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?
I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.
Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's sense of responsability (Score:5, Insightful)
We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:switfboat (Score:4, Insightful)
He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.
Er...I think he called Senator Obama a Marxist for his statements to "Joe the Plumber" regarding taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx. He wrote that in his critique of the ``Gotha program.'' (Search for that exact phrase on wikipedia.) I am not sure how anyone could argue that Senator Obama's statement was anything but Marxist. He did everything but quote Marx.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama's sense of responsability (Score:3, Insightful)
Florida voting smooth so far (Score:5, Insightful)
Called my dad this morning and he said they were in and out in an hour. About 35 people in line but it went fast. He said the poll workers were really helpful and seemed well organized. I'm sure it's not going that well everywhere but the news isn't all bad.
If the Republicans get crushed and lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I wonder if they're going to clean house or keep on with same failed people and platform that put them in the tank? Or if they'll blame Palin and minority turn out?
Re:Obama's sense of responsability (Score:2, Insightful)
Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems that are running both houses of congress for one shred of what's wrong. Name one stump speech in which he said that anything was wrong except for "eight years of failed Bush blah blah blah." Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party. That's "taking responsibility?"
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Insightful)
"I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election."
Are you kidding? They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.
Did you get the Republican party robocall about Ayers, that basically said Obama was a bomb throwing terrorist who would bomb the Pentagon.
Did you see Sarah Palin saying Obama "pal'ed around with terrorists".
As soon as McCain fired his old advisors and replaced them with people who ran Bush's campaign they adopted all the same Swift Boat tactics and it completely turned Independents, like me, against McCain, that and picking a right wing nut like Palin.
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
REAL platform? That statement is rediculous. His platform is no more real or fake than any other candidate. Just because you agree with it more than McCains doesn't make it more real. In fact I think Obama's platform of "change" can be a bit vague at times and I think he's biting off more than he can chew.
I was going to vote for Obama, but the scores of mindless drones has really turned me off. I'm off to vote in about 20 minutes, I think I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate.
If Obama is NOT the next president (Score:4, Insightful)
If McCain is the next president, the world will say "Ya know what? We're done here. Game over. Thanks for playing" and it will hurt (a lot) in the short run, but once the American Empire's wings are clipped, the rest of the planet can set about building a future that works.
Economic? Send the dollars back home. How? Buy up the assets. Devalue the currency. Don't loan them money.
Diplomatic? The USA as a pariah state, sim. N Korea today or Libya back in the day. Turn off the WTO and IMF. Look elsewhere for partnership.
Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.
The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some. And if some swaggering third rate imperialist like McCain or, godferbid, his delusional retard of a VP, Palin, comes around acting like a dork, the simple and obvious reply is to shun them.
Now, before you think I'm some sort of Obama supporter, you're wrong. Obama is every bit the imperialist that McCain is - it's just that his focus is not on global domination, but on the much more realistic goal of regional domination. In other words, McCain is a unipolar imperialist and Obama is a multipolar imperialist. The multipolar option is the ONLY realistic option for the USA right now.
So, if the USA has ANY sense of self preservation, it will put Obama in as president. If it wants to drive itself off the cliff of history and explode on the rocks of self-inflicted stupidity, then it should vote for McCain.
The reality that is going to come crashing in is simple: energy. You either have it and use it wisely and with great thrift, or you act like Americans and permit atrocities like Las Vegas and the Cadillac Escalade to exist. Get with the program, or die off. It's a simple choice.
Now, go vote, and vote wisely.
RS
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
MidTerm elections would be in 2010!
Midterms in college are probably being given right now, or maybe they're already over.
Can't we have a break from campaigning for at least a year? I think we deserve it after having to deal with this for the past 2 years!!! Wouldn't it be nice if the news could actually contain some news? It's been a while since that has happened!
VOTE, VOTE Quickly, and lets get on with the rest of our lives!!!!!
Time to watch the polls on senate seats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:McCain FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical. Likely you've never actually read Marx (or anything beyond the Communist Manifesto). Pity. Marx actually has a lot of very interesting, insightful commentary about history, economics, and society. You may not agree with all his conclusions, but the man was a very careful, educated scholar.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not Palin decides to pursue a post-election career as a national-level politician, the real damage has already been dealt to the Republican party. Her meteoric rise is only a slight clue into the inner turmoil of the GOP.
