Slashdot Mirror
US Midterm Elections Discussion
November 4th will be election day in the U.S. Though the presidential race is still forming, this midterm election has lots of close races that may give a hint about the likely outcome in 2016. Many pundits and pollsters see a strong chance that Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate in Tuesday's election. Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election: candidates, political advertising, voting technology, and the wisdom of voter ID laws. If you are voting, this chart of poll closing times might be useful. (And, as with the similar post from 10 years ago today, you can take a look at the current poll to see what the Zeitgeist looks like for Slashdot readers, and mentally fill in the past tense, if you're one of the many early voters; not much room in the poll question field.)
Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election:...
Yeah...you mean a giant flame fest.
Sometimes I think the Slashdot editors treat Slashdot like a Fire Ant hill...poke it and watch them all scurry around furiously. I bet the popcorn is popped and the drinks are being poured at Slashdot headquarters right now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections?
. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
drinking the click-bait Kool-Aid. Vote, or do not, there is no try.
I hope the Republicans will skip shutting down the government this year. I was out of work for eights months after they shut down the government last year for nothing. I'm still trying to recover from the Great Recession after being out of work three of the last six years and filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. These hissy-fits in Washington don't help anyone.
It's open before you go to work, and/or after you get off. What's the problem?
What freedoms did you lose?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old.
Nothing will change until the system itself is changed. Not just the people in it.
Foolishly optimistic.
Sorry, Comrade. This is Amerika. We're not on Moscow time.
You mean freedom to have your taxes distributed to the military? And by taxes I mean the money the non-rich folks are extorted, because the rich have all the tax-loopholes to their advantage.
Either R or D, you Americans are screwed. If only you moved your fat-asses and demanded to have your votes directly counted, instead of this scam that district voting is...
Doesn't matter to me. The democrats weren't doing anything with it. Let's watch them cry about it if they lose it. Anybody who votes for either is part of the problem. The opportunity to Clean The House is yours to lose. If you don't take the chance, go call somebody who gives a damn.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Freedom of the press has taken a huge hit under the Obama admin.
Although one could argue that the wheels were set in motion during Bush's watch, it was under Obama's Napolitano that we lost the freedom to not be groped or oggled at the airport.
sig: sauer
After the 2008 elections we were told the Republican Party was defunct; Democrats had an overwhelming and apparently permanent majority in both houses of Congress and a lock on the White House. Nancy Pelosi was rewriting the House rules to consolidate her control over her own party while Harry Reid had a super-majority in the Senate that prevented the Republican minority from blocking his agenda.
How quickly things changed. A Republican elected to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts? Unthinkable! Pelosi being voted out of the Speaker's job two years later. Republicans gaining enough seats in state legislatures that the Democrats complained about them redrawing congressional districts (*cough* pot meet kettle *cough*). And it looks like the front runner for the Democrats' Presidential candidate in 2012 will be 70 year old Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
suffering from pronoia
Because we are about to regain some freedom by telling the Democrat party to STFU and sit down?!
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent. Instead of trying to help the people, both parties are more worried about the agenda's the superpac's are paying them for.
Be seeing you...
Nate Silver is still calling it for the Republcans, though it's getting tighter. Here's hoping he's right and the polls are skewed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
suffering from pronoia
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats! Because everybody knows, if you don't vote for one or the other, the cops will come and shoot your dog. Do you want that blood on your hands?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I dont live in the USA but if I did, I would be voting and my #1 question would be "Which candidate is going to do what is necessary to fix the economy and create jobs". That said, everything I have seen indicates that US politicians dont care about fixing the economy or creating jobs, just about lining the pockets of Wall Street with money pulled from the pockets of the little guy.
Both parties are very incompetent.
How in the world can you say that??? Together they get over 98% of the vote. Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
How again is this News For Nerds?
Because Obama is thinking about granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US. So if legal H1-Bs overstay their visas, and become illegal immigrants . . . poof . . . they will become legal residents. For H1-B employers, mission accomplished. More people willing to work for less. And the employers will not need to go through the paperwork hassle for getting H1-Bs.
That's why.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
US military R&D spending has brought you the technology that is the Internet. It has also introduced the world to numerous capabilities that companies have productized into things you use every day. The smartphone persists as a perfect example: DRAM, touch screens, GPS, microprocessors, and liquid crystal displays name only several of many. Beyond R&D, some really sick and twisted evil exists in the world, and I sleep better at night knowing a kickass US military can confront it. Those things may not mean anything to you, but they mean a lot to many of us. This election will not decide who serves as president, so the Electoral College versus popular vote issue does not surface here. Each district and roughly 2/3 of the states will each send a representative to Congress.
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent. Instead of trying to help the people, both parties are more worried about the agenda's the superpac's are paying them for.
I'm with you on this. And it is undeniable that a lot of the really bad stuff started under Bush. But it has gotten far worse -- and there has been a lot more of it -- under the Democrats.
Time to get some people with real principles back in office. Vote both the Republicans AND the Democrats out. Get some independent thinkers in.
Read George Washington's second Farewell Address. The part about the damage that party politics does to government By The People.
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Actually the Patriot Act was extended by Obama in 2011, extended just long enough to cover his 2nd term. Obama owns the Patriot Act. More importantly, Obama **uses** the Patriot Act. He could have ordered the Justice Department, the FBI and all the other agencies under executive branch control to stop using it, but he **chose not too**.
Yeah, thos morans!
Seriously, can you actually elaborate in anything more intelligible than regurgitated Alex Jones or Glenn Beck talking points? Perhaps something with anything verifiable behind it?
fencepost
just a little off
How in the world can you say that??? Together they get over 98% of the vote. Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
Maybe YOU can explain to us all what connection you imagine there is between getting votes and competence.
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
Detroit sunk itself - the logical endpoint of Democratic policies as the city finally ran out of other people's money to spend.
yeah, right, and here comes our rescuer:
Rand Paul courts the black vote
http://thehill.com/homenews/se...
suffering from pronoia
You can thank the 17th amendment for that.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
States ditch electronic voting machines yay!
Yes, I read that.
Do you wish to have employer provided time for this? Think about that for a second or two.
Because Nerds need funding to do the thing that they do. Funding depends on the economy providing dollars for corporations to spend. It also depends on the Government either directly providing dollars for science and R&D or indirectly creating policy that helps the economy generate dollars. If your a nerd, you should be concerned about what the Government is doing -- it has a direct impact on your ability to do nerdy things.
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Saying you are unhappy with Obama (or the democratic party) is in no way an endorsement of Bush (or the Republican party).
For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party. We've haven't had a competent president in over a decade, it's about time we get one (there are a few competent congresspeople).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I forgot to mention why this doesn't even pass the sniff test - Using what authority?
(gratuitous insult removed) even if Obama wanted to "grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US," he has no legal authority to do so. The administration does have the ability to change where enforcement is happening, which is why there's so much dispute over Obama's policies on deportations - the numbers are up, but the enforcement has in many cases shifted to border enforcement, recent immigrants and those convicted of (charged with?) crimes more than long-term residents.
fencepost
just a little off
The Republicans won the house after losing popular vote.
