...I truely doubt it, but when the exit polls agree with the tallied vote, there isn't that much basis for the doubt, if, that is, all qualified voters who desired to vote were allowed to vote (and not duped out of their right). FWIW, I heard many stories of Republicans suborning the vote by convincing qualified voters to not vote. I didn't hear any such stories about the Democrats. Well, stories aren't proof, and anyone can make claims. But it raises a lot of suspicion in my mind as to just *who* tampered with the vote, and just *how* it was done. That said, in the prior election BOTH sides were shown to have tampered with the vote. I don't recall that it was ever have shown that it changed a result, however (even though there were various suspicions raised).

      Yet again, a supreme court decision sealing a vote so that it couldn't be examined sticks in my mind, and I *DEFINITELY* count that as Republican vote tampering. There's no way of knowing whether it would have changed the result. But it seems that the government's desife is to not consider the problem. To make a decision, and then PRETEND that it was the decision of the voters, whether that was the actual vote or not. IIRC the supreme court explicitly said that the reason for it's decision was so that a decison could be reached NOW without regard to whether or not it was correct. And to prevent it from being challenged by sealing the evidence.

      So I consider BOTH parties to be complicit in voter fraud, on the basis of past elections.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    177. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Let me guess...you're in your twenties or early thirties.

      libertarianism is unstable.(The lower case "l" is intentional, as I'm not talking about the party.) Well, more unstable, all governments are unstable. I'm in favor of liberalism, because given the current state of the government, that a place that's relatively easy to transition to. Many of the tennants of libertarianism are compatible with liberalism, so it possible to transition to a libertarianistic liberalism from a centrist liberalism.

      (A long justification follows, with some digressions on stability of various governmental types)
      In each case you've got to figure the plausible trasition states unless you are advocating violent revolution. That often makes drastic changes, but very rarely of a desireable nature.

      So the real question is "What plausible transitions are there from a statist-authoritarian-rightist government. (And I consider Democrats to be a rightist party.)

      Some of the constraints are that the population typically lives in large clusters with rapid transport and communication. This makes many possible transition states so unstable as to collapse nearly immediately into some other near-by state. Anarchy, e.g., would immediately collapse into warlordism. If the warlordism was stable enough, it would evolve into feudalism, but given rapid transport and communication, it's not stable enough. Unless and exterior authority intervened it would probably oscillate back and forth between warlordism and short episodes of anarchy until the rapid transportation and communication broke down. Then the warlordism might evolve into feudalism, or possibly directly into monarchy (if the warlords had rapid transportation). Etc.

      In our current society there are other stable states...but anarchy isn't one of them. Dictatorship is stable, and it can evolve into monarchy which can evolve into limited monarchy, which can probably evolve into some flavor of democracy. But I really doubt that society would be stable for long enough for that to happen.

      Another transition is from autocratic-authoritarian to liberal-authoritarian to liberal-libertarian...with the libertarianism being very constrained. E.g., I can see unregulated access to drugs as being stable, but I have a hard time seeing unregulated access to weapons as being stable. The factor enabling unregulated access to drugs to be stable is that it would allow the populace to sedate themselves. (N.B.: Alcohol is a very poor choice for a drug to allow to be unregulated. It MUST be largely unregulated, however, because it is popular with a very influential segment of society, and forbidding it cause massive social upheaval. Marijuana is much better, as it sedates. Opiates, again, should probably not be regulated...but allowing it to be unregulated requires acceptance of a large number of suicides via overdose...often unintentional. LSD is relatively harmless, but tends to loosen social conditioning. In a libertarian setting this is basically harmless, unless you count people choosing to harm themselves.) Authoritarian regeimes often feel the need for sumptary laws...but note that other authoritarian regeimes coesist happily with many drugs that act to sedate to populace. Cocoa (unprocessed, and containing cocaine) was used by Aztec slaves, as opium was used by Greek and Roman slaves, to make their lot endurable. However such regeimes cannot abide "psychedelics", at least if not administered in a controlled religious setting. (I'm being a bit general here. Historical background doesn't really justify all this.) In this case by religious I essential mean a setting that is used to justify the current government. Explicit spiritual meaning is not a requirement, but it exists in all historical settings with which I am familiar.

      OTOH: Rapid changes of state between approximately equally stable states (of government) can happen very rapidly, and without much drama. (Here I'm not counting the collapse of the Soviet Union as being "without much dra

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    178. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but college degrees DEFINITELY correlate with educated. And the correlation is strongly positive.

      I will agree that this doesn't imply that college degrees correlate with smart, particularly without a good working definition of smart. They are negatively correlated with creativity, e.g.

      Please note that these two correlations have not significantly altered in the last few centuries, presuming that you are, in each case, comparing against an appropriate control group. This isn't to say that the percentage of the population being so educated has remained constant. It hasn't. But that is a totally separate argument.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    179. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it isn't (necessarily) really a collaborative effort. It's just that each side is so totally focused on the short term that when they get in their focus is on "extending our political power". So it's *as if* it were a collaborative effort.

      See flocking behavior in artificial life simulations. (e.g., "boids" http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ )

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    180. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's not actually true. But the amount they give doesn't approach the amount that the churches save by not paying taxes.

      That said, some of the churches DO serve useful purposes WRT charity. And some of them are acutally net positive contributions to society. Most of the others are not massive drags.

      I haven't been able to measure in my mind whether (ignoring the fundies) the churches are a benefit to society or not. One of my neighbors was massively helped by the congregation of which she was a member, before I even knew she had a problem That said, there are lots of people within five blocks of here that depend utterly on government assist.. They couldn't pay their rent without it, much less buy food or medical care. And they aren't being helped by the churches. But many homeless in truely destitute condition are helped by missionary churches, self-serving as they are.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    181. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with your conclusions, but you mistate the problem.

      The Republicans favor tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY.
      The Democrats favor spending more ON THE IMPOVERISHED.
      Both sides want to spend more on the military, though the Republicans are slightly more eager.
      Both sides want to claim to cut taxes, though the Republicans are much more eager.
      Neither side wants to acknowledge a tax rise, though the Democrats are slightly more willing.

      The last time the budget came close to being balanced was under a Democrat. I believe (though I'm not sure) that it was starting to pay off the national debt that caused the orchestrated attempt to get him impeached. (Yes, he was indeed corrupt. *IF* we've had a president in my lifetime who wasn't corrupt, it was Eisenhower, and I've my suspicions about him.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    182. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What do you consider to be a viable alternative?

      When answering, please consider the debt that a college loan entails, and the rapid ongoing automation of all feasible jobs...to the extend that workers in China are being replaced by robots.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    183. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I was, indeed, quite offended by many aspects of that story. But it's still a good story. Not, however, up the "Out of the Silent Planet", or "The Screwtape Letters"

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    184. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Obama has indeed not been a strong president. I credit this to his not wanting to push the proposals he want to be seen as favoring, but it's possible that he really just has not strong political feelings.

      He still appears better than Romney. Mind you, that's not saying very much.

      I'm considering the possibility that the Republicans are proposing candidates who are more and more impressively right-wing whackos as a "Tactics of Distraction" kind of thing, to manuver the Democrats more and more right, until the Republicans can propose a centrist candidate and sweep the election. Either that, or they're aiming for a dictatorship and don't care who the dictator is. (And it's quite plausible that their backers might not care who the dictator was, as long as he followed orders.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    185. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Or Enrico Fermi.

      But Einstein was not ineffective as a scientist. It's true he was unable to accept quantum theory, but it was his attacks that turned it into a massively successful theory. (Admittedly, most of what I know about that was from after the war, but also note that he was a theoretician rather than an engineer, so to expect him to directly participate in building an atomic reactor is unreasonable.)

      For that matter, it was some of Einstein's attacks on quantum theory that lead to the laser and to concentrations of atoms all in the same quantum state (sorry, can't remember the name at the moment...not even well enough to google it)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    186. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring the difference in size of production facilities.

      That said, if Hitler had continued to get Chamerlain type responses from his opponents, his side would have won the war. But I'm not really sure he could even have won against Russia alone.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    187. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, apparently the Germans had radar too. Neither side knew that the other had it (though the Allies found out first). Which is really strange, when the Germans were on the offensive first.

      As the attack shifted, and the Allies began aerial attacks on Germany, they started using chaff to block the German radar.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    188. Re:Serves them right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the A-10 rocket was EVER approaching ready. The Saturn was a development of the V-2 (I forget what it's German designation was) but the A-10 was just abandoned. This was probably because it would have required transistors to work properly. Vacuum tubes are ok in a stable environment, but under heavy shocks they tend to lose their filaments. Some will continue to work, as proximity fuses proved, but I suspect that complex circuits were too unreliable to use.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    189. Re:Serves them right by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I dont make those claims. Unless I misread your post, it was a categorical condemnation of republicans, like myself; Am I a bigot too? Did I create this polarization?

      Maybe you should dial your rhetoric down a notch unless you really do mean to call all republicans-- myself included-- bigots.

    190. Re:Serves them right by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Just ignore the haters, they are not worth your energy.

      Bullshit. Civilization doesn't just happen. It has to be seized from the grasp of those who are trying to tear it apart. Ignoring them won't work.

    191. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The government serves the people and serves to create, coordinate and direct efforts and money to improve the lives of it s citizens.

      Ahahah hahahah hahahah hahahahah hahahha *splat*

      The "splat" was the sound of a drone strike splattering one of "we the people's" heads on the authorization of a single man, with no due process.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    192. Re:Serves them right by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      No, that would be a charity. The government is a way some PEOPLE use force to extract money from other PEOPLE to help their friends.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    193. Re:Serves them right by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Romney hasn't supported discrimination and racial/socioeconomic hate, nor has the mainstream Republican party. His 47% comment was dumb, but it wasn't hateful. If all you can point to is the 47% thing, and perhaps a lack of support for gay marriage, I'm just going to yawn.

      You weren't specific when you called Republicans hateful, so I'll call your bluff, and do you one better. Contrast Romney's positions with your self-anointed Racial and Socioeconomic Lord and Savior, Barack Obama. In 2008 Obama addressed a predominantly black audience at Hampton University and told a bunch of very hurtful lies that had no other purpose than to stir up racial animosity over a purely fictional supposed grievance. In short, he complained in his speech that the Federal government had bailed out post-911 NYC and post-Hurricane Andrew Florida with aid money that was purely gifted, and didn't require local funds allocated in proportion, but only sent aid money that had those strings attached to post-Katrina New Orleans. Obama said that it was because New Orleans had mostly minority recipients, and that therefore they weren't considered part of the American family. And what was wrong with this speech? The government had in fact sent a bunch of money for Katrina aid with no strings attached, and in fact sent more aid in total for Katrina than for the NYC and Florida disasters put together. And could you maybe defend Obama by saying he didn't know about that? Not a chance. At the time, Obama was a sitting United States Senator, who (get this...) VOTED AGAINST THE AID. Now, to be fair, it was attached to a defense bill that Obama didn't like, and it passed over his objections, yada yada yada... but the fact remains that in his speech to that predominantly black audience, he was instigating racial animosity using a nasty lie.

      You can demonize conservatives if you like, but please get a lot more specific like I did above, instead of just spouting insults. Conservatives are human beings, like Obama, and they certainly have flaws. I don't believe your generalization is fair, though, any more than I believe that Obama's hateful behavior at the above conference characterizes his presidency overall -- this was a low point, and I'm happy to say that he's generally done much better than that.

