Discuss the US Presidential Election 1912
We made it. It's election day. Tomorrow we'll know. So for today's election discussion story, I'm throwing it wide open: let's discuss the election itself. Who are your picks and why. And also what about your actual experience voting today? Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
No problem (Score:5, Informative)
Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.
All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.
Voted!! (Score:5, Informative)
Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.
Does it Really Matter? (Score:2, Informative)
Ron Paul (Score:1, Informative)
I am 57-years old and for all of my life my country has been at war. I voted for the only person that offers peace...Ron Paul
Re:No secret ballot? (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that you voted is not secret. Only who you picked is.
Re:switfboat (Score:2, Informative)
No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.
Re:Lines (Score:5, Informative)
My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..
If I was told I had to wait several hours to vote, I'd be very mad.
Re:No secret ballot? (Score:2, Informative)
Bias Language on Ballots (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:3, Informative)
but on a REAL platform?
Unfortunately, like McCain, his "REAL platform" has no common foundation. They each have cherrypicked arbitrary voting blocs, and because there are no common principles behind these choices, they are left to resort to pragmatism: getting by one day at a time, guided only by the magnitude of the complaints coming from various groups.
This is not sustainable. Until we get a candidate that actually supports those "certain inalienable rights", we're going to continue to limp toward our downfall.
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Informative)
No, he called him one for wanting to increase income taxes on people who do pay income taxes and then write checks to people who don't.
Fixed that for you. If you claim that he's giving money to people who don't pay taxes at all, you are spreading a common misconception. Sorry.
Re:No secret ballot? (Score:4, Informative)
Then why do they need to record the number the machine assigned to my vote? That I walked into the machine and pulled the lever should just get a check next to my name.
Re:McCain FTW (Score:2, Informative)
McCain graduated at the bottom of the class at his naval academy and now he is old. Brains get worse quickly at his age, and he didn't start with much.
Meanwhile, we have a brilliant candidate who graduated at the top of his class in law school.
Seems clear to me.
Re:No secret ballot? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obama (Score:1, Informative)
So, your going to vote for another socialist - hoping he's less of one?!?! Republicans are big oil, pro corp, and now socialist and big government. Proves that you have no fucking idea who a republican is and your to ignorant to recognise anything. We are in true danger when it's population is so stupid.
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Informative)
You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!
At the end of the 6th paragraph [adamsmith.org]
This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax [google.com]. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax [google.com].
It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself [youtube.com] advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Informative)
The myth of "spreading the wealth" (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.
Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources [state.ak.us]." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!
Now, let's talk about Palin.
Palin said [newyorker.com]: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"
Palin passed a windfall profits tax [cato-at-liberty.org], literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.
Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
You mean like this [wikipedia.org]?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
As for accuracy... [factcheck.org]
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
Congress has been a disaster, so you vote to strengthen the majority party in Congress?
I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Informative)
I was told she was not his first choice. He had the final say, but it was his people that pushed her forward.
I agree with your take on McCain. After Bush won the 2nd term, McCain decided the only way to become president was to quit being such a maverick. Thats when he started supporting all the Bush initiatives. Thats when he lost his "base."
The real McCain would have been strong with independents. However, I am not sure he could have won the nomination without selling out to Bush.
McCain made his choice. Kicked his independent support to the curb to try and get ultra conservative supporters that never liked him.
OBAMA is infinitely better on energy than McCain (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Informative)
Well, when I explain it to friends I put it this way. I ask them how much they love going to the DMV to renew drivers licenses....new plates..etc.
Then I tell them to imagine having to go to the DMV, and like with the above...wait often for hours in long lines with govt. workers who are drones that dont' give a shit, and yet have them in control of dispensing your medical care...what Dr. to see...what prescription to fill, etc.
That usually gives them pause.
I've seen how well the govt. does first had a few times...FEMA during all the recent hurricanes, I've worked govt. contracts, and seen the waste, red tape and incompetence.
No...the govt. is a necessary 'evil' for some things, but, please don't put in in charge of my very living health!!
You just have to budget in medical costs as part of your lively hood, don't live beyond your means, and you can afford health care. Most employers offer it....when I work for myself, I buy a nice high deductible policy, just for catastrophic problems (heart attack, etc)...and I stuff to the max my pre-tax dollars into a Health Savings Account...that can grow with simple interest, or even be invested. I pay for my normal Dr. visits, and meds...I tell them I'm paying for it, and they give me usually about a 15% or more discount.