The 20+ years of neoconservative leadership has bankrupted the Republican party of its core conservative platform, and the pandering to the religious fundamentalists has turned off the moderates of the party. Those left are the ones who see Palin as more than she ever could be. She represents precisely the reasons why the Republican party is unable to attract new members and votes.
Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.
That these pillars have been completely ignored in the actual implementation of policy is the primary reason so many are seeking answers elsewhere.
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:5, Insightful)
"From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is."
It isn't negative campaigning to point out the party, and its President, you are running against has completely sucked for 8 years. If the Republican's don't like that...... they shouldn't have sucked so bad for the last eight years. Its entirely their own fault they are losing, they had their chance, they controlled all the levers of power.... and they blew it. That is the whole idea of a campaign against an unpopular incumbent. Unfortunately for McCain he does in fact support the lion's share of things Bush did with the possible exception of torture, profligate spending and a mismanaged war. Though he originally opposed the Bush tax cuts for the rich, for the obvious reason that they created staggering deficits, he has since flip flopped and has been running on a campaign to make them permanent.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this socialist BS.
Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.
If you want socialism, vote for the big-government republicans.
(Does anyone else miss small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans? I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but man am I ready for the neocon/religious right section of the GOP to dry up.)
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Adam Smith (the guy who basically invented Capitalism) was also in favor of the rich being taxed at a higher rate than the poor, so that's not a good argument.
True Socialism is more about community property and state ownership of businesses than it is about progressive taxation.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet would be so annoying if he lost.
The Internet would still be much less annoying than the resurgent right-wing militias are going to be if he wins.
Re:switfboat (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Sounds a bit like the Earned Income Tax Credit [wikipedia.org]. Wasn't that brought about by those infamous commies Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan?
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:5, Insightful)
at least by my count, below-the-belt attacks were at an all time high.
Can you elaborate? What do you consider to be "below-the-belt"? People mocking her when she said stupid things? People pointing out her lack of experience and knowledge? People laughing at her un-presidential mannerisms and speech?
Some people command respect. Palin isn't one of them.
They did that (Score:3, Insightful)
because it brings out those inbred rednecks to vote, and they will vote Republican.
We in Missouri dealt with that in 2004 (unfortunately, the white trash got the Constitution amended successfully), so maybe we'll go Dem this time.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Marx is great, in theory.
Just like communism is great, in theory.
It's when the theory hits the practice. Problem is, when you hand communism (or any 'everyone works together' theory) to the people, they're still greedy and inherently flawed. Thereby ending up with a situation similar to... China.
Note: Similar to, not exactly like.
Re:If Obama is NOT the next president (Score:4, Insightful)
You want to tell the US government to go fuck itself. So do a huge number of US citizens, myself included.
But do you really think that the leaders of the other first world and developing countries are not the same kind of power-hungry, lying, cheating politicians, and that they will not work with others of the same ilk to get more power at your expense?
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Isn't this "Marxist" type of negative tax one of the basic principles of the state governed by McCain's running mate?
Truth of the matter is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not the President that is going to make the necessary change. Its Congress, American business, and the America people.
1. Congress makes the decisions on domestic policy and passes legislation. The President can sign or veto the proposed legislation, but congress can override that veto by a 2/3 majority
"After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress]
So what good is the President on domestic policy when his decisions can be overridden?
2. Look at the current credit/economic crisis in America. Greed and overspending on the part of business and the populus. Short of the SEC and Fed making mistakes, 90% of that is due to non-governmental factors.
3. The President [at this time] has the obligation to preside over foreign policy matters and matters of national security. Thus, the next President must have a keen sense of foreign policy and diplomacy as we do live in a now "global" community.
In as far as either major candidate (yes, there are four others), I don't think any of them have the intelligence and experience to meet today's requirements.
Congress, That's where we need a change. They are the branch of Federal Government that is responsible for 90% of our domestic policy. Make the change there.
BTW, The House is majority Dems and the Senate, tho is 49/49 Rep/Dem, the remaining two seats have aligned themselves with the Dems, giving them de facto control.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree but I still think we should get to slap the Slashdot admins every time they stick a Politics story under News.
They have a Politics category for a reason and I have it turned off for a reason!
Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Obama is NOT the next president (Score:4, Insightful)
But do you really think that the leaders of the other first world and developing countries are not the same kind of power-hungry, lying, cheating politicians, and that they will not work with others of the same ilk to get more power at your expense?
Actually, no I don't. And it is depressing that this kind of attitude is so prevalent in the USA today.
More importantly.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about curtailing it a little next time lads?