    194. Re:Serves them right by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Einstein-Bose Condensate.

    195. Re:Serves them right by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Really, really think about what was going and has been going on. Was the advertising campaign that bad, after all it did suck them into spending billions of dollars which means someone earnt billions of dollars. So four years of marketing to convince the rich and greedy they could buy an election but only if the spent enough, really seemed to have worked quite well, the suckers will be spitting chips over that blown investment. Fox not-News is whining because they lost the election not because the Republicans did, a public demonstration of the marketing and public relations failure, likely billions of campaign 'EARNINGS' lost in the next election cycle.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    196. Re:Serves them right by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1
      I've got Karma to burn, so it doesn't bother me too much. (Not that I was TRYING, mind you.) But I'm confused like you. Perhaps I should have linked to things? Let's try this again...

      increased warrentless wiretapping of Americans, by giving retroactive immunity to telcos who aided in breaking the law, by fighting for punitive laws that would cripple the internet, by negotiating lousy treaties that would reduce freedom, by sending the FBI to foreign countries to seize property ...

      There, that ought to satisfy the g^Hmods out there...

    197. Re:Serves them right by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      The difference was manufacturing and manpower capabilities: US factories could outproduce the Germans, and the US had plenty of manpower to man their air force. The Germans could never match that manufacturing capacity, and have trouble replacing pilots, so even when they had a technological advantage, it was all over. You'd have to be a fool to bet on4 P-51s beating 4 ME-262s in a dogfight, but the Germans deployed them very late and couldn't make enough to matter.

      The eastern front is a similar story: The Germans wouldn't have done any better if you handed them Soviet T-34s tanks. Cheaper to make, and the Soviets could man tons of them just fine.

      Economics just doomed the Nazis, unless they somehow managed to find a technology that made said industrial differences irrelevant. The problem is that the US got to it first, as Japan learned quickly enough.

    198. Re:Serves them right by tibit · · Score: 2

      I agree. If it happens that CS Lewis's writings find parallels in artifacts of Christian tradition, so what. What's so wrong about a story where someone sacrifices him/herself for the greater good? I'd much rather see people actually act Christian without tooting their horn and interfering in others' lives.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    199. Re:Serves them right by tibit · · Score: 1

      Romney has no fucking clue how to get economy back on track. Not the U.S. economy, anyway. He loves shipping jobs to China.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    200. Re:Serves them right by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I do my own taxes and have never taken that deduction.

    201. Re:Serves them right by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      What I find amazing is how conservatives keep patting themselves on the back about how smart and intelligent they are, and how liberals are the 'dumb vote'. Meanwhile, the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that I can only stare in disbelief. Hell, Fox News viewers have been clearly shown to be less informed about current events that people who watch no news at all.

      And never mind the fact that these people also deny evolution occurs despite the enormously overwhelming evidence, think hurricanes are caused by gay people and that earthquakes happen when women bear their breasts in public.

    202. Re:Serves them right by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      You mean like the conservatives do in that article you posted?

    203. Re:Serves them right by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So ALL conservatives think evolution is the devil's work? Then ALL liberal crap on police cars, haven't showered in three weeks and are otherwise like those depicted in the Obama Bucks videos.

      The only evidence you have to the contrary are "facts" you make up and then use to bray about your superiority. For every embarrassing thing you can point to of conservatives, I can match with regards to stupid liberals.

      And you just ignored my point, which is if you feel you have to tell people how smart you are, then odds are you really aren't that smart.

      So go ahead...keep proclaiming your limitless intellect and we'll all just shake our heads at what an ass you actually are.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    204. Re:Serves them right by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I do my own taxes and have never taken that deduction.

      Well, I commend you for standing by what you believe.

      But could you explain why you think that it's a "tax dodge" to not pay taxes on money that you give away? The amount of money that you save on your taxes is only a fraction of the amount that you actually gave to charity, so it would make no sense for an individual to make a monetary donation to charity in order to reduce their taxes. (Non-monetary donations and corporate donations are perhaps a little less clear-cut.)

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    205. Re:Serves them right by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      I'm fortunate to be pretty close to the money. If you're close to the money, you're doing fine in this economy. For guys like me, the recession ended in 09. I took a 25% pay cut in 08, and I was back to my former levels a year later. I make more now than I did 5 years ago.

      If you look at the data, GDP started rebounding in 09. Corporate profits are back up. Most economic indicators show that business is doing well - many of the indicators are at or above pre-recession levels (housing obviously isn't back to it's bubble levels.)

      Here are a bunch of economic information(pdf warning)

      The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of economic activity in the financial and corporate sectors. But those sectors don't really drive hiring in a service economy. A healthy middle class is what's going to drive hiring. If I make 10x as much as you, I don't buy 10x as many clothes, employ 10x as many mechanics, or eat 10x as many meals. Hiring recovers when the middle and lower class have discretionary spending for those things.

      Demand drives hiring my friend, not money. There is plenty of money available to hire more workers, but not enough demand in order to do so. Trickle down economics don't fix that problem. No amount of tax breaks will incentivise a company to hire when they simply don't need more employees. Make sure the middle class is taken care of. Focus on fixing income inequity, control the cost of living. Demand will increase. When people can afford housing again, more houses will be built. When people can afford cars again, the factories in Detroit will need to fill more shifts. Hiring will improve in all sectors of the economy.

      Do you really think the party of supply side economics can fix a demand problem?

    206. Re:Serves them right by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Quick Google search suggests that economists in the educational sector broadly favored Obama. Business economists were very mixed, but somewhat tended to favor Romney. You provide information about the economists who support your position, but fail to provide information about those who oppose. I think you've fallen victim to Confirmation Bias.

      If debt spending is an issue for you, you can't honestly favor conservatives. Although conservatives take the stance of being the anti-debt party, their track record over the past 30 years has been abysmal on that front, with Regan by far having the worst record for debt spending. In that time period, the only conservative president to take a serious stance on the deficit has been Bush Sr, who was unfortunately voted out of office for his position. Comparatively, Clinton actually managed to reverse the trend of debt spending, and Obama seems to also be slowing the rate of spending.

      Obama has of course, inherited a very heavy rate of deficit spending, and in his favor, the rate of spending has fallen for every year he's been in office so far. The trend would appear to be continuing with the wind down of the Afghanastan war.

      In general, the conservatives seem to have favored tax cuts over budget control, and most of their suggested policies (cutting social services) would not have affected a significant reduction in debt spending. Romney made it very clear in the debate that he has absolutely no intent to reverse debt spending (comments on the size of the navy, inability to provide details of his debt reduction plans, sabre rattling about another war with Iran, etc.) The conservative party appears to be unwilling to touch major sources of debt spending (military) since it brings major income into their respective states. All indicators point to him being another refund-and-spend conservative.

      I agree with you that deficit spending is a major issue.

    207. Re:Serves them right by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      First of all, I didn't mean to imply that all conservatives deny evolution and I apologize if I did. That being said, if you made even the slightest attempt at googling, you would find that the only person making stuff up here is you. A massive number of conservatives DO think evolution is the "devil's work", as you put it.

      And no, I didn't ignore your point. You ignored mine. You accuse liberals in general of going around talking about how smart they are. Meanwhile, the article you posted does exactly that. It's one big long ad hominem attack. So the only one trying to act smugly superior here is you.

      The problem here is that you "can't handle the truth". And the truth is that the average conservative IS more poorly educated than the average liberal. Go on, look up the stats if you dare. People in traditionally conservative states are less likely to have a degree. Hell, they're less likely to graduate high school. This has been confirmed by a number of different sources. The data is all there waiting to be googled. Similarly, studies have been done that show people who watch Fox News are even more poorly informed about current events than people who watch no news at all.

      And, since I obviously have to point this out explicitly, I am NOT accusing them of being 'not as smart'. What I AM accusing them of, is being more poorly educated, and making the conscious choice to be wilfully ignorant of the facts. The evolution thing is just a very obvious and well known example of that.

      If the best you can do is put the word "facts" in quotes and just hand wave my argument away, then you are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If you want to challenge me on this, then refute my points directly. Show me hard data that I'm wrong. I dare you to try.

    208. Re:Serves them right by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes, the soviets landed on the moon, put rovers on mars, send probes to all the planets, put a telescope in space to watch 100,000 stars for years to discover transiting planets, and have the lead in deploying and developing the ISS.

      oh, wait, they didn't and they don't.....

    209. Re:Serves them right by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      why mention the americans, it was Russia that brought the nazi military machine to a halt.

    210. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You are supremely ignorant on the foundations of libertarianism. Most likely due to ignorance of anarchism.

      They are indeed fiscal conservatives and socially liberal. Their candidates however tend not to follow up on that latter one.

    211. Re:Serves them right by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      congress including obama made the law, then the president signs it

      Obamba the lying flip flopping sack of shit, traitor to the Constitution, enemy of freedom and liberty.

    212. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I mean the GOP today is the party of bigots. It needs to die and be replaced by another party.

      Each individual may not be a bigot, but that the audience the party focuses on serving.

    213. Re:Serves them right by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Oh wow who gave what to the salvation army. You realize that is a religion right? So many people may intentionally not give to them and instead donate to foodbanks.

      Show me a study that excludes giving to your church and I will show you a legitimate charity study.

    214. Re:Serves them right by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Pointing out how stupid someone is, is NOT the same as proclaiming your intelligence.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    215. Re:Serves them right by sycodon · · Score: 1
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    216. Re:Serves them right by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Well now isn't THAT interesting!

      When liberals do it, they're proclaiming their intelligence. But when conservatives do it, they're just "pointing out".

      Do you even realize how hypocritical you're being?

    217. Re:Serves them right by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Is it really necessary to drop the fbomb?

      And with all due respect, is that the best you can do? One article talking about one specific thing Jon Stewart said? Jon Stewart had even (which he of course then twists to his own purposes...) apologized on air for his remarks. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements?xrs=share_copy

      I also managed to find this. I don't know what the political leanings of that site is, but they make an interesting point.
      http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/06/22/jon-stewart-gets-it-right-about-fox-news/180787

      But thank you for pointing me to that politifact site. If you look further into the site, they seem to have an a pretty substantial number of items calling out republicans as well. In fact, if you check out their Pants on Fire section (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire), that entire section is overwhelmingly, almost exclusively republican, which is consistent with my argument that conservatives actively try to misinform. Not that democrats don't lie of course, but republicans seem to be way far in the lead on that score.

    218. Re:Serves them right by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      All those other guys that he didn't like were getting the food stamps he had earned by being white, duh.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    219. Re:Serves them right by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, the US and Greece aren't the only countries carrying high levels of debt, and this is not the first time US debt has exceeded the GDP.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/08/us-debt-today-vs-ww2.html

    220. Re:Serves them right by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      And this makes them far more dangerous than you're willing to acknowledge. What do you think the Santorum/Robertsen types would do if they managed to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal? They would ban the music you listen to, the video games you play, and then they would go after the way you dress, which church you go to, the group you congregate with etc. Once thugs have gained power, they seek more power. Doesn't this totally remind you of the taliban? ...

      Sensationalist rubbish. Akin to Republicans claiming Democrats are going to make all firearms illegals and disarm the populace -- or akin to claims of socialism and death panels. Namely, of equal likelihood.

      Wrong. Nice right-wing inflammatory rhetoric. This is about the right to make your own medical choices without government interference.