That is actually just trivia since neither side is trying to achieve the popular vote. Both sides are allocating their time, money, personnel and other resources to achieve the electoral/districts(*) vote. For the popular vote to be a meaningful statistics it would need to be what one side was actually going for. As it is the popular vote is merely highly correlated with the electoral/districts vote so it occasionally goes the other way, just trivia when it happens.
Losing sides like to bring up irrelevant statistics to console the fans. In politics its sometimes the popular vote. In football it may be how many yards did the team move the ball while they had possession. That's interesting and all, but yardage was not what the team trying for. Just like the popular vote was not what the political party was trying for.
(*) Note that we are talking about the nationwide results, the results in all districts, not the results in one particular district. Gerrymandering is a problem, it is a local phenomena, and both parties actively engage in it. Gerrymandering is done at the state level, so whatever party controls the state legislature gets to gerrymander to give their party an advantage in federal elections. Thus there is a certain amount of canceling out in the US congress. In no way should this be interpreted to say gerrymandering is not a problem, it is
Stalin has been quoted as saying "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything". I'm not sure whether that is an accurate quote or translation, but it is a thought-provoking statement. In the U.S. outright voter fraud is possible but rare. A better statement would be "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who choose the candidates decide everything." In the U.S. you can have a "free and fair" election, but generally only have the "choice" of only two candidates (Tweedledee and Tweedledum) for a given office. They have a good time pissing away money artificially trumpeting the illusion that there are differences between the candidates, but in the end you get two candidates who will pretty much do the same as the other once elected. People and corporations with deeper pockets than mine have already guaranteed that either one of the two will do their bidding when elected. The real election has already occurred.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
The first past the post voting system used in the United States practically guarantees that over time the political choices will devolve into two different groups. In the event that one eventually dies or becomes too unpopular, the new group will splinter and replace the old one. Under other systems, it's quite likely that either party could be relegated to being much more niche in only a matter of decades.
I'll note that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need the 60 votes to override for TWO things: A) Judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level and B) Executive nominations below the cabinet level and in no other situations.
There were no changes to the filibuster for legislation (though personally I'd have loved to see it change from 60 votes to stop debate over to 40 votes to continue debate), and Mitch McConnell has indicated in the past that he doesn't see changing that should he become Majority Leader this fall.
As for the filibuster, I'd love to see it change just on the basis of "If you say you want to continue debate, don't say that then leave town." I'm fine with continuing "debate" (not that they ever actually debate the items they're delaying/killing), but by god if you're going to do it you'd better care enough to actually stick around.
fencepost
just a little off
Because getting votes is all they are required to do. After that they just sign the papers their "donors" put in front of them until the next cycle. If they comply, they will get funding for reelection, put on big committees, free hookers and coke (don't think I'm kidding on that), if not, it's back to managing *Al's Tires and Wheel Alignment*. No competence required, only charisma, and not much of that either. Just sign here... and here... aaand here... thankyouverymuch
I really wonder how anybody can believe there is any honesty and what remotely could be called "honor" and respect in this business. These people couldn't be more overt. City sewers are cleaner than this. And here we are about to reelect over 90% of them back in. Maybe zombies are real.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
In governing. It's something different from winning votes in a duopoly.
The whole red vs blue + blue vs red mess is not leading us to better governance. Its broken. So is money. If the objective were just to -have- the office, the current ad campaigns would be suitable so many political ads are about why the other guy sucks... not why they are the suitable candidate. Then, there is no accountability after being elected. To lead and govern the people, to protect them from each other, and from outside entities (etc). To enjoy life as we all see fit, without destroying the enviroment, or keeping anyone else from enjoying theirs. Legislating on facts, and not on beliefs...you know, by and for the people. Sure, there is a huge $$$ divide in our nation, one would hope that those "with" would have earned it thru supporting the culture, the people and society by doing something relevant. Like elected office, its not about having money, its a medium of exchange. Who else thinks both processes are broken (money and politics), and we need to be lead/governed by those that want more consituents to enjoy a better life as interpreted in the changing world we are in. Do we need a rehash of our consitution to get back on track? Lets create a wikipedia page set for candidates, so candidates can be understood, elected and held accountable. Another Wiki page for the role of money as we evolve off barbaric mediums like bills/coinage.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
If you step back and look at the history of scandals associated with political power, you might notice that, in general, Democrat scandals have tended to involve sex and drugs, and hurt a few people (along with the status of a high political office). Meanwhile, in general, Republican scandals have tended to involve money and power, and hurt thousands or even millions of people. It's tempting to predict that, if the Republicans gain control of the Senate, some sort of money/power scandal will result. One example: They might repeal part of Obamacare, the part that the Supreme Court associated Congress' power to tax --while keeping the part that requires everyone to get insurance. Because, after all, the majority owners of most big insurance companies are, largely, Republicans, and therefore would directly financially benefit from such a scandalous change. Remember that the preceding is just a possibility/example. If some sort of money/power scandal does happen, it will take time to plan, time to become manifested, and time to be discovered/exposed. So, it will be a while before anyone knows for sure, whether or not it was smart to give Republicans control of the Senate.
The people that fund them don't expect "governance", only compliance. And so far, it appears the financiers are very happy with their "competence" (meaning they're good liars). I'm sorry, but you need to check who your politician represents before voting for them. The people they do represent think they are very competent. The voters must also. They keep reelecting them. I don't see how that provides for any incentive for change.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party.
And that is the only way in which real reform will occur. Voting for the more competent regardless of party, voting punitively against the misbehaving or those that act against the public good regardless of party.
Loyally voting for your party makes a person irrelevant. Their party can ignore them because they have their vote, the other party can ignore them because they cannot attain their vote.
Belonging to a party is fine, just don't let them think they get your vote automatically. If they put up a weak candidate, if the incumbent has a history of misbehaving or acting against the public interest then sorry, maybe next time.
Politics is darwinian. Votes are the true currency of politics. If votes are spent wisely, and punitively, politicians will adapt accordingly. This is how real reform can be achieved.
Is there any word on which gang of Republicans were moving his arm when he signed the extension of the Patriot Act?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm having second thoughts about Romney.
He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
One phrase I have not heard this election cycle is "Tea Party Candidate", nor have I seen any coverage of any Tea Party anything. They need to bring all that back, that much more fun to watch.
s/©//g
So, if Obama issues an executive order granting blanket amnesty after the election, as he has promised to do, and the Government is now gearing up for; would you change your mind?
And where did Poly say Fox?
...since I was eligible to vote. I was discussing the current state of political affairs with my mother this weekend and told her that I would be voting on Tuesday, but for the first time in my life I felt as though my vote wont make a difference at all. In my state (Maryland), if I vote for the Democratic candidates it's the status quo. If i vote for the Republican candidates it's the equivalent of thumbing my nose at the Democrats. If I vote for the third party (Libertarian) candidate it's just pulling votes away from one of the two candidates who will end up winning. If I write in a candidate, I'm throwing my vote away.
I feel very sad about this. It really is a shame.
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
Well, he said he would. Maybe he lied. We shall see.