(Speaking from an outside-US position) I've been following this whole thing with great interest since the Obama/Clinton things started - and going back a bit I stayed up all night watching the Gore/Bush thing - so I'm not knocking it.
But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.
Maybe some work needs to be done on limiting the scale of the thing - both in terms of time and of money, which is verging on the ridiculous too.
See you in 2 years time...
Re:switfboat (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
Early Christians (and many today) practiced this concept but it differed on a very significant points: it was voluntary. No one forced them to do so.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical.
I received a tax cut from President Bush. I make nowhere near $250,000 a year. I make a very, very small fraction of that amount. Senator Obama claims he will give a tax cut to me and will roll back the current President's tax cuts. The two appear to be mutually exclusive, especially since I currently do not pay federal income tax. I am among the 38% of Americans (or is it households?) that do not pay federal income taxes. How is it possible to reduce zero? I currently pay zero (though I did pay federal income taxes prior to President Bush's tax cuts) and yet Senator Obama promises me a tax cut (while taking away the tax cut I have already received). A reduction of *zero* would be negative. That means I would get back money in the form of a tax rebate of taxes I did not pay. This money necessarily comes from someone else. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Argue that this is acceptable, but don't argue that it isn't Marxist or Socialist. It is at the core of Marx' philosophy.
Re:obama (Score:3, Insightful)
he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him
Of course! It is easy to stay above the fray when the press takes all the mud for you. Joe the Plumber was investigated more thoroughly than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezco, combined!
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are lucky... The Democrats little spat into socialized medicine (1992-3) cost them the house and senate for about 12 years. My only hope out of tonight will be the Democrats under 60 seats in the senate..
Re:If Obama is NOT the next president (Score:2, Insightful)
Go, Libertarians! (Score:3, Insightful)
The good news is that, like Ron Paul's supporters [gnn.tv], I'll be able to easily tell if Diebold ate my vote.
Re:switfboat (Score:1, Insightful)
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power.
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't. Can you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been on a board with an abortion bomber? Could you imagine the outcry from the press if McCain had been a member of a church that preached racism? Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
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.
The press ran Obama's campaign. They elected him a year ago!
Re:switfboat (Score:2, Insightful)
First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but let's call it what it is, instead of "well, we're just rolling them back, so it's not really a tax increase, per se."
Second, it's not the graduated tax structure that so many object to as "socialist." A relatively decent and logical argument can be made that those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets. I can work with that.
What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism. It's one thing to run a jobs program where those in it are actually contributing something to society--building infrastructure, cleaning things up, etc.--but quite another to give out money simply for drawing breath. And whether or not that's what Obama's plans truly are, it's what many fear.
Personally, I don't really care at this point. I distrust Obama more, but none of the candidates (including third parties) is appealing. I just don't want to see a democrat supermajority in Congress combined with an Obama win--one party rule is bad; absolute, filibuster-proof one-party rule is downright terrifying. Should that happen (from either party), you could probably kiss about half of the Bill of Rights goodbye.
Re:My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) (Score:5, Insightful)
some people simply like fairy tales so much they can't tell that its just not real
Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all believe fairy tales that make life easier. I choose to believe that people are basically decent individuals and will eventually reach mutually beneficial objectives via consensus and co-operation. He believes that there is an invisible man in the sky who loves him. There isn't much evidence to support either of our fairy tales, but they help both of us participate in society.
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:5, Insightful)
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
Well let me clue you in, then.
"John Kerry didn't really earn his Purple Heart or Silver Star" is negative, inherently so, it calls into question his honestly, character and valor.
"John McCain is unstable, and possibly insane, due to his time as a POW during Vietnam" is negative, inherently so, as it takes an example of the man's tremendous courage and turns it into a negative, questioning his very sanity.
Compare those to "John McCain is an extension of G.W. Bush's Presidency", that's only negative if you happen to disagree with Bush's policies -- oh which the vast majority of American's do, thus McCain's attempts to distance himself from the man -- but is vastly different than the other examples. It's technically worded as a negatively, but it's no different than saying "I think my opponent's policies are bad for the country", which is what you would want a candidate to be saying in an issue- and policy-based campaign.
"Going negative" is when you try to smear their character for things other than their political record. Bush did it hardcore to Kerry and to McCain. Obama has by and large avoided it. McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show. See, even if you don't see the difference between "Your policies are like George Bush's" and "you pal around with terrorists", most Americans can, and that's part of why Barack Obama is going to be our next President.