      Just because you've chosen to define life at some arbitrary point doesn't give your opinion more value than the other guy that chose to define life at a different arbitrary point. Seeing as how scientists can't even agree on the subject, I'd say you're both wrong. Both sides are ignorant in the abortion debate because NEITHER is willing to put themselves in the other person's shoes when debating the topic.

      hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.

      Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

      Wanna cite some facts for your blanket objections? Because last I heard, things like minimum wage laws and hard limits on profit margins for drug companies are exactly what the OP was describing.

      heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for

      Wrong. This about making health care companies provide you what you paid for. This is about prohibiting local monopolies.

      The "pre-existing condition" portion of the legislation is a very small piece of the entire bill. The bill itself practically establishes a monopoly by leaving in place the existing system and forcing people to buy healthcare. Now you can no longer participate in healthcare without insurance.

    221. Re:Serves them right by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Aren't you also misstating the problem? The biggest runaway cost in the budget is social spending, and the Republicans seem to be the only ones willing to broach that topic. And in regards to the "last balanced budget", it's important to note that it also came under boom times AND a Republican congress.

    222. Re:Serves them right by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that if that is a result of democratic bias or just the facts behind most of the issues?

      There was so much more lying and misinformation on the conservative side of this election. I have some far right family members, and every time I got a political oriented email from them, or saw one of their facebook posts, it would literally take me 30 seconds on google to disprove it.

    223. Re:Serves them right by jbeach · · Score: 1

      So, to review your response, it's:
      1) completely skipping over the Arizona point
      2) completely skipping over that Romney refused to retract his endorsement of Murdouck, after Murdouck stated "pregnancy from rape is something God intended'
      3) bringing up Democratic party ads that have nothing to do with the current question of Democrats being 'the party of hate',
      4a) bringing up Democratic party past history of Jim Crow as if that is relevant to this recent election, which it's not, 4b) accusing Democrats of being racist because Democratic-voting *minorities* tend not to trust minority conservatives for being *conservatives*, 4c) and also accusing Democrats of being racist for trying to defeat Republicans ,
      5) pretending that the Republican party has only pursued this nonsense of Obama being foreign-born because it was something once said by one of his publishers - as if that was enough reason to ignore every single shred of evidence ot the contrary, including the birth certificate he released while he was compaigning in 2008. Even though, as you state yourself, it wouldn't matter if Obama was born on the moon since his mother is a US citizen.
      I mean, come on man.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    224. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1

      drugs - that's just like the Democrats. Both parties support laws against drug use and both parties have made it clear that when they're in charge of the national government they won't look the other way when states legalize drug use.

      Democrats aren't really united on this one. Libritarians are united in favor, conservatives tend to be united in opposition. Still, it tends to be the democratic states that legalize drugs, and push for reduced sentencing. Trend seems to be towards legalization, and much like gay marrage, I suspect it's the liberals that will make it legal, when it happens.

      Republicans aren't united either. As you say, the more libertarian ones tend to prefer legalization while the more conservative ones oppose it. However, the libertarians usually don't say much about it because they have so many other priorities. So many other simple freedoms are ignored that if you're a libertarian trying to figure out which ideas to work toward first, drugs have trouble getting anywhere near the top of the list.

      abortion - right to life trumps other rights. You can't kill someone just because they're inconvenient.

      A person has a right to life (unless they are a criminal, appearently.)

      A fetus is not a person. The rights of the fetus are trumped by the rights of the mother during the First Trimester. The SCOTUS established that in Roe vs. Wade. It's a good read.

      Yes, you have a right to life, unless you're a criminal. Just like you have a right to freedom, unless you're a criminal. As for the rights of the unborn, the question of whether they have a right to life is one that has many arguments for and against. My point though was that being the party of liberty is not inconsistent with the being the pro-life party. If you believe the unborn have a right to live, then it makes sense to exclude the right to murder the unborn (or anyone else) from the list of freedoms you want to protect.

      hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.

      You're in favor of indentured servitude? How about human slavery and the sex trade? Both are situations a person may find themselves voluntarily, either due to misinformation or via social or economic pressure. Let me guess, if they make that decision, it's their own fault?

      A pure libertarian could, I suppose, support indentured servitude. However the principle we usually support is the ability to make a labor contract and then allow either party decide, for whatever reason, to terminate the contract. That is, when you trade labor for money, you should be able to decide to stop supplying the labor whenever you want (so that you're not an indentured servant). Similarly, you should be able to stop supplying the money for whatever reason. (Though I think an exception for union busting is a good thing.)

      renting - the Democrats tell you what you can and can't do with your property, and what restrictions you can put on who enters your property

      Your in favor of the landlord being able to enter a unit you are renting at any time, for any reason?

      I'm in favor of the landlord being able to put that in the contract. I'm also in favor to potential tenants saying "H#ll NO" when a landlord does that. I'm also in favor of landlords being able to screen potential tenants based on whatever criteria they like, and for restaurant owners being able to screen customers based on their criteria. After all, customers have the right to refuse to patronize a restaurant for whatever reason! And from a practical standpoint, business owners have even more market motivation to treat potential customers and employees fai

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    225. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1

      How the fuck did this get modded insightful?

      Let's see gays - that's one I'll have to give you. The gay marriage thing is debatable, but too many Republicans would even outlaw gay relationships if it weren't for the recent, and baseless, supreme court decision.

      And this makes them far more dangerous than you're willing to acknowledge. What do you think the Santorum/Robertsen types would do if they managed to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal? They would ban the music you listen to, the video games you play, and then they would go after the way you dress, which church you go to,

      You just went too far there. No, they wouldn't go after which church you go to because they respect the first amendment guarantee of the free practice of religion. As for the music and video games - they would likely try but they would have only limited success.

      the group you congregate with etc. Once thugs have gained power, they seek more power. Doesn't this totally remind you of the taliban? ...

      No, but you remind me of Godwin.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    226. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia: A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007

      The guy was a democrat. He became a Republican just because he wanted to be mayor and knew he couldn't get the Democratic nomination. He remained a Democrat in his mind and left the Republican party.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    227. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that if the government wants to tax 100% of everything you earn, it's not slavery because you have a choice of whether or not you want to work and because we have a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to do it?

      I suppose you're right. It doesn't give me any comfort though.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    228. Re:Serves them right by readin · · Score: 1

      running a restaurant - the Democrats tell you whether you can smoke and Bloomberg (Democrat who switched parties but not stripes so he could run) even wants to tell you how big your drinks can be.

      Your freedom to smoke vs. my freedom to be smoke free. You're still welcome to smoke on your own property. You're still welcome to make your kids breath your smoke during the most critical time of their development.

      It's also illegal for me to enter an establishment naked, or with a huge boom box.

      No you're not, and that is my point. for some reason it is perfectly legal for people to walk around outside on the sidewalk forcing me to breath their smoke, but illegal for them to smoke in a privately run restaurant ( a place that I can easily refuse to go ) .

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  2. Demographics and the Republican Party by AMCandel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like all his competent IT people self-deported to the other campaign?

  3. Or... by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps more people just wanted to vote for Obama.
    I'd hate to think it all comes down to how good your IT team is (even though I'm on one).

    Then again, perhaps it is some comfort to the Republican's -- "All we have to do is better IT next time" -- and not bother to change the message.

    1. Re:Or... by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to think it all comes down to how good your IT team is (even though I'm on one).

      For this to be true, we'd have to assume that giving a speech last minute is enough to sway a voter to vote or change their votes, I disagree. Showing your face and saying a few choice words shouldn't be why people follow anybody, actions however...

      Also LOL @ botching an application w a counter and geolocation capabilities.

    2. Re:Or... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Yeah, in this particular election I think all these stories about GOTV efforts and ground games are unlikely to be pointing to real deciding factors. In a 2004-style election where the winner comes down to maybe, but when you're talking about 5% shifts, that starts to get out of the range of what you can get from just better phone-banking.

    3. Re:Or... by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ugh, Slashdot ate part of my comment due to a <.

      Reposting:

      Yeah, in this particular election I think all these stories about GOTV efforts and ground games are unlikely to be pointing to real deciding factors. In a 2004-style election where the winner comes down to <1%, maybe. And this year, it's plausible some better turnout operations could've flipped Florida, which Romney only lost by 0.6%. But to win overall, he'd need to flip all of: Florida (0.6%), Ohio (1.9%), Virginia (3.0%), and Colorado (4.7%). The first is plausible, and the second is on the edge of possibility, but once you're talking about 5% shifts, that starts to get out of the range of what you can get from just better phone-banking.

    4. Re:Or... by skids · · Score: 2

      Were I to listen to my paranoia coprocessor, it would have me believe that every excuse offered that seems to shield the right from some serious soul searching also serves to make it sound like "the next time will be better" to all the mark^H^H^H^Hdonors. And the Romney team was "shellshocked" in the same way Bain Capital is when one of their holdings collapses after assuming mounds of debt to pay Bain Capital.

      But for once I will diligently apply Occam's Razor and attribute the whole mess to stupidity.

    5. Re:Or... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Were I to listen to my paranoia coprocessor, it would have me believe that every excuse offered that seems to shield the right from some serious soul searching also serves to make it sound like "the next time will be better" to all the mark^H^H^H^Hdonors. And the Romney team was "shellshocked" in the same way Bain Capital is when one of their holdings collapses after assuming mounds of debt to pay Bain Capital.

      But for once I will diligently apply Occam's Razor and attribute the whole mess to stupidity.

      You're thinking of Hanlon's Razor. Not that Occam isn't totally inapplicable here.

    6. Re:Or... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      But it's not just phone banking. From my understanding, what Obama's campaign did was more Big Data oriented, gathering data on individual voters to target the right approach for each of them. Is this a persuadable voter? What issues will he/she respond to best? What method to reach them is best, a phone call or an in-person visit? And then armed with that data, following through to the local ground teams.

      I would not be shocked to learn that that kind of targeted application of persuasion, knowing the weakness, applying the right pressure in the right way at the right time, can absolutely move 5% of a vote.

      And I think this is why the Republican party is pretty well doomed. What will win elections in the future is science and data. Not that "science and data" are political issues, but the understanding that there is a science to winning elections, through the surgical collection and exploitation of data. This is not the way a large amount of the Republican leadership thinks. They will continue to believe that elections "should" be decided based on feel-good flag waving and religiosity, and they will not change that mindset, even though better application of math and technology has twice allowed a black dude to beat rich white guys to the White House.

      And on a completely unrelated note, I hope you choke on your 3 digit UID. grumble...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Or... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The fact that Romney did his best to be a closet case even in light of the Benghazi Incident did not endear me to him. He had the perfect opportunity to be presidential, to show some moral courage, and to even demonstrate how he can relate to the man on the street in the Middle East while also correctly framing the entire situation in terms of core American values.

      "Been there. Done that. Understand your rage. Gotta take the bad with the good in a free society. Your liberty depends on the other guy's."

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Or... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You might want to go look up the last time the Republican president wanted a smaller government.

      Hint. It was Nixon.

      Which is why tax and spend(D) is much more fiscally sound than lower-tax and spend(R).