Legal authority? How long would that take for the courts to decide? And what about Bohner suing him for the other illegal executive orders? I haven't heard anything about that in a while. He probably cried himself to sleep and forgot about it.
They are absolutely not two extremes - they are two points clustered very tightly around the same extreme.
I'm having second thoughts about Romney. He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
I thought about that too, since he essentially ran on a platform of leadership and competence. Arguable though, if he really were competent, he could have won an election against a weak incumbent. Instead he kept around inexperienced campaign managers, etc.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Okay, I'll bite on the clickbait subject. How again is this News For Nerds?
Remember the countless discussions about Net Neutrality, copyright and fair use, funding for science, civil rights, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the NSA/FBI/CIA, and so on? Remember the sometimes sanctimonious use of, "WE THE PEOPLE" and the limits of government? We are at the point now where citizens give feedback on whose policies they want. It's called voting. If you're an American, you've ever complained about one of the previously mentioned topics and you don't vote, then you are an idiot.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Because increasingly government is involved in legislation that affects technology (eg software patents, network neutrality, etc).
How about a voting captcha?
Captcha ideas:
1. I am who I say I am.
2. I am a registered voter.
3. I have not, and will not vote twice.
4. I understand what I'm voting on.
This may not be very thorough, but it would at least get some of the complete moron votes removed. Ideally there would be enough captcha questions that you couldn't give a complete moron a list of what to vote for and be able to provide the answer to the captcha also.
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
And combine it with the opening salvo:
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.
I wish the libertarian party could be taken seriously. That is what I would like to vote for.
Consider this:
At the two extremes, you have can a government that tells you exactly what you can do, but also takes care of you, or you can have a government that lets you do whatever you want and lets you reap the rewards and consequences of your actions. Republicans and Democrats are both fascist in what they tell people they can and can't do. The Democrats have additional socialism mixed in. We need the libertarians to step up so we can have our liberty back.
Huh. Are you for him or against him? Because your link makes him look pretty good.
Getting black men out of jail for drugs, giving Detroit billions in tax breaks, and getting ghetto black kids into rich white schools.
So what, are those all code words for something sinister?
Getting a vast majority of the vote doesn't prove them to be competent. It just proves there hasn't been a better option for a long while.
I'm a FNMA investor. The government's treatment of private shareholders is atrocious. This is coming out of both parties, but for separate, and opposite direction political reasons.
Because fiscal bills have to come from the House and the Senate kills anything any single senator mentions in the same sentence as the word filibuster, the Republicans have had the power since 2010. Check Senate confirmations. Check budgets. Check government shut downs. So what is there to tell the Democratic Party to shut up about? And really, look at the news, the Repugnicants make all the best noise anyway. It's like watching morons channeling sociopaths in a shouting match.
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats!
When times are bad, the incumbents get voted out.
Whether the position remains within the same political party tends to vary based on structural factors like gerrymandering.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Did he? I wonder how much of the campaign the candidate does, and how much the party does. But no, he didn't get that job done.
But Obama was not a weak incumbent 2 years ago. Battered, a little, but not weak. I wonder who could have beaten him. Gingrich? (Oh yeah, destroyed) Cain? (Also destroyed.) The doofus from Texas had no chance. (Yes, the glasses are helping, Rick.)
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=op...
Well that does throw something into this doesn't it?
Om, nomnomnom...
I can understand your confusion since President Obama and I have never been seen together in the same room, but I assure you I am not President Obama.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
But Obama was not a weak incumbent 2 years ago. Battered, a little, but not weak. I wonder who could have beaten him.
The names I heard were Mitch Daniels (who apparently helped the Indiana economy grow very well), Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. Notice how many of those were endorsed by Romney. As much as he could, he cultivated relationships in the party, so the only ones remaining were the incompetent ones (like Gingrich).
Obama's approval rating hadn't been over 50% in three years, he pushed through an unpopular healthcare program, his economic stimulus program hadn't had much effect but was laden with pork, and he started a war (Libya). Theoretically a candidate could be weaker than that, but Obama didn't campaign on his record, his campaign was based around painting Romney as a cold, ruthless, rich guy and the Romney campaign was unable to counteract that (and didn't really try. Paul Ryan suggested campaigning in poorer areas, but campaign managers opposed it).
I think I understand why Romney kept his campaign managers. They were good people, had done well in smaller campaigns, and he isn't the kind of guy to dump a good worker. The national campaign was a bit larger than they were used to, but let them learn on the job, etc. While a fine sentiment, he needed to get someone else who was experienced, to help the less experienced managers learn. That would have been a better management strategy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I wish the libertarian party could be taken seriously.
Well considering that in Illinois I am seeing attack ads now against libertarian candidates I'd say that they are starting to be taken seriously. Last election they were ignored utterly.
Not really - every green card issued during the 2005 fiscal year will be expiring and a replacement card (assuming renewal) issued. In addition, new cards will need to be issued for people who qualify for one through the regular channels (marriage, business sponsorship, lottery) and there will need to be replacement cards for those that are lost, stolen or damaged/destroyed. 4 million/year is what they expect and there is an option to buy an additional 20 million, just in case there is a need for it. (That way, they can have them on hand instead of scrambling.)
Interesting - according to this here, employers have to give you time off to vote. Check your state to see which law applies to you.
Are there any other countries in the world which do not enforce Voter ID for voting. I am pretty sure most of Europe and Asia insists on Identification before voting.
I am not an American. I was shocked when I first realised that the US doesn't need ID for voting.
The actual legislation that has been signed under President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama has been a continuation of the conservative agenda of the past 20+ years in Washington. The only reason the GOP voted against the health insurance bill of 2010 (which they have forced the country to call "Obamacare", even though Obama had nothing to do with its writing or contents) was because they didn't want him associated with actually doing something about the health care problems in this country (even though it didn't do shit). Not only was that bill in particular the largest corporate handout in the history of government, and a gift to the industry behind some of the largest lobbying groups to buy politicians from either side (indeed the insurance industry owns politicians on both sides) but it was about as pro-huge-business as you can get.
If you don't like the health insurance bill, the GOP won't fix it. Hell, most of the republican candidates have proposed to repeal it - and then replace it with the same fucking thing.
In other words all that has happened in the past couple decades here politically is that the democrats have shifted rightward to the positions where the republicans were 20 years ago, and the republicans have shifted rightward off into lala land. There is no center, and there sure as hell isn't a left. You have no choice on the ballot that will get us off this track, all you can do is vote for the velocity.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Nice theory, but the problem is (and has been for some time) that no matter *who* you vote for, you get the same type of person: one who follows the path the money lays out. There will be no reform. It's over. Welcome to the oligarchy.
Wrong. You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not. This will discipline politicians, this will bring about reform.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics, a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system. Money is just a tool to persuade the uninformed in search of those votes. The fallacy of money controlling politicians, the true secondary status of money in politics, is evidenced by the two most power lobbies in the US. The NRA and the AARP. These organization do not wield immense power because of their financial contributions. Their true power lies in their literal millions of highly motivated members who will show up on election day and will vote their particular interest over all other considerations.