Voted Libertarian (Score:2, Insightful)
This year I realized what my actual philosophy is, so I voted that way. Voting for the lesser evil is still... evil.
The voting machines around here are still mechanical-lever type, so I'm pretty confident the vote was tallied correctly.
Re:Myths and urban legends (Score:3, Insightful)
Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
McCain didn't change the Republican Party. The Republican Party changed him.
Ironically, I thought McCain was going to be the one to change the party. The GOP has lost it's way, and every year the party moves to the religious right. John McCain always seemed to stand up for what was right. I'm lean left but I respect some of the core republican causes. I once donated to McCain's Senate campaign, because I thought McCain would be the leader to save the Republican Party from itself.
And yet in the last couple years McCain completely collapsed-- it's like he lost his independence, and quickly started spewing the same vitriol that I hear coming out of the far right. John McCain, what happened to you?
I'm not sure if he chose Palin because he liked her, or because his Masters told him too. Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I Hate the Parties (Score:3, Insightful)
To the Republicans: thanks for turning your back on fiscal conservatism and mortgaging my child's future. Again. Also, while I think Jesus is great, but please keep your fucking religion out of government. It is not for you to judge me; most of you sensibly relegate that responsibility to God. Now you just need to tell your radical right-wing to shut the fuck up and "live and let live". Unfortunately, many of you allow your faith to blind you to reality. I hate you because you are hypocrites. I hate you because your being in power for so long has corrupted all of you, and you don't even realize it. You deserve to continue to lose power because you need to learn some lessons. But I know you won't, not really, and I hate you for that too. I hate you most of all because you have real contempt for the common man but you're too stupid to realize it; you don't even understand that you are condescending to an entire nation!
I hate both of you because you treat me like a ten-year-old; I hate how you try to pander to my base instincts and assume I have an IQ of 80. I hate both of you because none of you have any balls and won't allow yourselves to go off script; I hate both of you because you both require your politicians to toe the line. I hate both of you because you lie and you "spin". I hate both of you because of your implicit collusion to keep the status quo.
I lament the death of the U.S. I hate you, Republican and Democrat alike, for killing our great nation.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I am really wondering about the antipathy against something that is perceived "socialized medicine". ;) ).
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations. In parts it is not even effective, e.g. not providing all U.S. citizens with even basic health services.
For a visitor of Earth, who doesn't look too deeply into the inner workings, he has to be under the impression that, given normal economic theories, the U.S. one is the most socialist system and the other nations have market driven ones (Ok... UK might be in a hard competition for place one in this race
But whenever someone is barely suggesting, one could have a look how other nations organize health care and at least pondering some ideas, he gets shout down with "Communism! Socialism!" immediately. So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?
Re:switfboat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More importantly.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as if this whole country has a collective memory loss and just keeps bouncing back and forth between two bad choices.
The problem is that as long as people make one of the two bad choices, the remaining choices will all be infeasible to make, unless a large chunk of people agree to make them.
Duverger's law is a principle of political science which predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting)
You may have heard the phrase "Every vote not for number two is a vote for number one". Think Ralph Nader.
We can analyze this in the framework of Game Theory: suppose you're a not-so-moderate leftie. You want Nader to win, then Kerry, then Bush, with payoffs [N=10, K=2, B=-10]. Suppose there's three percent like you, and the rest vote K=48%, B=49%. If you all vote Nader, you get payoff -10. If you all vote Kerry, you get payoff 2. Your goal is to maximize your payoff; what will you do?
Voting for the big two is probably a Nash Equilibrium, when the voting game is formalized the "right" way, which means that it's in everyone's self interest to keep doing what they're doing as long as no one else change what they do.
One thing you probably want in a voting system is that voting honestly (:= for the candidate you prefer the most) is a dominant strategy (:= it's at least as good as any other strategy).
As long as people vote for the big two, they have to vote for big two to get what they want unless the game (i.e. election system) changes. And the election system won't change as long as people vote for the big two, because the politicians who have the power to change the game have higher payoffs from the game being what it is.
Re:obama (Score:2, Insightful)
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Insightful)
if Obama wins, January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..
The fact that people are out there making statements like this with a straight face just goes to prove my point.
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
I'm going to have to say you don't know what negativity is.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you should look at the details of the Clinton healthcare proposals for reasons to oppose it. Micromanagement of healthcare at a Federal level is not the key to socialized medicine.