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Or... by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      More likely there was nothing to get anyone excited about voting for Romney. If you look at the numbers voting this time around vs 2008 and 2004, it is obvious that many stayed home.
      Romney's campaign was a ruthless dictatorship with zero grass roots. I am not surprised when I hear about screw ups like this.
      Obama didn't do much better in grass roots either. He failed to sell out stadiums too, but at least could fill them half way whereas Romney was lucky to fill the first few rows on the playing field with the stadium seats completely empty.

      http://youtu.be/Kql7rMrRGxo

    10. Re:Or... by readin · · Score: 1

      But it's not just phone banking. From my understanding, what Obama's campaign did was more Big Data oriented, gathering data on individual voters to target the right approach for each of them. Is this a persuadable voter? What issues will he/she respond to best? What method to reach them is best, a phone call or an in-person visit? And then armed with that data, following through to the local ground teams.

      Just trying to understand Slashdot here. When a corporation like facebook does that kind of data gathering on individuals, that's bad, but when a political party does it, that's good. Am I right?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    11. Re:Or... by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, you don't win elections by having more people wanting to vote for you. You win elections by having more people actually get to the polls and cast a vote for you. GOTV is critical in winning a race unless you're are totally blowing the other guy away, as in CA where Obama got almost 21% more votes than Romney.

      Still, there's something in what you say. Obama's margins in the swing states this year weren't landslides, but they were pretty solid in a lot of those states:

      NV (6EV): 4.6%
      IA (6EV): 5.6%
      CO (9EV): 3.7%
      WI (10EV): 6.7%
      VA (13EV): 3%
      NC (15EV): -2.4% (Romney win)
      OH (18EV): 1.9%
      FL (29EV): 0.5%

      It's easy to imagine that without Obama's GOTV effort he'd have lost at least FL and OH -- and conceivably (although less likely) in VA and CO. Flipping all four of those states would shift 69 electoral votes, bringing Obama down from 332 to 263 and Romney up from 206 to 275 for a bare win.

      It's easy to imagine a better Romney GOTV effort flipping Florida, maybe even Ohio, but that's not enough. He'd have to scare up another 108K Romney voters in VA who stayed at home, and in Colorado another 85K. That seems unlikely, so an improved Romney GOTV operation alone would probably not have changed this election. You'd have to get rid of Obama's GOTV operation, in which case a successful Romney operation might *barely* have flipped this to the Republicans.

      What is striking when you look at these swing state numbers is that we're talking about eight states and less than 20% of the total electoral college here. To win, a Republican has to pick up 79 of those 106 electoral votes. A Democrat has to win 32. It's no wonder the math geeks were favoring Obama so early and consistently. Writing off almost the entire Northeast and California, Republicans have to sweep the three largest swing states to win. Things are going to get tougher on the Republicans. This year, even the Cuban-Americans in Fl favored Obama; within a generation demographic changes could flip Texas to the Democrats, unless the Republicans get their act together with Hispanics.

      So blame Romney's shortcomings as a candidate if you like. Blame his GOTV effort. Blame Karl Rove, Nate Silver, or even the 47%. But don't forget to blame the Southern Strategy. It gave the Republicans a good ride for a few decades, but change is turning it into a strategic millstone around Republicans' necks. Since George H. W. Bush vs. Mike Dukakis there have been six elections, of which the Republicans have won two but *barely*. Even with Obama's economic vulnerabilities, his 332-206 win over Romney eclipses the Republicans' strongest electoral college victory in the last twenty years (286 Bush to 251 Kerry).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Or... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, it's all amoral. I didn't make any judgement call, I just said its effective, and that's a fact. If it weren't effective, Facebook wouldn't have lots of money, and Obama wouldn't be president.

      So, I never said targeted gathering and application of personal data was good, nor did I say it was bad. I just said it was effective.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Or... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Democrats, although moderately I expect. I think it would probably work more the other way, where the presidential election brought out more people likely to approve marijuana legalization rather than the opposite.

      Colorado Republicans are Western Republicans. They're a lot more libertarian than the party nationwide. I went to high school in a Republican part of CO and most folks don't give a crap about marijuana. If they're going to do it, just tax it and regulate it. Only old-timers and extremely religious folks seem to care.

  4. Republiclowns by sunspot42 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I thought these Republican idiots were supposed to be great businessmen and job creators. So how is it the Kenyan socialist communist fascist Marxist Muslim empty chair community organizer ran a campaign that outfoxed and outplayed them at every turn, even without having an entire media empire (Rupert Murdoch) spewing favorable propaganda 24/7 for free?

    You'd almost think these Republican business geniuses were really a bunch of incompetent, thieving rich idiots who couldn't run a successful taco stand without help from their daddy's buddies and generous taxpayer subsidies coming from people who, you know, actually work for a living.

    1. Re:Republiclowns by drakaan · · Score: 1

      ...must...resist...playing...devil's...advocate...

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    2. Re:Republiclowns by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You can only really judge a man by his results. As much lip service as is given to "captains of industry", it seems like they botched it this time. They had it about as good as they're going to get it. Obama hasn't finished cleaning up the mess they left from before. So he was very vulnerable from a "but how are you doing now" perspective.

      The "captains of industry" failed to sell that. They failed to execute despite blowing a smaller nations debt on the effort.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Republiclowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mitt's problem is that he actually believed his own BS. As a "business executive" he should indeed have been able to run a brilliant campaign. The problem is, Mitt's "executive experience" was at Bain Capital.

      Bain Capital is not a _real_ company. It doesn't build products or provide services. It is just a massive pump-and-dump and flipping operation. Therefore it makes sense that this isn't the place where somebody would actually hone executive skills. Romney's "business experience", just like his business itself, is a well crafted illusion. Bain Capital is a Potemkin village. Outward appearances suggest it's a real business but all it is is a place where people like Romney can take advantage of legal, fiscal, and moral loopholes to pump money out of legitimate wealth-creating companies.

      After years of working there Mitt had himself convinced that he was a real executive. He wasn't. When faced with the real and challenging task of taking the presidency, there were no shortcuts to be taken, no loopholes to take advantage of. It was a true test of his business skills. And he failed MISERABLY.

    4. Re:Republiclowns by epine · · Score: 1

      You can only really judge a man by his results.

      Don't tell the Christians. For some reason they decided to ignore the exit pole and think for themselves. Or did I get that backwards? Back at the ranch, the Jews were left investing in Bernie Madoff. I think that speaks for itself.

    5. Re:Republiclowns by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought these Republican idiots were supposed to be great businessmen and job creators. So how is it the Kenyan socialist communist fascist Marxist Muslim empty chair community organizer ran a campaign that outfoxed and outplayed them at every turn, even without having an entire media empire (Rupert Murdoch) spewing favorable propaganda 24/7 for free?

      Because the Republicans jumbled crazy-ass social conservatism into their mix - Social conservatism which doesn't align with America any more. Ramblings about rape, transvaginal ultrasound, evolution, attacks on science. I'm not going to pick a loony to run my organization, even if he is good at balancing the checkbook.

    6. Re:Republiclowns by sycodon · · Score: 1

      He hasn't even started. He only realized the economy sucked about 10 months ago. Or maybe he only started caring about it 10 months ago.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:Republiclowns by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      even without having an entire media empire (Rupert Murdoch) spewing favorable propaganda 24/7 for free?

      You mean ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC and all the others weren't spewing favorable propaganda for Obama 24/7? From what I could tell Shepard Smith of Fox News seemed genuinely delighted when they called the election for Obama, so I can't figure out which media empire was allegedly backing Romney...

    8. Re:Republiclowns by bmo · · Score: 1

      Shepard Smith is the only anchor/talking head at Fox that isn't a complete idiot.

      He's not enough to take the stench off Fox.

      >blaming all news services as biased.

      Reality has a liberal bias. Deal with it.

      --
      BMO

    9. Re:Republiclowns by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      Reality has a liberal bias. Deal with it.

      You must be a lot of fun at parties. Do you ever get invited back anywhere?

    10. Re:Republiclowns by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      Potemkin village: I like you analysis of Romney and Bain. Makes sense to think of Bain as Pump and Dump, but doesn't that usually mean elevating the stock prices and selling the shares before you collapse it? I thought Bain acted more vampirishly and sucked the blood out and sucked the companies dry of any of their valuable assets and buying whatever they could on unsecured credit and then taking the bankruptcy-walk-o-shame away with pocket-ful of cash and loot. Or did I misread the Tim e magazine article? ;>)

    11. Re:Republiclowns by dbIII · · Score: 1

      transvaginal ultrasound

      Why isn't that the name of a band yet?

    12. Re:Republiclowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bain actually used both tactics. Sometimes they would try to inflate the value of the company. Other times they would saddle a company with debt, charge it exorbitant "consulting fees", and let it go into bankruptcy once there was nothing left to loot (dumping the pensions obligations onto taxpayers in the process; I guess the federal government is good for something after all)

      In the end, it's still mostly a financial scheme that is more likely to result in wealth destruction than in wealth creation. And whatever the outcome, very little tangible work gets done.

      For as much as slashdotters like to harp on about "evil Micro$oft", it's still a company that creates real products. Those products help people be more productive, more creative. For all its flaws, millions of people were introduced to computing through Windows. You can easily find men and women who will testify about the good things they were able to do with MS products ("I wrote a novel using Word" or "I keep in touch with my grandma thousands of miles away through MSN Messenger" or whatever)

      I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to find somebody other than the company's owners themselves willing to testify about the great influence Bain Capital had on their lives. Quite the opposite judging by the most recent crop of political ads..

    13. Re:Republiclowns by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      Mitt's problem is that he actually believed his own BS.

      Which BS? The BS before or after he shook the Etch-A-Sketch®, and was that before or after he changed his mind on every topic again? Just want to know which BS he supposedly bought. It was so hard to keep up with which BS he was peddling on what day....

    14. Re:Republiclowns by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Isn't Pussy Riot close enough? But they got thrown in jail for saying words.

  5. The real problem is 37,000 GOTV for several states by jbeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Obama campaign probably had that many people in Ohio just getting the coffee.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  6. Must have been God's will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all in the case of legitimate server outage the internet has a way to repair itself

    1. Re:Must have been God's will. by John3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually in situations like this the internet has a way to shut that whole thing down.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  7. I got tons of Romney calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact the escalation of calls from celebrity callers including gov Ridge urging me to vote Romney continued until minutes before the polls closed at 8pm and I had voted for Gary Johnson hours earlier.

    Romney's loss was a Romney failure, not an IT failure.

    1. Re:I got tons of Romney calls by justdave72 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I got so sick of the Romney calls that I put an IVR on my home phone line that prompted to press 1 to talk to a human, and hung up if they didn't dial anything, without ringing my phones or letting them leave voicemail. According to my logs that blocked 8 calls (the callerID on each was either unknown, or did point at a known Republican call center) during the 24 hours leading up to the election.

    2. Re:I got tons of Romney calls by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I love my Digitone Call Blocker. of course, I was also sick of Obama calls as much as the Romney, they're both lying crook scum bitches of megacorporations

    3. Re:I got tons of Romney calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree completely. I'm a raging Republican and i can tell you, the real reason Romney lost was that he gives most of his party the heebie jeebies. Even I almost didn't vote for him.

      I felt like this election was like being given the choice to sleep with your mom, or your sister. I begrudgingly voted sister, but damn we all knew it was wrong. (not voting to me is like sleeping with dad.)

      Sick in my heart,
      -Rudy

    4. Re:I got tons of Romney calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I felt like this election was like being given the choice to sleep with your mom, or your sister. I begrudgingly voted sister, but damn we all knew it was wrong. (not voting to me is like sleeping with dad.)

      You could have voted Libertarian, that's like the slut on the corner who takes all comers for $20 (free market hell yeah!) but at least she's not related. Or Green, the old toothless bag lady who wears recycled rags and rants about cats.