Money only appears to dominate because voters do not exercise their power. Basically voters are currently creating a power vacuum by abdicating their power of control. It is truly as simple as this: a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er. Money can not control things unless the 99% allows it too. True reform will only come when voters exercise their power, especially so in a punitive manners.
Note that party loyalty is part of the problem with respect to money in politics. It takes away the punitive power of voters when an incumbent goes against the interests of the people in service to monied interests.
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
Here in Oregon all votes are cast by mail. If you can't mail it in time, then you drop it by a collection booth during a lunch break or something. Standing in line at the local school gym has become a thing of the past here. I've often wondered why more locales haven't adopted such a thing.
Maybe I'm up too late, but this post makes no sense to me whatseoever. It's the usual "major parties both suck" substance-free mantra that gets mod points, followed by some sort of assertion that people who vote for major party candidates believe cops will know how they voted and retaliate (clue: people who believe that vote libertarian. Or well some of them probably vote for extremist parties as well.) There are reaons people vote for major parties. They may not be right or even strategic reasons, but they are not some ridiclous fear of institutional retaliation. Were they, we would not have so many registered independents.
Someone had to do it.
The independents are tolerated because few people pay attention to them. Without a serious challenge you don't know how the institutional party will react. Usually a media smear campaign will get them out of the way, if they present a serious threat. The microscopic differences you see in the factions is really what is substance free. It is there for appearances. Eh, whatever, I won't get through (especially if you're the type to take the cop thing seriously), and on Wednesday morning, I fully expect to hear the same old excuses and complaints about the people they just voted for. Most people vote major party because of peer (and mass media) pressure, not because they explicitly approve, or any other "strategic" motivation. It is mostly subconscious. However, I'm not going to cut 'em any slack for it. Human beings are supposed to have a free will. But the numbers will tell if they are just following the herd.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
More places haven't gone to mail-in-only voting because they don't want to disenfranchise the homeless, who have no mailing address, or the poor who might change their address upwards of three times per year often staying in transient housing. The poor often have a hard time finding a single place to live, and they already have the least time to deal with matters such as ensuring that their ballot is sent to the correct address.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
I'm having second thoughts about Romney.
He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
Then again given that most of the jobs he's done have taken the form of eliminating the jobs of others, it's not a great accomplishment.
I don't think that's for a lack of trying though. One of the first things he tried to do when he was in office was ban Fox News from the white house, but because all of the other news organizations stood with them in solidarity it couldn't reasonably happen. His administration was also extremely aggressive at trying to make Snowden's life difficult (his passport was revoked within minutes of his name being attached to the leaks.)
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
That would take a constitutional amendment at the very least, because the authors of the Constitution decided that States have the power to hold elections as they see fit, including Federal ones.
More places haven't gone to mail-in-only voting because they don't want to disenfranchise the homeless, who have no mailing address, or the poor who might change their address upwards of three times per year often staying in transient housing. The poor often have a hard time finding a single place to live, and they already have the least time to deal with matters such as ensuring that their ballot is sent to the correct address.
An interesting point. So I checked into that.
http://sos.oregon.gov/voting/P...
I know the ballot would come with an official addressed envelope like our regular mail ballots. I suppose the issue then would be getting to the county clerk's office.
No I'd say that the incompetence is on the part of the voters. They believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. E.g. in their heads the vote for one guy is a "no" vote for whoever else is likely to win. This is such a stupid idea it's pathetic because they don't pay the fuck attention to the fact that they're literally saying "yes, I want this lesser evil to be in power", but it's the choice they make nonetheless, and the rules of democracy stipulate that you have to live with it, good or bad.
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
Here in Oregon all votes are cast by mail. If you can't mail it in time, then you drop it by a collection booth during a lunch break or something. Standing in line at the local school gym has become a thing of the past here. I've often wondered why more locales haven't adopted such a thing.
Because that would mean more people voting, and if they're likely to vote for the party you oppose, that would not serve your interests. The two parties each have favored tactics when it comes to screwing the vote. Republicans prefer to use voter suppression in areas that are largely non-white. Democrats do their best to eliminate choices to the mediocre as they either 1) Chase progressives from the party and 2] Demonise third party progressives which might actually get the job done.
You're quite right, he didn't say Fox, and I should have included breitbart.com and rushlimbaugh.com in my list. There seems to be little basis for the claim, just as there was little basis for it when it went around in 2010 and 2012.
I regard it as being like Obama's clear desire to implement incredibly strong gun control and take away all weapons and ammo, as evidenced by his deceptively avoiding anything related to gun control.
fencepost
just a little off
I will repeat my basic request from elsewhere: please provide me with a citation from a reputable source. Breitbart.com, rushlimbaugh.com and any organization that has argued in court that they aren't a "news" company but an infotainment company (e.g. Fox News) are not "reputable" without further citations.
fencepost
just a little off
Because we are about to regain some freedom by telling the Democrat party to STFU and sit down?!
How adorable. Someone who actually believes the line about Republicans being in favor of freedom. Or were you going to vote independent?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Actually I have to give credit to Fox here, looks like that court case reference I made is as badly distorted from reality as the McDonald's coffee case mentions usually are. Mea culpa.
fencepost
just a little off
Don't have a citation, but I have prior art.
obama closed Gitmo on January 22, 2009 by executive order directing it be done within 1 year.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/...
I can see obama doing the same for immigrants. He knows he can't do anything but sign a useless piece of paper that the media will triumphantly laud him and the democrats for, and then be curiously silent on how it had absolutely no effect at all.
It keeps the uniformed voting for the democrats, and it feeds the infotainment that's making Limbaugh Millions of dollars.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
People who have to fill 24 hours on a cable news channel make this too complicated. Obama's medical insurance BS cost every single last person money. Like a lot of money. Everyone is voting Republican as a retaliation or the Democrats are simply staying home. That is just about all there is to this election as far as hard numbers are concerned.
I don't like the Libertarian Party itself though. They would be just as bad for the country. Not that Congress would let them do anything.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Some of us don't vote for Democrats OR Republicans.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You work 18 hour days? Bully for you. You have the chance of using absentee ballot, which is mailed to you, or many/all places allow 'early voting' which happens for weeks before this Tuesday. Stop whining and making up excuses.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Then use absentee ballot next time. It's not like you don't know what your schedule is, or work location.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It doesn't make any difference what so ever for the next two years regardless of which party of assholes controls the Senate. Neither party in their wildest dreams is going to get enough seats to break a filibuster on their own, much less get enough seats to override a Presidential veto. And if a Republican controlled Senate forces another shutdown, Millionaire Mitch will, once again, be proven to be a liar, since one of his campaign promises has been that he will allow no more shutdowns if he becomes Majority Dumbfuck of the Senate.
So ultimately, no matter who wins on Tuesday, America loses for at least two more years.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with "News For Nerds".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
You might want to look at all the bills that Reid has stopped in the Senate first. And the reason why the filibuster is being threatened so much is thats the only tool the Reps have. Reid has prevented the Reps from submitting any changes/addendums to bills. In other words, you have bought the Dem party line...hook, line and sinker.
And where did Poly say Fox?