Come to that, micromanagement of anything is not a key to success.
75% right. (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you're exactly right on Palin: she's a capable non-intellectual.
And I think you're right that Obama is not a 'steady hand'. But you're wrong about that nudge left. Obama is at is heart a 1960's radical wannabe, out to destroy what he sees as white supremacy and the power of an unjust AmeriKKKan empire.
Whether or not you believe that America has an empire, and is unjust, and in the urgency of electing a symbol is whether you buy into Obama or not.
Despite how nice it would be to elect a black President, I held my nose and voted McCain.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I disagree with you on one point. Most people do not believe in small/less-intrusive government and free markets. A true conservative does, but most people are not true conservatives.
You can write off ~50% of people that are Democrats leaving you with, more or less, half the country that is Republican.
As far as free markets go, most Republicans do not understand what ``free market'' means. Most ``free market'' people, especially those with kids, would completely freak out if we followed true free market principles and abolished the FDA. These would be the same people calling Obama a socialist while sending their kids to public schools.
As far as less-intrusive government goes, most people are all for using government as a tool to impose their will. One side wants national health care, the other side wants abortion banned. One side is for gun control, the other side is for the PATRIOT Act. Either way, both sides are for government intruding on our lives.
As for smaller government, national health care and the PATRIOT Act are very good examples of how neither side wants smaller government. They just want the parts of government they disagree with to loose resources so that the parts they do agree with can have more.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
You have it ass backwards. Tina Fey is so hilarious as Palin because Palin is such a loony toon.
Communism doesn't kill people, people kill people (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's not forget the millions that have died at the hands of communism.
Please let's be clear here: I haven't ever heard of anyone who was killed by communism. (That would be like saying that everyone killed by US troops in World War II were killed by "capitalism"...) The millions you're talking about were killed by repressive totalitarian dictators using the name of "communism" to make themselves sound more palatable to the ordinary people. Their economic systems may have been partially communist-based, but their political systems certainly were basically your garden-variety dictatorship.
Anyone who holds up Stalin as an iron-clad reason why Communism is Evil doesn't actually understand what communism is.
Dan Aris
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, that's another thing I don't understand about Florida and the last election. (The first being why they wielded so much power that they dictated the outcome. Someone explained to me about the lopsided electoral college system that the US has. In the US, you don't vote for the president directly, you vote for electoral voters, who then vote for the president. Certain states have more electoral voters than others.) Why did Florida toss in the towel? They're on the East coast of the country. The polls open up first in the east. The results are tabulated first in the east. If it was 9:30 pm in Florida, it would still be only 6:30 in California, and a lot of people, perhaps as many as half the country, would not yet have voted. So why did they bail on casting their votes solely on the "strength" of early poll results?
I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:1, Insightful)
Not at all.
I do politics, I don't do Slashpolitics.
I already voted. Slashdot is this giant pit of myopic zealots.
What I don't find any use in is talking politics.
I look at the issues weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and issue, then I vote.
But I have never found much of any political value on Slashdot. I put Slashdot politics in the same bin as SNL and Fox News politics.
BUT I AM IRRITATED BECAUSE SLASHDOT IS ABUSING IT"S OWN CATEGORY SYSTEM!!!!
DISCUSSING THE ELECTION BLOODY WELL ISN'T NEWS!!! IT IS POLITICS!!!!!
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
feel free to disagree with her, but I'll take someone speaking their mind, and not the party line, any day of the week
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is in desperate need of good PR and Obama could help us a lot with that.
Ten months ago, I would have agreed with you. I'd have said that was one of our biggest problems. But now, given the current state of the economy, war, etc...I think we need a hell of a lot more than charisma. I don't think either candidate has a true plan to deal with all the issues. I think they're both lying weasels that would say/do anything to get elected, and I believe we're not better off with one or the other. (Just like always) It doesn't mean I don't have my pick, but in the end I understand that this one vacant position getting filled doesn't have a chance to change *anything* that wouldn't have changed anyways.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really a tie 49-49 with 2 independents that usually side with the Dems.
Add to that extreme fillabusters from the Republicans, and a Republican president that has threatened to veto pretty much every Democratic initiative and you have have a Democratic "majority" in congress that can't get a damn thing done.
The current state of the union is not the fault of a 2 year weak Dem majority in congress, it is largely the fault of the Republican's near complete control from 2000-2006, and the gridlock they've created since.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
Please spout off on more regulation. Greenspan hasn't been for free markets since he headed the Fed, the exact opposite of a free market entity.