    5. Re:I got tons of Romney calls by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Hmm. I received several phone calls with various scare messages from people on behalf of Romney. All hours after I had voted (neither for Romney, nor Obama; gotta love those write-ins).

      "Obamacare..." -> hang-up. "blah blah blah" -> hang-up.

      Look guys, I've taken a look at the economic 'plans,' and I use that term loosely here, from both of the major candidates, and I am simply not convinced that either will work. Trying to frighten me one way or the other won't work when it's not my brain stem (fight or flight) doing the thinking, but the various higher order parts of my brain normally associated with algebra, calculus, and reasoning. Now if you're telepathic, you'll know exactly what I think of you for having thought so little of me.

      And next time, let's get a better selection of candidates, right? While I am not a member of the Green party (hi guys), I do like seeing them, as well as every other party / candidate that can get at least 4,000 signatures on the ballot. And do not use Facebook for your campaign website, no matter how grass-roots you might want it to be (I'm looking at the you Libertarians right now); you have more than enough techs in your ranks who are willing to throw up a basic Wordpress site for you, go for it. And as for the Democrats / Republicans, I find I don't readily fit into any of your 'issues'; as such, try providing a little more information about your candidates under the "Issues" part of your campaign websites, specifically on things that aren't currently considered up for grabs. Reading about how two candidates, from the major parties, basically agreed (almost copy / paste) on their websites on veteran healthcare issues was incredibly less useful than their party's probably imagined. 1.) I'm not a veteran (or know anyone who is, save from perhaps WWII), and 2.) when you're agreeing with one another, it's not really an issue, is it? "Elect Bob (D) or Jim (R), who both agree that veteran's need more healthcare coverage, and want to implement the same changes." -> not really decisive, is it? "Bob and Jim both like vanilla." Meh.

      See, in either case, the Democrats or Republicans were, for many of these non-presidential races, playing some music only a select few could hear. I mean, I listened to the debate between Maxwell and Corbin from out where I live, and Maxwell used every opportunity to talk about how the topic influenced Education / Teachers. I don't think you understand -> he mentioned it at least a dozen times! I walked away from the debate thinking "Maxwell only gives a f*ck about his base, which appears to be made purely up of educators." I could have sworn that the local population was made up of people with many different kinds of vocations, yet, listening to the man, you might think it was a 40,000 acre commune filled purely with teachers. And the funny part is, Corbin was the seasoned politician, who basically said "I can't do anything, our state is bankrupt," giving Maxwell every opportunity to at least TRY to come up with a different solution. It was so bad, that at one point, Maxwell cited his opponent's recent discovery of some unpaid corporate taxes (something like that) as being a solution for paying for some of the things he wanted to bankroll; OMFG, you just complemented your opponent, admitted that your program is basically unfundable, and that your opponent is necessary to have in office to pay for your projects! It's like saying that you need Ron Paul elected president so that he can clean up the US budget, so that Jill Stein can go on a Green energy funding binge! If you need your opponent elected to the position you want, so that you can afford to do the things you want to do...#^$#*@^$#*&^@!Q!

      The point is, they had an hour to debate things. When you make it clear that you don't give a f*ck what happens so long as your schools get more funding next year, it's super hard to take you seriously. "I don't care if the world burns so long as I get a new bike" is really, really just...terrible. I mean, perhaps I should be

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  8. Quote by cheesecake23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I forgot to add this great tweet by the author of the final story linked in TFS when I submitted this to Slashdot:

    Long story short: Don't beta-test an election.

    1. Re:Quote by hamburger+lady · · Score: 5, Funny

      now, imagine these guys running FEMA.

      yikes.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    2. Re:Quote by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      One might wonder what would have happened if the Romney campaign had had an experienced business manager with an MBA from a prestigious university leading them.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Quote by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *thinks back to Hurricane Katrina*

      I can imagine that quite well, actually.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:Quote by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Heck of a job, Brownie.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who has to think back to Katrina? See that huge mess in NY/NJ? All those people STILL without power? All the looting and rioting? People dumpster diving because they have no food? FEMA closing their offices due to bad weather? Have you seen any of that??

      And despite the death toll, Chris Matthews is sure grateful for "that storm" because it gave Dear Leader the chance to have a nice photo op and "look Presidential". Yeah...this administration's doing a bang-up job.

      Remember Benghazi!

      I can't believe y'all fell for his lies again.

    6. Re:Quote by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Romney has an MBA and a JD from Harvard and has proven success in business management, having shown consistent ability to move into a business he barely knows, learn the ropes, and implement amazing, efficiency-amplifying reforms that clear out the deadwood, or salvage the remaining valuable assets for more productive enterprises, so it's clear it wasn't Romney's lack of management expertise that was the point of failure.

      *jerk off gesture*

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    7. Re:Quote by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      your tears are delicious, loser.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    8. Re:Quote by fermion · · Score: 1

      So is this a joke or for real. While most of his contemporaries are billionaires, he merely has a quarter. His success in the olympics was his contact in the government who funneled federal dollars to the event. And the most important job for a bussinesssman is knowing when to let someone else take the meeting because you would flub it. The problem is that,like Bush, Romney just wanted to play president so he could provide some kickbacks to his friends, maybe make a few contacts so he could make the billion he never did. He failed because voter suppression is not as easy as it once was, and because he pissed of the women. There are some significant voter suppression efforts currently under way, so maybe a sane republican can win next time, but that would mean the psycho wing of the tea party would have to be eliminated.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  9. Who prints a 60 page PDF? by John3 · · Score: 2

    The author of the linked story at Business Insider sounds quasi-tech and was a volunteer for the phone calls. He received an email late Monday night with a 60 page PDF of instructions and lists of names to call, and complained that he had to print it at home. Who prints PDF's when they can just view the document on their PC and make the calls, especially on a home inkjet printer?

    It sounds like not only was the development of this tool a disaster but so was implementation at the user end point. If this tech-savvy guy tried to print at home with limited success just imagine what the "regular" Romney supporters were doing (or not doing) when they got the 60 page PDF.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I imagine your average Romney supporter probably looks something like your average Romney voter. Older, white, and not as well educated, especially about technology. Basically your grandfather. Send your grandfather a 60 page PDF and what is he going to do? He's going to print it out.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by John3 · · Score: 2

      My dad is 82, and he won't print out more than a page or two because he's too cheap. :)

      But the guy writing the article talked about DDOS and redundancy for the servers so he probably is familiar with the ability to view a PDF (though for some reason he was surprised that he could not print b&w documents with just an HP magenta cartridge).

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    3. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by Darktan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who distributes a 60 page PDF when the whole rest of the operation is a web site? If they all needed internet access to use the app, why didn't the web application just give each volunteer their customized list?

      As always, the group of technomorons at the top tell you it's all digital, then give out a PDF of a scan of a fax.

    4. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      He probably knows a lot of big words and works for a very expensive and worthless contracting group. What he does not do is live and breath tech.

      If you want to flip through PDFs that is pretty much the only thing tablets are the absolute best at.

    5. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by Antipater · · Score: 2

      First off, he had to print it, because he wasn't the one making the calls. He was supposed to take the list with him to the polls, cross off people who'd voted, then hand the list off to someone else who would then call the people who hadn't voted yet.

      But assuming that wasn't the case, and he just wanted to print it out: I print pdfs, especially the big ones. I like being able to flip back and forth, I like being able to write notes in the margins, and I like having my reference materials on my desk so my monitor can be used for other things. I realize there are commands to do all these things without printing, but I find them annoying and not an improvement over physical pages. Of the things that seemed to go wrong, failure-to-print wasn't something that struck me as particularly alarming.

      On the other hand, I realize that my affinity for physical paper means that it's my responsibility to keep my printer working, and I'm not going to get mad at someone else if I can't print.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    6. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      He could not email to the people at the polls?
      Any idea what year this is grandpa?

    7. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by Jon_S · · Score: 1

      Actually, he said only his magenta cartridge was empty - his black cartridge had ink, but the HP printer refused to print because there was one empty cartridge. Note, the PDF was B/W.

    8. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by fm6 · · Score: 2

      Business Insider is pretty bogus site. I have to wonder of if they even asked for Ekdahl's permission to copy his blog. Which is here:

      http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php

    9. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The average elderly Romney voter would go to the nearest public library, ask for help from the library staff, print out the PDF for free, then vote against their local library levy.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    10. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by John3 · · Score: 1

      Doh...I need to read more carefully.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    11. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, that's something that should be printed out (unless you have a tablet with specific software), because it needed to be brought to the polls. The guy was a poll watcher, a representative from the campaign, present at a specific polling place to watch for shenanigans and collect information for the campaign. The fact that you voted is public record. So, a poll watcher gets a "strike list" from campaign HQ that basically says "watch for when these likely voters vote." You print that out and taking it to the polling place. When Bill Smith votes, you strike Bill Smith's name off your list. Every so often during the day, a runner takes your list off to the HQ and the phone bank workers start calling the people who haven't voted yet to ask them to get their butts to the polls.

      Now, an electronic strike list would be a great idea. Instead of a printed 60 page packet, have an tablet with custom software that, as soon as Bill Smith signs the register that he voted, the campaign worker clicks a check next to Bill's name on his tablet, and the database is immediately updated back at HQ.

      So, the guy was not an idiot to print his 60 page PDF. You have to. But Romney's campaign failed by waiting until the last minute to email this stuff to the ground team.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by Antipater · · Score: 1

      No, he could not "email to the people at the polls", young whippersnapper. Try reading my post, or TFA, again, and you might understand why. I say "might", because your reading comprehension hasn't seemed to be up to par thus far. Never hurts to keep practicing, though.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    13. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by edjs · · Score: 1

      The author was volunteering as a poll-watcher, so needed a physical list to bring to the polling place, where even having somewhere to sit isn't a given. It does seem an ideal situation for doing on a tablet, if one happens to have one.

    14. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by John3 · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA article carefully enough...thanks for posting this. If I had mod points I'd mod it up, but then they'd remove my post anyway. :)

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    15. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Send your grandfather a 60 page PDF and what is he going to do?

      Stick it on the Kindle.

    16. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by pepty · · Score: 1

      Who prints PDF's when they can just view the document on their PC and make the calls,

      He was supposed to bring the document with him to the polls (along with the poll checker certificate they did not tell him he needed to get) where he would be all day keeping track of who had voted and reporting in. If he didn't print it out he would need a portable device to view it at the polls. Great if you have a tablet, but probably a pain if you have a smartphone and have to keep switching between a PDF reader and the ORCA website they were supposed to use to report who voted.

    17. Re:Who prints a 60 page PDF? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Hm. I was kind of thinking the same thing when I had an epiphany of sorts...

      Copyright is so important that the tools to easily mark off a name on a list in a PDF just are not there. If the list is printed, a marker, pencil, or pen works just fine.

      Go ahead and tell me that if you do not use Adobe Reader, there are dozens of PDF tools to do it. I am not aware of any and I am fairly tech savvy. I just opened Adobe Reader and did not find any such tools...

      So yeah, OF COURSE they printed it out. It is the only way to mark off the names. Utter PDF fail.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  10. I worked on Romney's IT team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I worked on Romney's IT team.

    Out of the blue one day, we were told to build a 30-foot stage in the server room. Gathered the guys, and we built that 30-foot stage, not knowing what it was for. Just days later, all three shifts were told to assemble in the IT server room.