I read the print edition of The Economist, actually. It's an excellent source for deep analysis of the news.
For instance, rumors in Central America of the coming Obama amnesty are what drove the surge in illegal immigration this year in the first place. The Obama administration could have taken actions to quell these rumors . . . which would have stopped the surge . . . but they didn't.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
By doing so he put the burden of keeping it open squarely on the Republicans. It's a battle I believe he could win, but the cost of doing so would be too high - the remaining option for closing it would be to simply abandon it, presumably with some third party not controlled by Congress available to handle the release of the prisoners since Congress mandated that they couldn't be transferred to prisons within the US. It would be a solution nobody would find acceptable.
fencepost
just a little off
It doesn't matter who wins: the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin.
- Obama didn't dismantle any of the horrible stuff put in place by GWB (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc.). He just built his own abuses on top.
- If the Republicans win, they will not dismantle any of the horrible stuff put in place by Obama. They will just build a new layer on top.
What the US needs is a new coin.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Interesting - according to this here [nolo.com], employers have to give you time off to vote.
Time off is personal time.
The OP seems to be complaining that they arent getting paid to vote. Apparently being paid to vote isnt a big flashing red alarm.
"His name was James Damore."
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for evil on purpose.
And that makes you a willing supporter of evil. Your intent is to do harm. Your intent is more evil.
There are zero valid excuses for this. Either you proudly say that you wanted more evil, or you are trying to fool people (and maybe even yourself) with an excuse.
"His name was James Damore."
You never know. If the Libertarians get in and dismantle a large part of the government, then the next guys might have a chance to rebuild it along more sensible lines...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The other issue with postal votes is that they make voter intimidation easier. If someone threatens or bribes you to vote with an in-person anonymous ballot, then it's easy to claim that you voted the way that they wanted, but do your own thing inside the booth. With a postal ballot, they can just ask for your ballot paper, make the marks themselves, and post it in. There were a few cases in the UK of patriarchs in immigrant families collecting all of the ballot papers and sending them all in.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Nothing of substance is at issue in this election. Petty bickering about social issues for public consumption will continue unabated as both parties continue their usual pandering to Wall Street. The only bills that will make it to the president and be signed will be those that exclusively benefit the ruling class.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections?
Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time
So, that would be "no" then. Betteridge never fails.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No I'd say that the incompetence is on the part of the voters.
That is the correct answer I was hoping for, but most people are busy passing the blame to the "system" or some other ethereal object that isn't them. Once the 98% realize they have a problem, I think everything else will fall into place quite nicely. Or maybe I'm under the influence of alcohol(s anonymous)...and feel the whole world needs to go through the 12 steps.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In the gubernatorial race on the Democrat side is Gina Raimondo - someone who I don't like very much because much of her background seems falsified. Then on the Republican side there's Alan Fung, current mayor of Cranston, RI. I worked with Alan at the RI Dept. of Attorney General and he didn't strike me as the sharpest crayon in the box then and doesn't now.
The moderate party is running Robert Healey who I actually like.
And for mayor I have the choice of Jorge Elorza and his One Providnece baloney - as all his FB posts are in Spanish, Daniel Harrop a Republican who is a bigot, and Buddy Cianci, the twice convicted former mayor. I'm leaning heavily toward write-in for that.
As to the federal side - no competition to speak of. Same for my local rep and senator.
I thought that was because absentee and provisionary ballots tend to favor Democrats, and they are only counted when the race is close.
I read the internet for the articles.
So the Republican majority in the House was able to 'force' the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Democratic President (both of which, in your world opposed extending and/or expanding the Patriot Act) to extend AND expand the Patriot Act... Interesting.
I wonder why the House Republicans haven't used that same Jedi mind control to ram through any of the other 370 bills passed by the House and then left to languish in Harry Reid's desk drawer...
Ken
Like bailing out the Salt Lake City Olympics?
Implementing Romney Care in MA?
Bain Capital funded businesses that grew American jobs under Romney's leadership, but the press found those stories uninteresting - they instead focused on former employees of Bain-controlled companies that had developed cancer after they lost their jobs and held Romney responsible
His opponents even found a way to attack him for wanting to hire more women into top positions in his state administration - they made the use of three ring binders to hold women's resumes offensive!
Ken
Which republicans want Obama to me harder on whistle-blowers and increase control of the press? On it's face it's a ludicrous claim.
In your world Republicans want this administration to go after whistle-blowers in the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc?
Ken
"The sooner we tear down the old, rotten structure, the sooner we can build a new, rotten structure."
Simple fact - you have to actually pay income taxes to get any benefit from so-called 'loopholes'.
47% of Americans pay net zero income taxes each year - that's a pretty big 'loop hole' - they pay nothing, and many profit from the tax code, collecting earned income credits for children, etc.
How many non-1%ers benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction? That's another big 'loophole' (which, by the way, is capped - only the interest on first million dollars of mortgage is deductible, and it covers not only your primary home, but also a vacation home, a motor home, and/or a boat you can sleep on. How many non-1%ers enjoy the 'loophole' on their boat or RV?
Every 'loop hole' was passed as a way to encourage/stimulate a particular activity - long-term interest income is taxed at a different rate than regular income to encourage investing - increasing the tax will, wait for it, suppress long-term investing.
Ken
If the poor paid any taxes, they'd see their taxes cut also...
I would like to see one simple rule implemented at the federal level: no one can collect more from the IRS than they actually paid in - if politicians want to cut checks to low-income families, they should fund that out of the budget, rather than monkey with the tax code.
Many of the 47% that pay no federal income tax (despite having an income that causes them to file a return) actually profit from the tax code, getting refunds in excess of what they paid in during the year.
Ken
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent.
It looks like the Republican plan to keep anything whatsoever from getting done, and then blame the other party for not being able to get anything done, is working spectacularly then. Bully for them.
Of course its a crappy way to run a country, but apparently that's not the goal these days.
Of course, that applies not only to 'fat cats' but also the 'millions and millions of individual donors' that helped Obama suck nearly a billion dollars out of a failing economy so HE could get a job that he (arguably) was ill-prepared for...
Ken
Well, originally the office of Vice President was separately elected - you can, and we often did, have a Vice President that ran against the President in the election.
Imagine if that were the case today, we could have Obama as President and Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney in the VP spot... That would be fun to watch...
Ken
Republicans are in control because the Democrats in the Senate are afraid to even try passing a bill that MIGHT get filibustered? Sounds to me like the Democrats are letting Republicans be in charge out of fear. Back when I first started following politics one party would sweeten the bills until a few members of the opposition would vote in support of the bill, now the Democrats would have us believe that unless Democrats control the House, the Senate AND the Oval Office they are incapable of doing anything except through executive orders. (Don't argue that Obama has had fewer Executive Orders than Bush, it isn't the number that counts - if FDR only had ONE executive order his entire term in office, but it was the internment order that put Japanese, Italian, and German citizen in detention camps, it still would be an abuse of executive orders)
Reagan NEVER had control of both the House and Senate, yet he was able to accomplish a lot, as was Bush '43 and Clinton also learned to work with the opposing party - this President uses phrases like 'elections have consequences' and then watched as he lost the House in 2010 (and never got it back).