In the long run, this puts you ahead of the usual insurance thing, where you pay premiums, co-pays, etc.....I don't know why more people don't opt for something like I do. It isn't really that $$.
But back to topic...no, I don't want the inefficiency of government, especially federal govt. dictating my health needs.
Re:obama (Score:3, Informative)
Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined.
However, the three subjects (the plumber doesn't count) were brought up by either McCain, Palin or even Hillary back in the primaries.
As for the so-called plumber, spare us, please. Who invokes his name every thirty seconds, Obama? No, McCain and Palin. He's also gotten himself an agent and wants to cut a country music album, the asshole wants and seeks all the free publicity he can get. Then he said things so outlandish, that he was smacked down on Faux News, of all places! Once again, please, spare us.
How often did the media bring up McCain's associations with characters like Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating and that Texas megachurch crackpot, who supports Israel so it can be destroyed to bring about the second coming in his lifetime?
Moreover, how often have the press stated the fact that the Bush and Bin Laden families were business partners and have been dear, dear friends for decades now? Much less often than we've heard the names Ayers and Wright.
Y'all quit with the cherry pickin' now, it's become extremely tiresome, leads to nowhere and says more about you than about whatever it is you're talking about.
Re:switfboat (Score:3, Informative)
Would you support higher taxes on luxury goods, and little to no tax on necessities? Probably 95% of Americans would. Great. But there's a problem with that. How much of a tax rate do you put on a head of lettuce? A can of mushrooms? Fresh button mushrooms? Fresh portabella mushrooms? Shiitakes? Truffles? Essentially every item would have to be analyzed for how much of a "luxury" it is; it'd never work out.
That's how VAT works in the UK (and I think the rest of the EU), but with only three levels of luxury.
Necessities, like most food, children's clothes, bread, books etc have no VAT.
Some things have 'reduced rate' VAT, at 5%. Examples are electricity, gas, energy saving materials, children's car seats
Most stuff has the standard rate of 17.5%, including adult clothes and sweets, crisps (potato chips)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/rates-goods.htm [hmrc.gov.uk]
There are other taxes and duties, e.g. all cars have the 17.5% rate, but larger-engined cars (actually, worse-polluting cars) have a much higher rate of road tax (required for driving on public roads). Petrol/diesel has the 17.5%, and a 55p/litre-ish duty, but users like farmers and (I think) railways are exempt from the duty (and the VAT, as all businesses don't pay VAT on purchases so long as they charge it on their products/services, if applicable. That's what the 'Value Added' bit means.)
Income tax is progressive too -- everyone is entitled to earn £6000/year tax free. The next ~£30000 is taxed at 22%, any more than that is taxed at 40%.
Average income is about £18000. Until this coming year there was a lower rate, 10%, for the next £2000 after the tax-free bit, but the "Labour" government abolished that (and got a huge amount of bad press, and will likely lose the next election because of it).
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
Having said that, I would trade back to the German insurance in a heart beat. Every time something is not covered by my US insurance, the out-of-pocket expenses balloon, and there is no way for me to get my insurance to expand their coverage. Add the lifetime benefit cap that prevents me from getting the help when I really need it, and it becomes a lot of eye wash.
The German model is assessed as a tax, with a cap based on what you'd pay when you reach the "opt-out level" (You don't have to use public insurance in Germany if you can afford to buy your own, the cap used to be around 100k yearly income). The rumors of "don't get a bed for 5 years" are just bullocks, it's not any more difficult to get your doctor to see you in Germany than it's in the US. And at least insurance acceptance is universal, so if your employer switches insurance carriers you don't have to switch doctors.
I'd love to see a universal HMO be established here, one that can't drop you like a hot potato if your get sick, or flat out refuse to let you in for "pre-existing conditions" if you change jobs.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
Here's one [umaine.edu], a quick Google will show you a few hundred others all from the same dozen or so primary sources (US budgets, WHO figures, and so on from a few years). Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Informative)
"Micromanagement of healthcare at a Federal level is not the key to socialized medicine. "
Even in Canada the public health care is managed at the provincial level. I wonder if many Americans who point to Canada as an alternative realize that. It's only a minor detail, but the federal government has little to do with public health care in Canada.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Informative)
I guess I'm not most people then. I see that free markets CAN NOT work in situations where meaningful competition cannot exist. These things are best left in public hands. Electric utility deregulation is a very good example of this. Here in Illinois, we deregulated and now have Cilco the generation company making money hand over fist while Cilco the delivery company comes to the state with their hands out pleading poverty to jack our rates up 50%.