    A group of people walked out on that stage, and told us that the plant is now closed, and all of you are fired. I looked both ways, I looked at the crowd, and we all just lost our jobs. We donâ(TM)t have an income.

    Mitt Romney made over a hundred million dollars by shutting down our IT infrastructure, and devastated our lives.

    Turns out that when we built that stage, it was like building my own coffin. And it just made me sick.

    SO GLAD THIS ELECTION'S OVER

    1. Re:I worked on Romney's IT team by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      Man, your server room has a high ceiling.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:I worked on Romney's IT team by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Must have pissed you off when Romney lost.

      Go read that Obama quote again, because he said nothing like what you said. Leaving out words and attacking strawmen is not getting Republicans elected. You might want to make a note of that.

  11. The Other Side Has Its Failures by Revotron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Four times in four days, I had Democratic canvassers knock at my door and pester me about whether I voted yet. I told them yes, I voted absentee, so my choices have already been made, thanks for stopping by, have a great day, good luck, etc.

    Two of the four tried to unload pamphlet after pamphlet on me after I clearly said "Already voted, thanks for asking, our ballots are cast." By the fourth day, I was quite irked.

    How about we ditch the annoying door-to-door crap and stick to good old fashioned email spam? You can buy a precompiled list of my political viewpoints, financial status, and email addresses from ${SOCIAL_NETWORK} for pennies on the dollar. That way I can just filter and delete what I don't want to read instead of having to stand at my door trying to talk over some rambling campaign volunteer and push their papers right back at them.

    1. Re:The Other Side Has Its Failures by Revotron · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I said "whether I voted yet" when I meant to say "whether I was planning to vote." Please take note of this change for all future responses.

      Sincerely, The Management

    2. Re:The Other Side Has Its Failures by rk · · Score: 1

      How about we ditch the annoying door-to-door crap and stick to good old fashioned email spam?

      Um, how old are you exactly? ;-)

    3. Re:The Other Side Has Its Failures by Revotron · · Score: 1

      Old enough to employ hyperbole in my rhetoric. ;)

    4. Re:The Other Side Has Its Failures by Jon_S · · Score: 4, Informative

      Political canvassing can not be restricted under anti-solicitation rules.

      Random google search reference: http://www.virginianewmajority.org/index.php/voter-resources/canvasser-rights

    5. Re:The Other Side Has Its Failures by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So you got spammed. Spammers do not consider overkill a failure.

    6. Re:The Other Side Has Its Failures by pepty · · Score: 1

      Political canvassing can not be restricted under anti-solicitation rules.

      Random google search reference: http://www.virginianewmajority.org/index.php/voter-resources/canvasser-rights

      I spent some time doing GOTV the weekend before the election. We can be restricted by

      -you never removing any of the door hangers on your doorknob

      -Angry pit bulls. Leave front door open and only a flimsy screen door closed for best effect.

      -voting by mail ASAP.

      The last one is really the best. It should get you off the call and door to door lists for all of the (competent) campaigns.

  12. Conservatives bad at High tech? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Troll

    Conservatives and Oldsters bad with technology? Who would have ever expected that?

    1. Re:Conservatives bad at High tech? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know, I think Republicans, reknowned for their respect for nerds, are capable of producing useful, eye catching, state of the art, web sites when they try: http://unskewedpolls.com/

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Conservatives bad at High tech? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Did you see what that asshole said about Nate Silver?

      He could not refute his numbers so he attacked him personally. Basically picked on him like the high school bully he used to be.

      This is what is wrong with the GOP. At this rate we at least won't have to worry about them much longer. The old white bigot demographic is dying out.

    3. Re:Conservatives bad at High tech? by systemidx · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think Republicans, reknowned for their respect for nerds, are capable of producing useful, eye catching, state of the art, web sites when they try: http://unskewedpolls.com/

      Haha. A favorite site listed at the bottom of that website is a link to Rush Limbaugh's site. I guess the thinking is if they make a site look as shitty as drudge report, that it must be that much more credible.

    4. Re:Conservatives bad at High tech? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I did, he did however retract the comments and apologized for them. It sounds like he just got caught up in election hysteria: http://www.examiner.com/article/regarding-my-comments-about-nate-silver-s-appearance?cid=db_articles

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Conservatives bad at High tech? by utkonos · · Score: 1

      Here. There's a phone call for you. 1996 wants their html back.

    6. Re:Conservatives bad at High tech? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      He basically called Silver a nerd faggot. That's not getting caught up in election hysteria, that's bigotry.

  13. Excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Republicans are quick to offer a plethora of options in response to any problem as long as none of them address the problem. They'll run with the flavor of the week as the absolute truth until too many people learn why it's bs and they change the narrative before too many people get wise and a herd immunity develops.
    They'll have a potential answer and say it's the absolute eternal truth and it will turn out to be total crap and 4-8 weeks later there will be a completely different absolute and eternal truth to answer the same problem (for a while). See tort reform. See all of their nominees taking the leader position and being fully supported (for a while) in the dumbest game of 'hot potato'. The only way they can ever stick with an answer is when they can't think of one to replace it.

    After we find out this is bs, you'll see 20 more excuses for why Mitt Romney didn't win and none of them will be simply because more Americans didn't want him.
    BTW, update your spam filters with "Romney" until at least the next campaign season.

  14. It wasn't even close by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The margins are alot higher than the Republicans want to admit...this was a first class ass whooping.

    1. Re:It wasn't even close by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2


      The margins are alot higher than the Republicans want to admit...this was a first class ass whooping.

      You do realize that the combined margins of all the swing states is about 450K votes, right? That's not a huge percentage.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:It wasn't even close by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And that's what percentage?
      And Swing states were nearly as relevant as people had thought.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:It wasn't even close by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And that's what percentage?

      4/10ths of 1%.

      And Swing states were nearly as relevant as people had thought.

      Not sure what this means ... but Romney had to win them all to just tie up the EC (and hope to win in the territories) but nobody who knows how to do math expected that he would.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:It wasn't even close by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I voted for the O guy, and I'm positively relieved that he won. But I don't share you smug assessment. If the popular vote separation is more than 3 or 4 points, I'll eat my hat. If you get outside the liberal echo chamber, you'll see a strong conservative side to the electorate. It's just very poorly led.

    5. Re:It wasn't even close by utkonos · · Score: 1

      It's not that it's poorly led. The message itself scares the crap out of anyone who is young or female or not white.

    6. Re:It wasn't even close by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Simply not true. All three groups do tend to support Obama, but not exclusively. I think something like 40% of women voted for Romney. Many of the pissed-off Romney volunteers quoted in TFAs are apparently quite young, and I've seen many others. Non-whites are more solidly pro-Obama (having so many conspicuous racists on one side and a black candidate on the other will do that) but even there you see some solid pro Romney people.

      I live in Portland, OR, where we liberals in the city are thoroughly detested by the right wingers in the surrounding counties. (Oregon is mostly rural — classic Romney territory.) My neighbors celebrated Obama's victory by running whooping through the streets, but the local news discussions forums were full of local TPers proclaiming the Downfall of America.

      The scary people are not Romney and his cadre. They're just capitalizing on a really scary trend in a big segment of American society.

    7. Re:It wasn't even close by utkonos · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you live in a generally enlightened place where Obama's winning was treated with the same type of celebration that a soccer team winning would be. Unfortunately, here in the south Republicans showed their true face and their true feelings in places like Ole Miss and elsewhere when the election results were out. Racism and bigotry have finally destroyed the Republican party.

    8. Re:It wasn't even close by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Ironically, George Romney's support for civil rights had a lot to do with him never getting his party's nomination. He actually walked out of the 1964 GOP convention (accompanied by his son Mitt) over the issue.

      I'd feel better about living in a liberal city if it weren't surrounded by hard-right types. I moved here partly so I could live in a city that was designed for people, not cars, and yet Portland's much vaunted people-oriented infrastructure is the source of much condemnation by our neighbors, who consider it yet another "socialist" boondoggle.

      And the racist element is there too. We have most of the African-Americans in the region, and one argument against expanding mass transit is that it makes surrounding communities more accessible to "criminal elements" — a pretty obvious code word. I'm sometimes amused at the claim that burglars are schelping their swag home on the light rail, until I remember what a bigoted mindset this weirdness demonstrates.

  15. Voter Suppression! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This must be the voter suppression Karl Rove was talking about...

  16. Re:LOL urbanites by sitarlo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm always amazed at how *intolerant* leftists can be. I live in a rural "redneck" community and we have very little crime, pollution, racism and unemployment here. Our schools are ranked some of the highest in the nation and just about everyone I know graduated college. Maybe we're not as dumb as the stereotype you submit to says we are.

  17. Cybergate by wcrowe · · Score: 2

    Hmmm. That gives me an idea. Perhaps the next "Watergate" will involve cyber warfare.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  18. Are there truly any IT failures? by sackofdonuts · · Score: 2

    Maybe the people chosen to implement the IT for Project Orca really didn't want Romney to be president? It takes a village.

  19. Re:LOL rednecks by dosius · · Score: 1

    Used to live in a trailer park. Had Road Runner.

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  20. Rich businessman != good manager by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've had painful experience of this on more than one job. Something to consider the next time someone runs with the pitch "I have a lot of money, so I know how to run the country". Some people are rich through connections, looting, or luck.

    1. Re:Rich businessman != good manager by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      And sometimes they get rich through connections and looting and luck like Romney.

    2. Re:Rich businessman != good manager by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Try changing 'some' to 'most'. Truly self-made multi-millionaires are rarer than hens' teeth.

      Every time the press wants to tout a self-made man, I've looked into his background, and without fail I found at least a high-middle class background; it's a lot easier to take a risk if failure doesn't mean complete destitution.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:Rich businessman != good manager by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Luck is definitely a factor. The true self-made millionaires do earn their money, but for every one of them there were 50 others who were just as smart and hard-working and creative, but who lost it all. We just hear about the ones who made it.

      Can you be dumb and be a self-made millionaire? Of course not!
      Is being as smart/creative/entrepreneurial as Zuckerberg or Gates or Brin likely to make you a millionaire? No.

      If you want to be a self-made millionaire, you have to start out by being really smart/good, and then be really lucky as well. Sure, you don't have to be as lucky as if your strategy is to just buy lottery tickets, but your odds are still poor. And your strategy is certainly going to involve being bankrolled by other people's money.

  21. Taking self destructive behavior to a new art. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    The conservative Republicans - they've done it. Dozens of knee-slapping gaffes. Ideas that *laugh* in the face of tedious concepts like reality. Well done, fellows. Well done.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  22. Incompatible narratives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand, we have this story claiming that a failed get-out-the-vote effort was a significant factor in Romney's defeat. On the other, we have yesterday's story about how Nate Silver's statistical analysis of pre-election polls accurately predicted the outcome in all fifty states. If the first is true, then Silver's predictions were only accidentally correct, beating astronomical odds; or else Nate has somehow factored Republican IT failures into his statistical models. Neither seems plausible, so I don't believe the Orca troubles were actually very important.

  23. That's not how it worked... by sirwired · · Score: 1

    The 60-page printout was not a list of "people to call"; it was a voter list to be used for check-offs at a polling place (not a home) if the app didn't work. The campaign is supposed to use the check-off information to generate call lists that get issued to local campaign offices, but the poll worker doesn't deal with any of that.