Ken
not all rpeublicans are saying that... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
This is why we have absentee voting.
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
...I can hardly believe how much has changed since then!
It's almost as though we're part of some political theater that's designed to give the impression of distinct choices while actually maintaining the status quo nearly entirely.
People are paid to serve on juries without any question of partiality. I personally don't mind using my free time to vote, but I can see the problem with forcing low income voters to use unpaid leave to vote. If I've got to choose between the rent and voting, then it makes my choice pretty clear. Higher income voters are going to get more flexibility to vote and that will probably swing things to the Republicans to an extent.
you mean the government shutdown that was over delaying the individual mandate because the website was not ready.....
and the government shutdown where for the first time in history the president closed down open air monuments that dont have guards anyway???
The same government shutdown where the president allowed illegals to rally at the "closed" national mall???
the Same government shutdown that when lifted obama did the single thing he was asked to do to avoid said shutdown???
yeah, all the republicans fault though
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
he has no legal authority to do alot of things, doesnt stop him or the previous president from doing them though
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because it's not possible to run for the offices of power without money.
Russia does have several time zones. Ten or so. Just saying.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Actually, 12 time zones. IIRC, all 12 time zones are set to Moscow time.
You and towermac have both been asserting that Obama has been talking about/said he would do an amnesty, and yet when asked neither of you has provided any kind of citation.
This marks you as unreliable trolls repeating unverified claims, unless of course you'd like to actually, oh, *provide* some citations.
fencepost
just a little off
all the more reason to vote for the man
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That's why I mentioned Bush in my post, dumbass.
sig: sauer
The independents are tolerated because the problem of independent candidates having any chance at winning was resolved by George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis (in a rare show of bipartisanship) in 1987.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I guess your opinion of "run roughshod" differs from that of the local liberal Detroit Free Press.
http://www.freep.com/story/opi...
And, how quickly he moved the city through bankruptcy.
http://www.freep.com/story/new...
Detroit had been run into the ground through massive corruption and democratic policies. And now you're going to complain that someone cleaned up the mess?
Just another day in Paradise
No competence required, only charisma, and not much of that either. Just sign here... and here... aaand here... thankyouverymuch
Right, but I think that was GP's point. So I don't understand your question: "Where's the incompetence?" It's everywhere.
It's not that the Democrats are afraid (I don't think), but that this agreement has become how the Senate does business. They used to force the guy to get up and talk for however long, but now they just take it as a given and move on (except for the pre-arranged show Cruz put on). It doesn't matter what Reagan's situation was. The parts of government compromised back then. Now they don't. McConnell said it up front: our job is to make sure Obama is a one-term president. The whole tea party movement was predicated on stopping Obama. They did everything they could to ensure that and failed, but they've doubled down ever since. The other reason it doesn't matter what Reagan did is that we ought to look at successes, not failures.
Because 369 of them are to repeal Obamacare and the other one is stupid for different reasons. Remember, the government was set up so that the various parts could check and balance each other. One Senator can stop a bill if he wants to badly enough. The House, because it controls the money, can stops things as well. And if those two agree the president can veto it. And if all three agree, the courts can still kill it. The founders did that on purpose.
>Only a pittance of it compared to the massive payouts made to other entities. And even then, it was only a small start, while the rest has snowballed on its own. That's by design to promote U.S. industry. The military does R&D that's so expensive or risky -- or so military-specific -- that industry can't or doesn't want to do it. Then it turns the technology over to industry to use it and eventually build what the DoD needs and then the DoD gives them a bunch of money for what they build. The government doesn't want to compete with industry, it just wants them to build what it needs. The rest, for example most of the technology in the iPhone, is gravy for the industry and the country. Full disclosure: I work in the clanking heart of the military-industrial complex.
The system was specifically designed to thwart the tyranny of the majority who could just ignore any minority. The system was specifically designed to encourage compromise. Today we have little compromise, so nearly nothing gets done. The system is working as designed. You really don't want straight majority rule. Minority groups of all kinds would have little to no protection.
The proportional representation that you refer to is how the House of Representatives works. The House is supposed to represent the people. The founders recognized that states as a whole also had interests, so the Senate was designed to represent state interests. Hence two senators from every state, so big states can not ignore the little states. Such an arrangement was absolutely necessary to get small states to ratify the constitution.
That said, the will of the people can still largely be enacted, within reason and protection of minority groups, in the current system. The problem is the people who are being elected to the House and Senate, they don't fear the voters. They know that about 1/3 will vote for them merely because of party. They know another 1/3 are ill-informed and persuadable by fair means and foul. The problem is with the voters, not the design of the system. Seriously, you want a system with competing centers of power that have to cooperate to get things done.
As I said, the problem is with the voters. Politicians do **not** fear the voters Fear of the voters is at the heart of keeping politicians honest and responsive to the interests of the people. Votes are the true currency of politics and a 1%'er have no more votes than a 99%'er. If the 99% ignored party and voted for the more capable and voted punitively against the misbehaving and those that go against the people's interest politicians would start to pay attention to the 99%. Politics is darwinian. Getting into office requires votes. Deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money makes a difference. The Republican House Minority leader recently lost an election where he spent millions and his opponent spent $150,000. This was a rare instance where the voters voted in a punitive manner. Much more of this is needed against members of both parties.
Because it's not possible to run for the offices of power without money.
Untrue. Though out their term nearly all politicians will fear the NRA and AARP.
You logic fails quite easily. Why do they need that money? It is for the next election. They want to be re-elected. However if voters develop the habit of voting punitively, of kicking out an incumbent who misbehaves and goes against the people's interest, then politicians will avoid angering the people so they vote punitively. No amount of money will save a candidate when voters demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively.
Again, votes are of primary importance. Money is of secondary importance. There is merely a false impression that money is primary because voters do not exercise their power. They overwhelmingly return incumbents to office regardless of their conduct. This is what needs to change. Focusing on money is focusing on a symptom not the underlying disease.
That distinction is one worth making.
I only see it in the voters who reelect these people. They sign the final consent form with their votes. When it happens further up the food chain, it is quickly rooted out by those further up... and so on... Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked... So, when do we start doing the sacking? I mean, if these people are so incompetent, why do we let them keep their jobs? If you can't find competent people, then the job should be eliminated completely. Why continue with such insanity?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Voting doesn't do any good unless you can put people in who will behave differently. And you can't.
You fail to understand the process. It is a darwinian process. After repeated instances of punitive voting elected officials will adapt. The politician's goal is re-election, if punitive voting threatens re-election politicians will avoid angering the voters. As they currently avoid angering organizations like the NRA and AARP whose members apply punitively voting tactics. My argument is basically taking the tactics of these very successful lobbying organizations and having them applied by the voters en mass.
lol. The innocence of a child. Let me explain it to you.
You are unable to explain anything since you don't understand the facts. If voters decide to vote in a punitive manner then no amount of money can save a candidate. Whether one candidate puts on a better campaign to dress himself or herself up as more attractive is not relevant. The voter is voting punitively due to past actions. The current election theatre is irrelevant.
Voting for who gets in office does nothing. The only people who get in are people who will take benefits in return for taking specific positions.
Nearly all politicians desire re-election. Fear of punitive voting will moderate this behavior to acceptable levels.
They don't wield ANY power other than financial and sweetheart deals.
You are woefully misinformed about these organizations. Their power, and what politicians fear, is angering their members. And politicians moderate their behavior accordingly.
Read your own sentence. "Appears" to dominate? No, it DOES dominate. Your contention that the voters could turn that around is entirely speculative.
Wrong. Voters voted in a punitive manner and unseated the well known and powerful House Minority leader. The winning candidate spent less the 1/10th the money of the incumbent. Votes trump money. Plus there are the examples of the NRA and AARP validating the punitive voting threat that moderates a politicians behavior throughout their term.
I'm not reading anything that says you know how to change the status quo
The fist step is to recognize the true nature of the problem. Its not money, its an abdication of power by the 99%. People who focus on money are in denial about the true problem, they are focusing on a symptom not the disease. They enable the status quo by doing so.
You want a plan, its simple. If you think a politician misbehaved or voted against your interests. Then vote against them. Repeat as necessary. The process is darwinian and does not yield results overnight. Convince others to behave likewise.
The alternative is the status quo and the theatre of reform that is campaign finance reform.
The AC reply to you has it right. Your post willfully misrepresents what is in the article to trick people into not reading it. It's an old game on Slashdot.
It's a pity so many people are either being taken in by it, or modding you up. Congratulations on a successful fraud.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Mod up.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
individual donors' that helped Obama suck nearly a billion dollars out of a failing economy so HE could get a job
Maybe it was to prevent and even less qualified candidate from getting the job. Some would consider that an sound investment, though others of course would disagree.
And yet it's still open, and nobody cares...
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Where do you come up with this? Russia spans UTC +2 to UTC +12. (or Moscow time -1 to +8).
Do you really think people in Vladivostok get up at midnight and go to bed at 4pm?
Sent from my PDP-11
You're right that the two major American political parties lean toward the very same extreme (and the other extremes are almost entirely unrepresented in this country), but to say they're "clustered very tightly" around any extreme is a bit parochial. There are depths of extremeness even our worst politicians have only begun to plumb.
I like to conceive of a political spectrum with four extremes: anarcho-socialists in one corner (let's call it upper-left), anarcho-capitalists in another corner (upper-right), "egalitarian" authoritarians like Stalin and Mao in another (lower-left) corner, and anti-egalitarian authoritarians like Hitler and Mussolini in the last (lower-right) corner.
The two major American political parties are both somewhere around the middle, both drifting toward the lower-right, both very near each other, but Republicans a bit further from center, but both with quite a ways to go before we start gassing Jews and invading Mexico for lebensraum. There are vocal pulls in subsets of the populace (with no real representation) toward the upper-right and the center-left. The lower-left exists as little more than a boogeyman these days, and the upper-left seems to be our national blind spot that nobody even realizes exists.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
the economist is basicly as you'd expect a capitalist/"business conservative" op-ed magazine.
I do concede its well written, but its just that, an conservative op-ed magazine. Its not news.
Or you know, the next guys can just build a better machine. I can't see how a society as obsessed with efficiency as ours could do anything else. They can paper it over with talk of innovation, and leveraging synergies.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
I don't know how good it is, but there's always that old standby of "That's just not how we do things here" that'll see the same shit happening again and again for years to come. The thought of giving independents a fair shakes disagrees with practically everyone's good thing. The Democrats don't want some far left moon bats cribbing votes from their flank, the Republicans don't care much for thought of the far right slipping out of their grasp, and thought of some middle of the road party eating both their lunches makes certain that we'll not see any meaningful movements toward dislodging the entrenched interests we've already got.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
Something like this? http://www.politicalcompass.or...
Looking at the whole field there, Obama & Romney were pretty darn close to each other. Certainly the wider parties include more diverse viewpoints, but the overall ideological narrative of each party are pretty similar, all things considered.
(For what it's worth, I threw my vote away for Jill Stein.)
Plenty of people care, but the available actions aren't something they're willing to do. IIRC, when Obama tried to close it, the Republicans basically required that there could be NO money spent by the military on ANY activities related to moving the prisoners at Guantanamo into US prisons, or to shut down the base itself.
Obama might be able to do something along the lines of finding another country (or non-governmental organization/NGO?) and inviting them to join in the management of Gitmo, then simply not replace any troops whose tours of duty expired. However, that would not be a terribly quick process, it would undoubtedly be stopped by Republicans threatening to shut down all military spending again, and it would then leave whoever the third-party was effectively in charge of the base, at which point they could simply release all of the prisoners (including the Super-Terrorists too dangerous for US Supermax prisons) if they so desired.
And as a side effect it would completely guarantee (rather than 95% confidence) that absolutely *nothing* could be accomplished during the remainder of his presidency.
fencepost
just a little off
Something like that yes, though I don't especially like the way that they break the axes down into "social" and "economic". As many libertarians are fond of criticizing of such a division, freedom is freedom, and limiting what people are allowed to do economically also limits what they're allowed to do socially, and vice versa. That chart's "libertarian left" isn't actually libertarian if it only favors social liberty but then also favors authoritarian intervention in economic matters.
The axes of my spectrum are not economic and social liberty vs authority; rather, they are libertarianism and egalitarianism. Those on the left think that everyone is, or should be treated as, equal; some of them favor using authority to enforce that equality, others believe it will emerge naturally if only proper liberty is ensured. Those on the right think that some people are naturally superior to others, or deserve more than others, with a zillion different ideas on the basis of that stratification (wealth, race, nationality, sex, religion, whatever); some of them favor using authority to enforce that stratification, others believe it will emerge naturally if only proper liberty is ensured. And both kinds of libertarian construct their notions of "proper liberty" such that if ensured it would (by their reckoning at least) result in the egalitarian or stratified result they expect/desire, or at least expect that result (and convince themselves it's desirable) because they reckon it would be the outcome of ensuring "proper liberty" as they conceive of it.
That other way of constructing the chart is actively ignoring the "upper left" corner of my spectrum, as happens all too often (and is part of what I'm complaining about here). The "upper left" of my chart is filled with libertarian socialists, an ideology almost completely unheard-of in America: the idea that the claim right to private property is what ruins the egalitarianism of libertarianism, and that what is known to Americans as anarcho-capitalism, minus the private property (but not plus a state to own that property; everything is simply unowned, and nobody has any claim to anything that would legitimize the use of force to deter others from making equal use of it), would yield a socialist form of libertarianism. (And in their terminology, "anarchism" simpliciter is a synonym with "libertarian socialism", in contrast to the authoritarian socialism of communism; and to them "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms). The "libertarian left" of that other chart would be center left of my chart: those who favor a moderate exercise of authority only as necessary to ensure equality but no more. And Hitler would be, rather than bottom-center as on their chart, in the far lower right of my chart; not only was he heavily authoritarian, but also clearly believed in a stratification of society on the basis of race, religion, sex, orientation, etc. I'm not sure who they think was more right-authoritarian than Hitler.