This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html [lewrockwell.com]
http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Economic-Collapse-Sonberg/dp/0470043601 [amazon.com]
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ [campaignforliberty.com]
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly the 1-party thing was a drum I beat for 6 years, and I'm tired of beating on it. The Republicans need a good old fashioned asswhipping to kick their sorry asses back toward the middle and maybe, maybe to kick some of the damn social conservatives back into their caves. At the very least their massive arrogance needs to have some holes shot in it.
When good Sentors like Chuck Hagel and Arlen Specter are called traitors to their party because they don't suck up to the social conservatives, there is something seriously wrong.
The absolute LAST thing we need in this country is two parties who think they've got the right to legislate how we live our lives.
Re:switfboat (Score:4, Insightful)
The charges about Wright are maybe defensible. The accusations about Ayers are complete bullshit. Obama was eight when Ayers led the Weather Underground. The FBI decided to never charge him for anything so he has no criminal record He turned over a new leaf and is a respected University professor and champion of better education in Chicago and this country. Obama didn't associate with him in the first part of his life only in the second, and there are just as many Chicago Republicans who work with him as Democrats. Not like his ties to him are particularly close. If you are going to make it a prerequisite for a President that they NEVER have associated with anyone every in their life who might be in any way be controversial you are going to require them to live in a bubble their entire life, and they sure can't go to a college. We've already have one President who lives in a bubble, George Bush, it was a disaster, we don't need any more.
Sending out robocalls that somehow Obama is a bomb throwing anti American terrorist because he knows Ayers is over the top offensive. Sure go ahead and do it, you are just going to turn off every independent in the country doing it which is what you did in my case.
The fact is there was a serious culture war in the U.S. in the 60's and early 70's. Obama and I missed it, we were to young. We aren't fighting it any more, we are moving past it. Its unfortunate the rest of you haven't. Its time to move on. This country has serious issues to fix and the culture war is making them worse, not resolving them. One good thing lately is young people are starting to get involved and vote again, I'm hoping they are a lot less rascist and homophobic and lot more tolerant than previous generations.
Re:McCain FTW (Score:3, Insightful)
McCain abandoned his opposition to torture? This would be the McCain who said in a national debate:
"I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is... Then I am astonished that you would think such a - such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our - who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention"
That's pretty clear cut. Regardless of whether McCain is the best man for the job of President, his clear anti-torture stance - which went against the general Republican stance at the time - was something he should be admired for.
Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.
You're exactly right. When Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court, there was no question that Sandra Day O'Connor was qualified, her credentials were impeccable. Can anyone say the same thing about Palin?
Re:switfboat (Score:4, Insightful)
those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets.
Talking about calling things what they are, let me rephrase that for you:
those in the higher tax brackets derive ALL THEIR benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets.
You can talk all you want about your rugged individualists and self made men, but how many Bill Gates are there in of Somalia? None. How many poor people? lots. The rich in this and other countries owe everything they have to stable government and rule of law. The poor just owe their TV and car to it. Who should pay more to support the system?
If I were running a swap-meet and people who rented stalls were getting rich, yet my rents were so low I was going into debt to keep it running, my share holders would sue me if I didn't raise rents. Seems like the same thing is happening now.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Afford a tank of gas? Think about retiring?
Look someone in the eye and say, "In the US we don't torture prisoners of war, we don't unilaterally invade other countries, we don't imprison our citizens without a trial, and we don't allow the government to spy on citizens without due process of law."
If you can look back on the last 8 years without feeling sick with shame, there is a problem.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, and the UK, France, Germany and much of the rest of Europe are stunning examples of the failure of socialism. They're cutting back on social programs and privatizing where they can because they just can't sustain the system. And they've got these problems despite the fact that people are taxed heavily at all income levels.
One thing that always gets me is how people compare a nation like Denmark or Japan to the US. Those countries have relatively small and homogenous populations, unlike the US. They're in a situation where they have most of the population paying the system ensuring it's sustainable.
And even then, eventually problems arise, like in Japan, because of declining birth rates there aren't enough people paying in to support the aging population. From everything I've seen, unless we completely abandon any monetary system socialism is always doomed to failure in the long run.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.