I believe healthcare and related insurance is another example where meaningful competition is not possible. I also happen to be far more liberal than the average bear and believe that I can't see meaningful competition in things like gasoline below a certain level since I MUST drive to work and to function in America's misguided sprawl.
I think it is IMMORAL that we live in the richest, most consumer driven society in the world yet we have children going to sleep tonight hungry, sick, and neglected. We should not stand for this as a people and I will vote my conscience.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017. In 2007 the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.
There are numerous cites in the Wikipedia article that you can read.
I would argue that spending over $7000 per person per year in health care, yet having vast numbers of your citizenry uninsured is a powerful example of a health care system that is both expensive and inefficient.
Re:switfboat (Score:2, Informative)
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Informative)
What? Obama is *not* gun friendly
BTW I dont own a Gun nor will I buy one (I have little kids and I make the personal choice not to have such an item in my home):
Obama: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"
Obama on Handguns:
Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama: "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns (made so by laws he supports) off the streets"
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
--
The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..
Re:Obama (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but that had everything to do with a small group of bankers borrowing heavily from international money markets, investing in bad assets, and those assets subsequently falling in value, and nothing to do with how they organise their own society (whether you call it socialism, or not).
Iceland (Score:4, Informative)
Bankrupted by an out-of bounds banking industry that was totally deregulated and ten times larger than the Iceland GDP i.e. the real Icelandic economy. These banks were counter parties to many Wall street institutions that pushed their toxic sludge bonds on the Icelandic banks. Totally not related to their welfare system.
Nice try though.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Informative)
You're exactly right: That is most likely how America would implement socialized medicine. It's also the reason you're in this mess in the first place.
I live in Ontario (Canada). We have socialized medicine. I go the doctor of my choice and OHIP [wikipedia.org] pays for it. I go to whatever hospital I need to, get whatever needs doing done and OHIP pays for it. I can have tests done at whatever lab is convenient for me and OHIP pays for it.
Are our waiting rooms full? Yes, for two reasons: Free systems are abused and people are stupid. Instead of using the second hour they're sitting in emergency to ponder whether or not they really need to be there, they go off on half-cocked rants and diatribes that Americans misunderstand and use to fuel the anti-socialized camps. Notice how neither reason was government inefficiency?
Re: Palin in 2012 ??! (Score:4, Informative)
The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December [wikipedia.org]. Which, in 2012, will be December 17.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)
[sarcasm]As opposed to Bush, who, as we all know, was a great respecter of the Constitution.[/sarcasm]
Obama is an expert on the Constitution to a level that is hard to even define...He taught Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. So it's not unreasonable that he may have criticisms of the document, the same way any expert may have criticisms of things under his area of expertise.
But I do not think that he has anything like the arrogance and disrespect for the law and the Constitution that has been shown in the last 8 years, and having anyone imply that with a straight face makes me laugh.
Re:obama (Score:4, Informative)
Nice try.
But there are alternative search phrases, as you note. Let's check some others.
Hardly the massive media conspiracy you describe.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation [nationmaster.com].
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:2, Informative)
Or alternatively, mod me funny and "redundant" repeatedly to trash my karma.
Re:McCain FTW (Score:3, Informative)
Once again, I must point out to the politically naive that you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER listen to a politician's WORDS. To get the truth, you must always look at his ACTIONS. And John McCain's action in this matter was quite clear. Back in February when the Senate passed a bill to force the CIA and other government agencies to follow the Army Field manual procedures on enemy interrogation (which specifically bans torture and techniques such as waterboarding), your anti-torture hero John McCain voted against it (even after vocally supporting it earlier and sponsoring an earlier bill to establish this restriction for the Army).
When it comes down to the wire, John McCain's talk is cheap. But we won't have to worry much about that after today.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Informative)
After eight years of the Bush administration, I think it's clear that the party has completely lost its way. To me, the Republican Party stands for corruption, for putting radical ideology ahead of competent government, and for racism and intolerance.
So I'm glad to see the Republican Party thoroughly defeated this time around. The party has earned this with eight years of misrule, and they need to be held accountable. What worries me, however, is how the Democrats will govern, given a decisive majority in congress and control of the presidency. Power needs to be held accountable, and with the Republican party in such disarray and so little control over government now, I'm not sure how that will happen. Giving the Democrats free reign may not be a good idea- speaking as a Democrat, I know too well how my party can screw things up.