  24. Re:LOL urbanites by Cwix · · Score: 1

    Turn on Honey Boo Boo.

    BLAM! You lost that argument.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  25. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah so this is the latest fairy dust justification they've found as to why Republicans lost. Blame it on IT.

    Just more fucking nonsense.

    Modern conservatives really, REALLY can't handle having their entire worldview be shattered by reality, especially the reality that Obama was not an Evil Commie Kenyan and was not ruining "their" country like they pretended. Cognitive dissonance fueled by self delusion, but the tank is on empty now. Liars and charlatans are trying to cover their deception by blaming anything and everything to see what sticks, what allows the 'smart' guys in the party stick around with minimal guilt of hypocrisy.

    Cheers.

    1. Re:Nonsense by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I share your dismay at the reality-phobic right. The fact remains that their guy came very close to winning this thing. The sad truth is that a lot voters like their flavor of koolaid, and a better-run campaign could have taken some of those swing states.

  26. Re:LOL rednecks by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Do they even have "the Internets" in trailer parks, yet? I would think it wouldnn't ve economical to lay down the tubes there.

    You might be surprised to learn that your average trailer park superintendent may have more experience running a WiFi mesh network than you do.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  27. Democrat smugness by judoguy · · Score: 1
    All the comments here about how all Republican supporters are old, out of touch dumbasses are a little too smug.

    1. Many, many eligible voters didn't vote at all. For anyone.

    2. Romney still got only a few percentage points less than Obama in the popular vote.

    3. Many, many voters are as dumb as mud no matter who they voted for.

    3. Ron Paul would have had the enthusiastic support of many of the type of young tech savvy folks that Obama has working for him but the “real” Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, are terrified of him. The Republican power mongers are just that, more interested in power than their supposed ideology.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    1. Re:Democrat smugness by GoogleShill · · Score: 2

      I think Ron Paul's social policies would completely drive away the young, tech-savvy crowd. He's part of the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, pro-life, global-warming-is-good, Christian, right-wing propaganda machine known as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

    2. Re:Democrat smugness by blade8086 · · Score: 1

      Oooh a protectionist racket and trade union for the rich!

  28. Anything but the policies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First self recriminations have all had to do with "we didn't spin things the right way"; the second round was "if we had just gotten the pro-rape candidates to shut their mouths", and now it's the failure of technology. Anything but the actual substantive policies they've been writing, legislating, and endorsing. Early on they had this plan to only talk about the economy, but in reality, in their governance there was @#$@ all to do about the economy so they tried to legislate sex, women's reproductive systems and choices, etc. Because those are the things that actually turn them on. The republicans are torn between their beliefs and the the things the country will tolerate in governance.

    Obama has been no prince. Weak leadership; neoliberal reflexes, complete kiss-up to the military industrial system (drone killings in yemen go largely unreported just hours after his victory), nevertheless, the republicans provided a policy vision that was completely repugnant outside of the rural white south and white ranch west, and places sympathetic to them.

    The fact is, technological glitches or not, pretty much everyone who wanted to got to the polls and voted; there was little more GOTV either side could do, and given that the only thing that makes a difference is policy, policy, policy, not servers. Republicans you need to rethink your principles not your spin and not your software.

  29. The technology that burned the GOP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is Robo-calling. In the 3 week before election I was getting more than a dozen republican robo-calls per day (I'm in Virginia, a so-called battle ground state with a tight race). Nothing says "You aren't worth my time, peasant" like a robo-call. By contrast I didn't get a single robo-call from democrats.

  30. its a party by nimbius · · Score: 1

    that is basically willing to blame anything and anyone for their failure to secure a presidential victory. it is to politics as a petulant spoiled child is to a classroom.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  31. Re:Romney Bashers by GoogleShill · · Score: 1

    If you don't see it, then either you're blind, or you choose to get your information from unreliable sources. FACT: The deficit and unemployment rate have gone down steadily since Obama took office, except for minor bumps.

    So yes, there is good reason to bash Romney... He wanted to reinstate the same Bush policies which put our country into this mess to begin with.

  32. Organizational ability by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    My thought: the Republicans say that they, with their business backgrounds, are so much better at running organizations that they ought to be given control of the country so they can run it right. Well, if this is an example of how organizations work when the GOP are running them, do we really want the entire country run this way?

    1. Re:Organizational ability by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, imagine the disaster if the Republicans were in charge of the Benghazi embassy's security...

    2. Re:Organizational ability by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Actually they were; they voted against increased security budgets.

      But then again, since you sound like a parrot left next to a radio tuned to Rush, I don't think you will go look into the facts.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  33. orca == fail whale? by sjames · · Score: 2

    n/t

  34. Romney voters and stages of grief by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    The first few days were shock because they were so immersed in their Potemkin world view they had no clue they were going to lose. The, it turned into anger at all the "idiots" who voted for Obama. Now, they've started an orchestrated denial campaign coming up with all sorts of REAL reasons they lost. I'm sure this stage will rapidly devolve into conspiracy theories.

    I'm on a sports forum filled with Republicans and they've been going through all these stages. I haven't gloated, but I point out all their flawed arguments (on gas prices and the so-called Obama Dow dip on Wednesday) and I've probably been ignore listed by 10 people in about 2-3 days.

    He lost, get over it.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  35. Serious denial by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Republicans are blaming everyone else but themselves. They've gone as far as to blame blacks for voting for the party that doesn't have candidates that publish books claiming that slavery was a "blessing in disguise."

    Romney lost because:

    1. He's slimy. He was an Etch-A-Sketch candidate.
    2. Rather than court the independents that could have won the election for him, he courted the fringe. He picked that lunatic Ryan for VP.
    3. He thought he was using the neocons. Wrong. The neocons used him. They were going to glom on to anyone who won the primaries and anyone paying attention saw this.
    4. Because of #1, nobody could trust him, not even his fellow Republicans and certainly not Roger Ailes. Remember how Fox tried to hilight everyone except him before the primaries were done and then had to reluctantly back him after?
    5. Not even the Mormons trusted him.
    6. He even lost his hometown of Belmont MA, which is full of rich WASPs just like him.

    People who know him didn't trust him. It showed.

    Combine that with the utter vile rhetoric coming from GOP the last 4 years, is it any surprise that everyone with two brain cells to rub together disliked him far more than they did Obama?

    Out of all the candidates that were backed by Roger Ailes' SuperPac, none won. Just look at the clown show that the primaries were, and the GOP picked a clown as a result.

    Introspection is required. Until then, it's going to be a long cold winter of discontent for the GOP.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Serious denial by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Democrats promise handouts. The country has more takers than makers: Game Over. Maybe Republicans should be blamed for failing to recognize that the USA is done, but it's a bitter fate to accept. Of course, maybe the plan was to lose. Whenever there was a risk of Romney pulling ahead some minor Republican character would conveniently pop up and push the rape button. That Romney, such a prankster, pretending to run for office!

    2. Re:Serious denial by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The country has more takers than makers

      Wrong. Yes, the participation rate is the lowest it has been since WWII, but it is still the majority of adults in the country. 63% still participate. Until that number drops below 50%, you're wrong.

    3. Re:Serious denial by Swampash · · Score: 1

      The Republican Party lost Massachusetts (where Romney lives), Michigan (Romney's home state and where his daddy was Governor), and Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's home state).

      The people who know the Republican candidates best don't want them elected.

    4. Re:Serious denial by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Democrats promise handouts. The country has more takers than makers: Game Over. Maybe Republicans should be blamed for failing to recognize that the USA is done, but it's a bitter fate to accept.

      It's exactly shit like this that is eating the Republican party alive, from the inside out. "Over half of my fellow Americans are greedy lazy assholes (and not True Americans). I hate the public so much. If only they'd elect me, I'd make them pay!"

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  36. Corporate vs. Open Source communities by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    This is pure speculation, but I can see the Linux open source crowd fitting the Democrat infrastructure, and the Windows corporate crowd on the Republican side. If you want your tech problems solved sooner and under budget, get the old-timer with a beard in jeans, and you too could be President.

    1. Re:Corporate vs. Open Source communities by Plombo · · Score: 1

      It's much more likely that IT for both sides was handled by the "Windows corporate crowd".

    2. Re:Corporate vs. Open Source communities by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      Long-time Gentoo user here, hardcore fiscal conservative / social moderate / small government guy. The Republicans need folks like me and John Ekdahl, but they don't want us. I love this last part from John's blog in TFA:

      The bitter irony of this entire endeavor was that a supposedly small government candidate gutted the local structure of GOTV efforts in favor of a centralized, faceless organization in a far off place (in this case, their Boston headquarters). Wrap your head around that.

      Exactly why I left the Republican party and became an independent 20 years ago. They say they want less government, but what they really want is more centralized control their way. I have to hand it to the Democrats, at least they understand and value the importance of local politics and grass-root efforts during an election; waiting until after the election to throw their volunteers under the Big Government bus. The Republicans just mow them down from the start.

  37. Romney wanted to dissolve FEMA by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 3, Informative
    re: now, imagine these guys running FEMA.
    .

    Don't have to. Romney promised that he was going to get rid of FEMA once he got elected. That phrase certainly haunted him this last week prior to election day as Sandy's aftermath led almost all reporters to keep asking Romney about his FEMA comments. (!)

    :>)

    1. Re:Romney wanted to dissolve FEMA by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      apparently you're watching some real doom porn coverage or something. out here in NYC things aren't half as bad as your whinging makes it sound.

      it's hard to find gas, but that's about it. but yeah, totes worse than katrina. today the bus was 5 minutes late!

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  38. A list of things to blame. by bmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    From elsewhere:

    mrshowrules [TotalFark] 2012-10-30 12:44:56 PM

    List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America
    (LOPCATGOPATA for short):

    Liberals, Democrats, Socialists, Community Organizers, Geologists, Biologists, Meteorologists, Climatologists, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Satan, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, PBS, All of cable news except FNC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, Black People, Mexicans, Human Rights Activists, SCOTUS, Europe, Movie Industry, Television Industry, Environmentalists, ACLU, The United Nations, Labor Unions, Colleges, Teachers (including kindergarten teachers), Professors, ACORN, National Endowment for the Arts, Gays, Judges, NPR, Paleontologists, Astrophysicists, Museums (*except Creationism Museum), WHO, WTO, Inflated tires, The Honolulu Advertiser, The Star Bulletin, Teletubbies, Sponge Bob and Patrick, Nobel Prize Committee, US Census Bureau, NOAA, Sesame Street, Comic Books, Little Green Footballs, Video Games, The Bible, CBO, Bruce Springsteen, Pennies, The Theory of Relativity, Comedy Central, Young People, whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is, Small Business Owners, Math, CPAC, Navy SEALs, The Economist, The Muppets, Iowa Republicans, Low-Flow Toilets, Breast Cancer Screenings, Chrysler, Clint Eastwood., Robert Deniro, Tom Hanks, Glenn Frey, Norman Rockwell, James Cameron, Dr. Seus, Nuns, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, Jonathan Krohn at age 17, Fact Checkers, Australia, Mitt Romney, Rasmussen, Fox News, Lockheed Martin, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Paul Ryan, Debate moderators, Ben Stein, Soup kitchens, Chris Christie

    And now we can add "The IT Department" to the list.

    --
    BMO

  39. Not their fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In all honesty it wasn't there fault.

    The truth of the matter is that it was God's will.

  40. Re:LOL rednecks by couchslug · · Score: 1

    They do, but the rednecks use them to reinforce their Foxtardliness.