I have a rather conservative outlook to life -- small "c", no vast ideology involved. I believe that it's best to approach things cautiously, make sure we don't leap in feet-first and screw things up before we even understand what's going on. I believe we shouldn't fix what ain't broke but this doesn't mean that there's not a better way of doing things out there. Sure, maybe 9 in 10 times the new idea turns out to not be a good one so we decide to not go ahead with it but there's always that 1 in 10 chance that it's a really good idea.
I despise what big "c" Conservatism has become in this country. Right-wing media outlets actively seek to inculcate their listeners against logic and reason, giving them predigested talking points to hurl back in forth in shouted arguments where nobody is really listening to each other. To me, conservatism is about caution, prudence, relying on wisdom won through hard experience and tough lessons. The opposite of this conservatism is flighty, mercurial indecision, mistakes made from inexperience and the best of intentions gone wrong. The non-conservative sees a drowning man and jumps in after him to save him. And as we all know, a drowning man is going to try scrambling up the body of his would-be rescuer and get them both killed. The true conservative does not immediately leap to unthinking action but looks for a life-ring to throw the two of them, preferring meaningful action that will produce results to empty actions full of symbolism and nothing more. But what would the GOP Conservative do today? He would look at the drowning man and say "Fuck him, it's his own problem. Let him save himself," and walk away.
And what of liberalism in this country? Why, the very debate has poisoned the word. Liberal is now an insult second only to child molester. "He's a liberal," the television ads sneer, as if that one word satisfactorily sums up every reason not to vote for someone. That's bullshit.
What is a liberal? A liberal is someone who is unsatisfied with the status quo. He worries that his conservative friend is too comfortable with the way things are and sees a better future in the way things could be. In a healthy political environment, there is give and take between both positions. Perhaps the liberal reaches too far, perhaps the conservative isn't reaching far enough. Through vigorous debate the public is informed of the issues and will decide who they agree with.
The thing about status quos, there's always going to be someone at the top of the pyramid quite happy with the way things are and there will always be many more people at the bottom wanting to change it. In this case, the conservative will want to exert every effort to keep things the way they are while liberals will want to bring about reforms, democratize the process, make things more fair. This is the crux of the matter, the heart of the conflict. Read Roman history and this back and forth feels utterly familiar. Change the names and dates and it could be pulled from our own newspapers.
The people are abandoning the Republican Party because they feel they're getting screwed. In other countries, sovereignty resides with the wealthy and the people have no voice as a matter of law. In America, sovereignty resides with the people, not a king, not an aristocracy, not a priesthood. This is a country by, of, and for the people. And right now what the people are seeing is a huge screw-job, marshaling the resources of this vast land to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Wall Street is screwing us over. Polit
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummmm this is generally how dems behave as well, that somehow they are the sophisticated light and anything else just isn't socially acceptable or permissible. At least republicans take a stand on issues rather than constantly whining about how they would have done things better and dangling theories in front of their party members. "Oh if a democrat were president 9/11 would never have happened" "If a democrat were president, we wouldnt be in the war" "if if if...for the love of pete, give it up and SHOW the world things will be better". Yes I voted blue this round, but as the Simpsons democrat quote goes "We will screw it up somehow".
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?
No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:3, Insightful)
The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..
From which we can conclude that:
January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights..
Even though Obama will have no power to write laws and it would be political suicide even for a Democratic congress to actually pass such laws in this gun-crazed country.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Insightful)
"Even though Obama will have no power to write laws and it would be political suicide even for a Democratic congress to actually pass such laws in this gun-crazed country."
Funny for 8 years we have been blaming Bush for Iraq when he cant declare war, Blaming him for the patriot act when he cant pass laws, ..., .... So Bush is the all powerful and Obama would be a weak little sheep?
But you are right, my statement was over the top, I apologize for that, Ill fix it..
January 21 might be the last time you can exercise your second amendment rights in the same manner you can today!
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
and you have have a Democratic "majority" in congress that can't get a damn thing done.
This is exactly what we want, and why an Obama victory is so dangerous at this point in time.
Every time the government sticks their nose into something, it turns into a steaming pile of shit. We WANT gridlock in Washington. We WANT them to be unable to get much done.
It's simply WAY too fucking dangerous to have the same party in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, regardless of which party it is. What people complain about as "gridlock" is actually one of the few things that keeps this country from going down the tubes even faster.
Our founding fathers had a different name for it, though. They didn't call it "gridlock". They called it "checks and balances".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. Instead, of aiming at the head, aim at the heart of the problem. Push for all candidates to sign a pledge that congressional committee appointments will be by random selection.