For that reason, I hope the Republican party comes back- but as something different. I really hope that the Republican party will take a long look at the errors of the Bush administration, and learn something. I would like to see a Republican party that is in favor of good government, appointing smart, competent people from any party, instead of incompetent hacks. I would like to see a Republican party that is pragmatic, basing policy on fact instead of religion and right-wing ideology. I would like to see a Republican Party that is genuinely compassionate, and that appeals to people's aspirations instead of their fears and prejudices.
Don't learn the wrong lesson from John McCain. John McCain embodies the best of the party. It was the rest of the party that dragged him down.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
No, every time the Republican controlled government sticks its nose into something, it turns to shit, because Republicans do not believe in government. When a party that believes government is good and can work controls things, things get better.
The facts speak for themselves. The stock market has grown by an average of 8.4% under Democratic leadership over the last 100 years, but only 0.4% under Republicans. We can see plain as day what government can do when we believe in it, and how it fails when we don't.
Problems in WA state but massive turnout (Score:2, Informative)
At most places in the state of Washington, normally a swing state, we've had more than 60 percent of people return their absentee ballots before election day or vote early or emergency (e.g. military being posted or sudden business travel).
Additionally, all the polling places have had more people vote in the first hour since they've been open than usually vote all day, so it looks like in person voting in the only two in-person counties (King and another Blue county) is off the charts.
I'm predicting a landslide, and that the GOP will lose two seats in Congress.
Minor problems with some electronic machines, but virtually everyone other than handicapped/disabled/blind votes using paper ballots that are optically scanned - either by mail, dropoff, or in person.
He was against it before he was for it. (Score:5, Informative)
It's funny you pull mention his talking-point on waterboarding, because John McCain in fact voted against [washingtonpost.com] a ban on waterboarding. So his stance is maybe not as clear as you think.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Informative)
It exists, and - from what I understand - Obama has it as the basis of his health care plan. The FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefits) system is a group of about 2 million federal employees and retirees which has several "competing" plans which are offered by private insurers. They have different costs, and the government provides employees/retirees with 75% reimbursement up to a fixed annual limit. You can imagine that most of the options maximize the benefits to hit that limit mark. There are some cheaper plans, and some more expensive, as well. The group is a pretty good cross section of the US, since it has a wide range of employees, in a wide range of jobs, and includes all federal pensioners.
As I read it, Obama wants to open enrollment up to "everybody" (I'm not sure how everybody is defined: citizens, legal residents, etc...), with financial assistance for those who cannot afford the various plans. Now, this is _not_ socialized medicine - it's just a very large group for negotiating purposes. It is still a private healthcare based system, with multiple providers. But since it acts like a group there is no penalty for switching plans, no pre-existing condition exclusions, and we presume "anyone" can buy in. The details are murky - how do we pay for those who need extra help (a family plan is about $12k/yr), how/when can you enroll (buying in right after you are diagnosed with cancer isn't financially sound), and will the plans be opened up for small (or any) businesses to purchase for their employees through this avenue. I mention the last because I run a small business. My premiums are affordable because we're all young and healthy. If someone in my office got serious cancer, I'd probably not be able to afford the new premiums. The FEHB system is more expensive than what I pay (bigger, sicker group), but not nearly as much as I could face if we had a major illness of one of the four in my office.
BTW - preexisting conditions are no longer excludable in group plans in the US, and group plans cannot drop or exclude an individual within a group. With 2M existing "customers," the big insurance players can't afford to just ignore the FEHB program. If the program weren't already filled with the elderly (retirees), I woudl be concerned about rate increases, but it's already a sickly bunch, as far as health insurance groups are concerned.
Oh, and as for socialized medicine - I think many people wouldn't know the difference. There are a very vocal minority who, on the other hand, actively seek out doctors with whom they have rapport. I'm one of those. If your experinces with healthcare are primarily the emergency room and whomever is on duty at the time, then socialized medicine looks just like private care. Just about anywhere you can find good doctors and bad doctors. In socialized medicine you get the luck of the draw - and that can mean very good care. In private care, you get a choice (to and extent) - and your care is predicated on how well you chose. We have outstanding care at the top because there is a financial incentive for it; by the same token, though, if you aren't rich, you're probably never going to see that level of care.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Informative)
By most quantifiable measures (lifespan, infant mortality, etc) the US appears to be worse off than most other industrialized nations. This indicates that the US healthcare system is less effective than others.
As established above, the US healthcare system is more expensive than others.
In this context, I think that "more expensive and less effective" is a pretty sound definition of "less efficient."
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Informative)
"The closest thing we've ever had to a free market was in the 19th century, and we saw the greatest rise in standards of living and infrastructure in the history of mankind."
It was also a century of one panic after another, robber barons, massive monopolies, labor exploitatio and it ended in extreme concentration of wealth and power in their hands. It ended in the progressive movement and labor uniotns to try to correct all the excesses and imbalances it created. The robber barons for example were using their railroad monopoly to starve out the farmers that had to rely on them to move their hard won crops to market. Corporations were abusing child labor and paying starvation wages.
It was also a period in which a vast continent rich with natural resources was opened and exploited. We were literally hauling billions out of the ground in gold and silver.
You can't reliably say the expansion in the 19th century was just because markets were free.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
Also worth bearing in mind is that the 2 independents are completely different from each other:
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a real honest-to-goodness socialist. He's far more liberal than any Democrat.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 but now is one of John McCain's strongest supporters.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:4, Informative)
I find it telling that statisticians have long noted the correlation between education levels and political leaning. It is fact: smarter, better educated, and better informed people tend to vote Democrat. Find a Republican in the AAAS or NAS. Why do you suppose that is? The better educated stand more to lose, since they tend to be wealthier. (I have a feeling that there's a golden amount of wealth that allows us the luxury of investing in the future, without the pathology of being obsessed with accumulating money.)
I also find it telling that most everyone saying anything negative about Obama has referred to him using his middle name. This echoes the standard content of the message: "He does not look like us, therefore he must be evil." They don't tend to address actual policy issues, but simply try to instill fear/hatred/uncertainty/doubt based on rumours.
Could we, as a society, maybe move beyond that?
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:4, Informative)
That being said, I have been heavily involved in the academic institution for a while at the College level. I wouldn't say the correlation between Higher education and democrat has much to do with the democrat platform being any more sound than the republican one. Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more. You are also mocked in your career if you are a PHD and a republican unless you are a poly-sci instructor. Democrats also are in favor of looser policies for research and development.
Another thing you need to remember, just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior. It just means I am really good at focusing all my attention on a subject.
Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.
Remember the whole causation correlation memo that is constantly thrown around here.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:4, Informative)
I figure providing a counter source will be more effective than modding you down.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html [factcheck.org]
Every time I have heard him talk, he has talked about how gun regulations at a federal level are completely infeasible, and it should be up to the cities themselves to determine how gun control issues should be handled.
It's obvious that a set of restrictions in Chicago aren't necessarily going to be as effective in Dallas or Los Angeles etc.
Worst Post Ever (Score:3, Informative)
"The GOP has lost it's way, and every year the party moves to the religious right."
What a crock. The party has been led by the religious right since 1980. You're acting like you woke up one day and found Jerry Falwell had kicked out Nelson Rockefeller yesterday. I don't know what party you've been taking about, but Republican politics has been dominated as much by social issues as economic since Reagan, Schafly, and southerners took it over from the liberal northeasterners in the late 70's. And they've had a pretty good track record of success since then.
You're right in one respect about the party losing it's way... Bush embraced "campaign finance reform", "comprehensive immigration reform", and new spending with the same gusto as Democrats. So did McCain on the first two issues.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Informative)
They would simply hire mercenaries and set themselves up as nobility. They fancy themselves as aristocrats, and historically, aristocrats were those who had the means of production - land, back then - to hire fighting men and kill anyone who opposed them. It was the rise of strong central government which put an end to feudalism, so of course the modern-day dukes want to abolish it to return to the good old days of serfdom.
Also: (Score:4, Informative)
Also:
- States and localities are supposed to be prepared for and handle the first three days, while FEMA's charter (at the time) was to mobilize the big stuff (financial aid, rebuilding, food restocking, etc.) that comes in after that time.
- The fed was PROHIBITED (by The Posse Comitatus Act) from coming in without permission from the state's governor - which was withheld. So the fed mobilized as much as it could meanwhile, bringing some of it up to the state line and handing off some others to Non-Governmental Organizations (one of which was the Salvation Army) to bring in. (Then the NGOs were blocked from entering by the state and local authorities, too.)
(One tinfoil hat theory is that the NGOs were deliberately blocked in a political move to increase the suffering and thus the administration's embarrassment when it was blamed on them.)
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Informative)
Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...