    Yes, White Trash vote GOP. I live among them and your post is no Troll.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  41. Republican tech-based voter monitoring? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    If the Democrats did this then they would be accused of violating your privacy .. link

    --
    AccountKiller
  42. Good job! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No seriously, it's really remarkable that counting hasn't even finished, yet the loser already knows who exactly is to blame for losing. Hint: not him, not other higher-ups in the party, not his party's politics. It's some tech's fault, obviously!

  43. Romney is mentally ill or has a false god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a long list of Republicans who claim their god would give them office.

    Either they're all mentally ill or their god isn't real.

    Maybe both.

    1. Re:Romney is mentally ill or has a false god by blade8086 · · Score: 1

      well - he is a Mormon:

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

      Mormonism: Scientology of the 1800's

      queue the all religions are crap responses next..

  44. The Internet ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... is just a series of tubes. And the GOP didn't want to deal with the pipe-fitters union.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  45. You mean other people should help people in need by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    As reality always shows, these idiots only care for themselves. choosing to blame the victims in order to pretend that they have any sense of integrity.

  46. IT? Hello? Anyone know anything about IT? by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

    In my first campaign, we selected voter households for GOTV by hand-sorting punch-cards and then having the computer guy make a tape and run out labels and precinct lists with shared (actually bootleg) time on a bank mainframe and a line printer.

    So, all due respect, I know more about campaigns and elections after 38 of them than most slashdot posters. I also know that some of you hate the GOP and some of you return the sentiment with interest.

    But I know next to nothing about network computing except as a consumer. Any chance of redirecting this conversation from what I know about to what you know about?

    What was the deal with Romney's data processing? Were those management problems created by marketing/management guys like me, or were they technical fuckups by the IT guys? And what lessons can future campaign managers learn?
    .

    1. Re:IT? Hello? Anyone know anything about IT? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not privy to the internal details, so I can only guess. That said, this looks like an upper management problem. I say that because the failures in multiple un-connected areas were all of the same nature. It wasn't just a server that fell down with no backup, it was a failure to correctly generate and distribute PINs and failure to have a working recovery procedure in place. It was a failure to distribute correct checklists to poll workers. A failure to convey useful information to volunteers so they could even find the server or make use of it.

      At the same time, there appear to have been genuine technical failures as well as management induced technical failures. Management refusing to budget time or money could explain the lack of a failover server, but cannot explain the lack of a redirect from http to https.

    2. Re:IT? Hello? Anyone know anything about IT? by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That's sounds about right. It does seem odd, however, that with almost unlimited campaign funds Romney could not have automated the "perfect list" strategy that Lincoln described in 1840:

      Make a perfect list of the voters and ascertain with certainty for
      whom they will vote... Keep a constant watch on the doubtful voters and have
      them talked to by those in whom they have the most confidence... On Election
      Day see that every Whig is brought to the polls.

    3. Re:IT? Hello? Anyone know anything about IT? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      It boils down (as it so often does) to management failure. Management failed to check up on how the system development was going. Management failed to schedule checks and test runs before the system went live (and probably failed to allocate enough people and budget to do the testing properly and resolve any problems even if they had scheduled time for testing). Management failed to look at what would actually be needed when laying down the requirements. And finally, management failed to make sure there was a backup plan in place for if things went south at release.

      For instance, the failure to get information packets with required stuff in them into the hands of the volunteers. IT may be involved in creating the packets, but scheduling things so that those packets are created and distributed before the last minute is a management job. There's a few things that won't be final until the last minute, like voter lists, but things like poll-watcher certificates can be ready days or weeks ahead of time. Even the voter lists can be mostly prepared days ahead of time, with only final updates the night before. If you print and distribute the lists a couple days ahead, you also give yourself backup: if the final updates blow up or don't go out, your people still have lists that're probably 95% accurate which is better than having no lists at all. So why didn't the management running the Romney campaign have all those information packets printed up and distributed starting 3-4 days before Election Day? That would've given time for anyone who didn't get their packet to call in or go in and pick up a replacement. And why did management put something outside their control, the home printers of the volunteers, on the critical path for their plan? That's always asking for a disaster right there.

      If this is how Romney and his friends run their businesses, it's no wonder those businesses are having problems. I've seen Cub Scout candy sales that're better organized and managed than this.

    4. Re:IT? Hello? Anyone know anything about IT? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It certainly reflects on Romney's qualifications to run the most important executive office in the U.S. Ultimately, he was the top executive in his campaign.

  47. No news here... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... IT gets blamed for everything.

  48. Re:community organizer == ? by blade8086 · · Score: 1

    or - to make any assumptions about anyone without reviewing their skillset is vastly off the mark?

    I would not vote for YOU sir

  49. Yup keep shifting the blame. by utkonos · · Score: 1

    Off the fact that the Republican platform was bigoted, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-latino, anti-african american, anti-environmental, anti-science, mixed with a large does of religious crazy.

    I've got news for you. Your IT department wasn't why you lost the young vote. Your get out the vote failing wasn't what scared away the Latino vote. And believe me, canvasing poorly wasn't what kept African Americans from voting for you.

    The angry white man thing won't work anymore because us "those people" now outnumber you, permanently (thank goodness!).

  50. Bain tactics by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
    re: "Other times they would saddle a company with debt, charge it exorbitant "consulting fees", and let it go into bankruptcy once there was nothing left to loot..."

    How is this different from if a person got a credit card and ran up bills and then refused to pay and went into bankruptcy? I think most people would call someone who did that "immoral'' and ''a crook" if they charged things which they had no intention of paying off... It's almost like corporate identity theft done with the intention of looting the good-na,me and credit of the company you buy out. Yet, if you do that with a company that's called a good business tactic to maximize profit; if you do it as an individual it's called immoral and "stealing from the credit card company".

    1. Re:Bain tactics by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. I read an interesting article somewhere on "strategic default," or perhaps it was on Frontline. A strategic default is when you have the means to pay off a loan, but choose not to. In terms of the mortgage crisis it means that you just stop paying your mortgage, drag out the foreclosure process as much as you can, and then let the bank take the loss when they seize your under-water home. I don't know the details but it might involve having to do something to avoid having assets that can be seized, particularly if you think you have to go through bankruptcy.

      Strategic default certainly has consequences - you aren't getting another mortgage for 7 years for sure, and you're going to lose the home (unless you can convince the bank to rent it back to you, which chances are they're aren't going to be too happy about or even interested in).

      However, if you have a $400k mortgage on a $250k loan, then walking away means avoiding paying $150k in principal plus all the interest. If you drag it out you might get to live a year or two rent-free, which on a loan that size might be $100k in payments. Oh, that interest will get tacked on to the princpal, but you weren't getting a dime from the sale of the house anyway. Then you just rent for the next 7 years, and while renting tends to be more expensive than buying it isn't $250k more expensive, which is how much you're saving.

      Now, most normal people would argue that this is immoral, but the whole point of the article was that this was the sort of decision businesses make all the time. Their reputations are worth something, and paying the loan costs something, and not paying it costs something. You just throw all those numbers into a spreadsheet, and if the number is green you make the next payment, and if not, you get your manager to approve it and then you stop. Companies will destroy a century's worth of hard-earned reputation if some NPV calculation tells them to do it, because that is what they teach you in business school. Ethics have nothing to do with any of this - the company signed a contract because they figured it would make them money, and if something goes wrong they just do whatever loses them the least money. The bank that loaned them the money did the same calculation - it isn't like they make loans because they love new families and want to see them succeed - they ran the numbers and they figured they'd make more money loaning them money than not, otherwise the nice new couple could live in their parent's basement.

  51. "Superiority" by westlake · · Score: 1

    bullshit, most Nazi technology e.g. aircraft was superior.

    Arthur C. Clarke wrote a famous short story about how a galactic empire was broken by its wartime quest for the ultimate weapon.

    In WWII the US had its super weapon in the atomic bomb.

    But its primary focus was on the mass production of ships, planes, weapons, radios and so on in numbers that would have an immediate impact on the war effort.

  52. I am an old while male fundie by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    And they antagonize me. Mind you, I am fundamentalist humanist. And a socialist.

    Quit generalizing, not all old farts are the same, we just smell the same.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  53. Re:LOL urbanites by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    I'm always amazed at how *intolerant* leftists can be. I live in a rural "redneck" community and we have very little crime, pollution, racism and unemployment here. Our schools are ranked some of the highest in the nation and just about everyone I know graduated college. Maybe we're not as dumb as the stereotype you submit to says we are.

    lmao...we're supposed to take all that at face value with no links to statistics for where you live, let alone the actual location. I call shenanigans. Where is this place, Republican Fantasyland?

  54. The real reason they lost... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    ...is their obnoxious robot phone calls. During the lead up to the election I was getting an average of three a day with peaks of ten a day. I kept a list of the candidates who did this and voted AGAINST them. They wasted my time and got punished for it. Every candidate who did this to me LOST. I bet they pissed off a lot of other people.

  55. I'd say by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you hire someone based in ideology. The GOP has a history of hiring half wit acolytes, who get where they are by falling upwards. The ORCA debacle is no exception.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  56. Once again by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    The GOP still cannot fathom that they ran a campaign based on lies and smears, with no substance whatsoever, and Mitt was a liar and a thief. The GOP got slammed because they lie and steal, and have 35 year long track record of it. EOS

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  57. good riddance by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    This guy says nothing of substance, and has no reasoning ability or logic, nor facts to back up his assertions, with out resorting to name calling as a defense. So he does as all Goopers do when they are cornered- throws a hissy fit and leaves. Proof once again he can't back up what he says.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  58. Appropriate IT staffing... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ...for the party that's the choice of morons.

  59. They've just been worshiping a fantasy is all by jthill · · Score: 1

    That disconnect isn't just "our" perception of how the right wing thinks. This statement (attributed to Karl Rove, I think universally) was not delivered in a casual context, not responding to a shouted question, it was a sit-down lengthy interview with a New York Times reporter.

    The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.

    The contempt and (by us liberals' standards) insanity he displays is open, intentional and utter. Regardless, his meltdown on election night and the right wing's complete bafflement at their failure fit that picture exactly. That's Rove was revealing how right-wingers think the world works. That's Romney thinking he can lie with every word out of his mouth. That's their pollsters looking at hard data thinking they can change the results by denying them. That's their voters, who really do think believing what they're told and repeating it loud enough is magic that makes it true.

    There's a large part of the GOP who think they're not completely sucked in to this mindset, who think they're just being practical by cultivating that vote, who imagine themselves, without the least sense of irony, creators.

    That's not my word for what they think, it's theirs.

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  60. Re:Churches are people, my friend. by swillden · · Score: 1

    And those people are very often filled with hate and an authoritarian streak a mile wide.

    Authoritarian streak, I'll grant. Hate? No. Well, there are some, I suppose, like Westboro Baptist, but the vast majority, and the LDS church in particular, are about love. Homosexuals who don't really understand the LDS position on homosexuality will disagree, but they're wrong.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  61. Oh well by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    I was hoping for an intelligent discussion about the I.T. technologies used by the two campaigns, and instead I find the same old waste of time war of words going on where liberals insult conservatives in the most hateful of ways, calling them names, and conservatives shout back with alleged facts and no references. Is it not possible for anyone to move beyond this? Seems to me the "great uniter" we elected in 2008 has divided all of us against ourselves in an irreconcilable way. It didn't take much to do this.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist