Relatively more open and more democratic governments are more trustworthy.
I trust the government more after the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. It's not a cure-all, but it was a huge step in the right direction.
I do not trust the government more if the same party has unmitigated control over every check and balance. I don't think that was such a good idea. I guess we'll see!
Local governments are probably more trustworthy than national governments.
Nationalistic national governments are probably the worst of all. A government that also controls the sources of information is also really bad (see Italy, Russia, currently where the leader also own ).
It's not a matter of black and white. There are things that can be changed that induce governments to be more trustworthy, and they really are affected by democratic processes. It's not a matter of whether governments are evil or not, there are very important differences in the shades in between.
Who says the votes were in Kerry's favor? The link you pointed doesn't even mention it at all.
This is a non-issue that Drudge invented, anyway. The machines hadn't been reset from the year previous; so someone reset them that morning as they were setting up which is why they check the things in the first place. Drudge reported this as "Machine reports extra votes!!!" and implied that it must have been a boon to Kerry, but there's no evidence that was the case.
My favorite are the ones they have in malls now they say "Security check" or "Security spot" but in reality it's just a shiny sticker. This is placebo security.
"I hope thousands of votes are lost and that the outcome is affected. That's the only way we'll be able to get rid of the paperless voting machines once and for all."
Isn't that what we said last time, with the butterfly ballots?
Did this line in the article text give anyone else shivers?
"Let's hope that we won't see any more of this in the next 24 hours, and that these problems are fixed before 2006."
No. They are talking about old mechanical voting machines. They probably weren't properly zeroed after the last election. This happens all the time, which is why all the machines are checked on election day before the voting begins. Drudge is trying to make an affair out of nothing.
Judgeships in this country are non-partisan positions. You can elect libertarian-minded judges, but you can't help the (capital-L) Libertarian Party this way.
Drudge is a propagandist, not a journalist. When the Democrats began sqwuaking about GOP-backed voter fraud, his headline was "Democrats to push voter fraud, whether or not it exists!" Spin, pure and simple.
Next, we have to look at the big picture in Iraq. The media is claiming that we're losing the peace. However, they said that about Afghanistain in 2002. They said that about France and Germany in 1946. The moral of the story: It may be a long and hard road, but we'll prevail. Iraq is slowly training Iraqis to enforce their on security. It'll take time, but eventually they'll be able to police themselves. Until that time, they need US troops there to prevent the situation from deteriorating even more.
Oh, the parade of irrelevant analogies! The media said we were losing the peace in Vietnam... and they were right. It means as much as any of your examples: very little. Though there is one further connection, which is that people like you were saying very similar things in Vietnam, like "I can see a light at the end of the tunnel!", "It's going to get better, just wait!" and "We're turning the corner!" Things like these can never be proven false. Maybe you do really see a "light at the end of a tunnel." But it's really just a polite way of saying that things are really shitty right now and maybe, in the absence of evidence, things will get better, somehow.
Well, excuse me if I don't buy that, and I don't trust the people who make the decisions for which people need to make those sorts of excuses.
>>Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy?
Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?
Right, I forgot our only two options are either strapping people to electrical wires or to their beds for a month! If you're against one, you must be for the other. Makes sense.
And the widespread corruption in the UN Oil-For-Food program that directly benefitted French, German, and Russian companies had absolutely nothing to do with their opposition to the war.
Some companies != popular opinion
Just because somebody, somewhere, somehow in those countries benefitted from the lack of war, it doesn't explain the overwhelming popular opinion of those countries. Unless you can show how 90% of the people in those countries who respond to polls befitted financially from Saddam's regime and were basing their opinion on that, then, no, it had absolutely nothing to do with their opposition to the war.
Yes, well, there are many different kinds of market failure, all of which libertarians' only response is to shake their fists and say "Impossible!"
There is another candidate I have in mind who thinks that if the facts don't fit the theory, then the facts must be wrong. I don't plan on voting for him, either.
72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.
Elections, even Presidential ones (see 2000) are often won by a statistically insignificant number of votes. So, if you can change a significantly insignificant number of votes, there's no way to tell, and could easily throw the election one way or the other if its close enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I could also make 90% of Democrats become Republicans by making them listen to Air America for a day.
How, by making them fall asleep?
Relatively more open and more democratic governments are more trustworthy.
I trust the government more after the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. It's not a cure-all, but it was a huge step in the right direction.
I do not trust the government more if the same party has unmitigated control over every check and balance. I don't think that was such a good idea. I guess we'll see!
Local governments are probably more trustworthy than national governments.
Nationalistic national governments are probably the worst of all. A government that also controls the sources of information is also really bad (see Italy, Russia, currently where the leader also own ).
It's not a matter of black and white. There are things that can be changed that induce governments to be more trustworthy, and they really are affected by democratic processes. It's not a matter of whether governments are evil or not, there are very important differences in the shades in between.
Maybe we're hearing mostly about the ones the helped Bush because there were more of them?
Who says the votes were in Kerry's favor? The link you pointed doesn't even mention it at all.
This is a non-issue that Drudge invented, anyway. The machines hadn't been reset from the year previous; so someone reset them that morning as they were setting up which is why they check the things in the first place. Drudge reported this as "Machine reports extra votes!!!" and implied that it must have been a boon to Kerry, but there's no evidence that was the case.
My favorite are the ones they have in malls now they say "Security check" or "Security spot" but in reality it's just a shiny sticker. This is placebo security.
Do you have their names and addresses?
Mac OS X is BSD-based.
"I hope thousands of votes are lost and that the outcome is affected. That's the only way we'll be able to get rid of the paperless voting machines once and for all."
Isn't that what we said last time, with the butterfly ballots?
Did this line in the article text give anyone else shivers?
"Let's hope that we won't see any more of this in the next 24 hours, and that these problems are fixed before 2006."
Is it cold in here, or am I completely terrified?
But I bet most voters can tell you which candidate they think is more charming.
Matt Drudge is reporting that about 2,000 votes were "planted" in Philadelphia-area voting machine
Scroll up a bit. You'll see this comment:
No. They are talking about old mechanical voting machines. They probably weren't properly zeroed after the last election. This happens all the time, which is why all the machines are checked on election day before the voting begins. Drudge is trying to make an affair out of nothing.
Judgeships in this country are non-partisan positions. You can elect libertarian-minded judges, but you can't help the (capital-L) Libertarian Party this way.
Drudge is a propagandist, not a journalist. When the Democrats began sqwuaking about GOP-backed voter fraud, his headline was "Democrats to push voter fraud, whether or not it exists!" Spin, pure and simple.
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either.
Uh, they endorsed him. Most economists oppose Bush's policies, and most Nobel prize-winning economists have endorsed Kerry.
Next, we have to look at the big picture in Iraq. The media is claiming that we're losing the peace. However, they said that about Afghanistain in 2002. They said that about France and Germany in 1946. The moral of the story: It may be a long and hard road, but we'll prevail. Iraq is slowly training Iraqis to enforce their on security. It'll take time, but eventually they'll be able to police themselves. Until that time, they need US troops there to prevent the situation from deteriorating even more.
Oh, the parade of irrelevant analogies! The media said we were losing the peace in Vietnam... and they were right. It means as much as any of your examples: very little. Though there is one further connection, which is that people like you were saying very similar things in Vietnam, like "I can see a light at the end of the tunnel!", "It's going to get better, just wait!" and "We're turning the corner!" Things like these can never be proven false. Maybe you do really see a "light at the end of a tunnel." But it's really just a polite way of saying that things are really shitty right now and maybe, in the absence of evidence, things will get better, somehow.
Well, excuse me if I don't buy that, and I don't trust the people who make the decisions for which people need to make those sorts of excuses.
That's why we have a moderation system.
Ahem.
>>Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy?
Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?
Right, I forgot our only two options are either strapping people to electrical wires or to their beds for a month! If you're against one, you must be for the other. Makes sense.
And the widespread corruption in the UN Oil-For-Food program that directly benefitted French, German, and Russian companies had absolutely nothing to do with their opposition to the war.
Some companies != popular opinion
Just because somebody, somewhere, somehow in those countries benefitted from the lack of war, it doesn't explain the overwhelming popular opinion of those countries. Unless you can show how 90% of the people in those countries who respond to polls befitted financially from Saddam's regime and were basing their opinion on that, then, no, it had absolutely nothing to do with their opposition to the war.
Wow, I'm smarter than both of them. Vote for me!
(Stupidity has nothing to do with IQ or even SAT score. It has to do with how well-informed you are.)
You're trolling, but this is actually a good criticism of a first-past-the-post voting system (the kind we currently have).
Yes, well, there are many different kinds of market failure, all of which libertarians' only response is to shake their fists and say "Impossible!"
There is another candidate I have in mind who thinks that if the facts don't fit the theory, then the facts must be wrong. I don't plan on voting for him, either.
This doesn't explain why Bush voters understand the issues less...
Bush voters have been misled from what Bush's actual positions are. According to polls, Bush voters have no idea what Bush actually stands for (and the same is not true of Kerry voters). Don't believe me? Click on the link. Here's an excerpt:
Elections, even Presidential ones (see 2000) are often won by a statistically insignificant number of votes. So, if you can change a significantly insignificant number of votes, there's no way to tell, and could easily throw the election one way or the other if its close enough.
Voting for third parties in a winner-takes-all voting system is for people who aren't very good at game theory.
(A lot of people aren't very good at game theory, which is why we shouldn't have a winner-takes-all system. But I digress.)
The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions
What part of marriage or the legal incidents thereof don't you understand?
In all, there have been over two dozen publications which endorsed Bush for president in 2000 and this time around are behind Kerry.
you mean 3 dozen