Mind you I'm not an advocate of that upper-left corner of anarcho-socialism; I just think it's an important part of the political spectrum that's too often ignored as a possibility. We are so entrenched in the concept of private property that we only think about whether individuals should have the liberty to control some of it each themselves, or the state should have the authority to control it all, or what the balance between those should be; we forget that there is a whole school of thought that thinks we should abolish the concept entirely as antithetical to both liberty and equality. Again, not that I think that that's a good idea as such, but remembering that it's a possibility opens up room for thought. I place myself somewhere top-center on my own chart; between the anarcho-socialists and the anarcho-capitalists. I'm not able to place myself on that other chart because it's missing a whole corner of the spectrum (and has instead filled in an extraneous corner opposite it which I'm not rightly able to imagine the occupants of).
F
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Republicans (and Democrats) all over called Snowden a traitor and some even wanted him assassinated. Both parties are responsible for the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, and numerous other violations of the constitution and our liberties.
Face it. Both parties are filled with scumbags. I have no idea about control over the press, as the press does the government's bidding anyway.
Both parties are very incompetent
Depends on what you expect them to competent at - as far as I can see, they are very competent at receiving funds, blocking progress, staying in power and slandering each other. They show excellent judgement when it comes to proposing bills that are outrageously stupid and therefore have little chance of getting passed, but make them look like they have opinions and principles.
The problem in the US is that you have set yourselves up with a political system that is fundamentally impossible to trust. In most other countries, what appears to be legal in America, would be considered corruption - such as receiving large, undisclosed contributions from the industry. That, plus the fact that parties and candidates are allowed to advertise everywhere without limitations, means that politics is too much reality show and too little substance. And of course, you know that no matter who you elect, you will get somebody who is in the pockets of the best paying corporations and lobby groups. I don't know what that kind of political system is called - democracy it isn't.
That's just not true. Or are you making a joke?
And yet it's still open, and nobody cares. This was the "Plan", "Change" we can believe in....
He's almost done with his eight years and leaves behind a legacy of a dead economy, a third of all americans on welfare, expansion of the very things he argued against (like wiretapping) and most of all - wait, before I say it, I have to resurrect a favorite quote..
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better
Guess who made the above quote, and guess who signed into being a raise in the debt ceiling in February of this year...
Like I said - no one cares.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Woops, Maybe I was wrong.
The Republicans just took control of the house and senate.
Some people did care and just kicked Obama in the ass.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Had to try and sell off all that public art before someone could try and stop it.
NAFTA, for short. Not the fault of the people or politicians of Detroit that their economy was gutted by sellout officals in D.C.
Snyder has found some magic way to deal with the cities massive contraction in population? A way to deal with all the abandoned buildings while maintaining services to the people still living there? No? Then what are you talking about?
Umm, wow, hanging it all on the republicans....
Obama and big ears (the wife) did a lot of campaigning for quinn in illinois.
Even a bastion of democrats with badass obama leading the charge - just fell to the other side.
I guess people do care. They just don't care about what you care about.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
You could get rid of first-past the post, and the banks would still have enough money and power to buy off all the parties - it's what's happened in Europe. When even the "Socialists" are backing austerity, you know the system has been rigged.
Because Obama is thinking about granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US. So if legal H1-Bs overstay their visas, and become illegal immigrants . . . poof . . . they will become legal residents. For H1-B employers, mission accomplished.
What mission? According to Slashdot, at least, those employers hire H1-Bs because they can pay them crap, because they can't change jobs easily without being kicked out of the country, and so will tolerate more abuse for the lack of employer competition. If they all suddenly become legal permanent residents, that stick goes away, and with it the ability to keep the wages artificially low.
long-term interest income is taxed at a different rate than regular income to encourage investing - increasing the tax will, wait for it, suppress long-term investing.
Hmm. So you're saying that we're taxing capital gains lower than income from one's work because we want to stimulate people investing (i.e. living off the rent that is, ultimately, collected from wealth directly produced by other people) over producing wealth themselves? Don't you find it supremely ironic that, if I have a spare dollar, and I invest it in some guy who turns it into two through the sweat of his brow (say, manufacturing and selling goods), he pays more taxes from that dollar then I do?
Oh, and speaking of suppressing long-term investment. Suppose we do jack up the capital gains tax up. So all the rich guys who live off dividends and other forms of economic rent are going to withdraw all that money and put it ... where exactly? If they want to keep collecting rent, they have to keep it invested. Higher tax means they get to collect less, but it's still a lot more than can be collected anywhere else (at least, without personally working for it).
The freedom to ban abortions and gay marriage?
You know who doesn't like the "tyranny of the majority"? The minority who are in power. The basic premise seems to be "you shouldn't make decisions because you might do something bad to someone else".
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
NAFTA? That's ripe. I haven't heard anyone pull that out of their asses in ages. Detroit was on a death spiral long before that. The city's tax rates, and corrupt government helped force business out. My grandfather ran a tool & die shop there in the 60s...it was good times. Dad decided to move his box business to Rochester in the 70s because the city was going to hell back then. I personally left in the early 80s because of the massive unemployment...way before NAFTA.
Just another day in Paradise
You know who doesn't like the "tyranny of the majority"? The minority who are in power. The basic premise seems to be "you shouldn't make decisions because you might do something bad to someone else".
I think the basic premise of the founding fathers was to avoid mob rule.
Fair enough. I think anarcho-socialists go in the bottom-left of this chart, and an-caps in the bottom right. (Your chart basically sounds like a vertically-flipped version of this chart, to me.)
I think there's probably a lot of axes you could look at these sorts of things on.
I despise the term "founding Fathers" so patriarchal, so overly reverent. It's reminiscent of fascist hero worship. Mob rule is another term for the sam fallacy. Basically you're too stupid to make your own decision, you should only choose which one of us will make them for you. An easy argument to sell and maintain when you look at the standard of American political debate.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
I despise the term "founding Fathers" so patriarchal ...
Well it is a historical fact that they were entirely male, and they had an important role in the creation of a nation.
... so overly reverent. It's reminiscent of fascist hero worship.
So you are taking one of "those" classes in college :-). There is absolutely nothing inherently fascist about revering a "hero". "Heroes" of both sexes exist, of nearly all political schools of thought, of nearly all philosophies, of nearly all disciplines of science, or nearly all the arts, etc.
Mob rule is another term for the sam fallacy. Basically you're too stupid to make your own decision, ...
That is what a mob often is. Surrendering yourself to a charismatic leader(s) or to group thought.
... you should only choose which one of us will make them for you. An easy argument to sell and maintain when you look at the standard of American political debate.
And sophomoric political advocacy and debate as well. :-)
the bill would have to make it past Harry Reid's desk for any Senator to be able to stop it - but it is Harry Reid alone that decides what falls off his desk into the Senate.
And no, the other 369 bills are not to repeal Obamacare, some are, the vast majority are not... Like the three bills that attempted to end the Democrat shutdown of the US gov't that Harry Reid wouldn't let be debated in the Senate... But remember, it's the GOP that is the 'do noothing' party, because, well Harry Reid says it is...
Ken