Ted Stevens stayed in the Congress so long, because he was able to "bring home the pork." Alaskans would be insane to drop a political figure that was able to bring in money from Florida to pay for things in Alaska. He was popular with Alaskans because he was able to get money to pay for things they wanted without raising their taxes.
Ted Stevens was able to "bring home the pork" because he sat on powerful committees. But I ask you, why should Ted Stevens be any more powerful than Elizabeth Dole? Why should Alaska have more representation in Congress than North Carolina? Why should someone who's been hanging around for 30yrs have more control than the 'new blood' we periodically send in to fix things.
Spread the power around. Randomize committee selection. Get to the real power and disburse it.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
You can call me delusional all day, but this country (the US) faces a global market. If you regulate our economy as you suggest (and who decides how much regulation is enough?), you will simply make our entire country non-competitive. We will all be equal -- equally poor.
You are the idealist -- some people (often the smart ones you deride) deserve to be rich. Others deserve to be poor.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Yeah, my house was on fire and I had to wait for 3 hours before i got to the front of the line to ask them for a fire hose. If I could have paid for the firemen myself, I would have had my house out in 2 minutes!
Then again, my insurance company might not have paid for them because that carpet was really just cosmetic and not really needed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Palin may have had a shot in 2012, until Tina Fey and the rest of the cast of Saturday Night Live destroyed her political career.
SNL can't write anything funny unless it's basically handed to them. Think about it.
Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you on this. He totally and completely sold out everything that he had stood for for years. I can only imagine it's because he was convinced that's the only way he could win, and after he won he could go back to doing and saying the things he actually believed.
Of course, he'd never be allowed to do that.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Just lazy I guess, let 'em die like a dog...
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
As best I recall in recent weeks the EU with some degree of assent from the U.S. are talking about global market regulation. That is kind of scary in its own right, if you are going to have a global bureaucracy writing the rules. We are pretty much screwed at this point because thanks to computers and fiber optics the markets are already completely global and huge sumes are moving around in a heart beat. Thinking if you just get rid of all regulation that will fix everything is either naive or cynical. If you are a wealthy fat cat gaming the system I can see why you would want that though, at least until one of two things happen:
A. A smarter, richer fat cat games the system better than you and cleans YOU out
B. The global economic system collapses and you run crying to your government for billions of dollars to bail you out which is what most of your "free market rules" friends seem to be doing at the moment.
The irony is most of you free marketeers only want free markets when you are making money, as soon as wreck the system with your greed, you seem to be the first ones running to the tax payers to save you ass(ets).
"You are the idealist -- some people (often the smart ones you deride) deserve to be rich. Others deserve to be poor."
That is a view point that has led to a lot of rich people being executed, most prominently Marie Antoinette when she told starving people to "eat cake".
If you think your idealistic, Libertarian world is going to work where a few rich people clean everyone else out you really are delusional.
I'll agree that lazy people deserve to be poor, and handing them welfare is wrong. Its just as wrong for hard working people to be robbed by a bunch of crooked fat cats which is exactly what you are advocating and seems to be more or less the system we have today.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you prefer a great father on Wall Street to take care of all your ills and order your hirings and firings, but a great many of us have a spine and prefer collective action. We're called adults. The adults among us do much better when government works to curb the excesses of Drunken Gambler Daddy capitalism.
Re:Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
He pretty much took one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. government, limited government, and said he doesn't like it. Having vast knowledge about the Constitution doesn't in any way imply that he believes in or respects it.
Re:If Obama is NOT the next president (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor, naive youth! :-P
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:switfboat (Score:3, Insightful)
"What landmarks did Liddy bomb?"
Right you are. As best I recall..... he [wikipedia.org] just napalmed our Constitution and tried to nuke our electoral process. Nothing important.
I'm assuming you are saying that since his terrorism was state sponsored it was different? Right you are....
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:2, Insightful)
"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""
Then he doesn't know how the 2nd Amendment is worded. Nor does he know or understand the arguments fought back and forth within the Federalist Papers. That means he is incompetant. He also doesn't appreciate the many thousands of American men and women who died to uphold that document.
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Insightful)
Karma plus paying [youtube.com] for your mortgage and gas too? WTF else do you want? :p
Re:switfboat (Score:3, Insightful)
"the media is mostly conservative."
The media execs and share holders are mostly conservative. A lot of journalists tend to be well educated, idealistic, liberals. Fortunately for the conservatives we are replacing most of our journalists with talking heads who just spout what their audience wants to hear which happens with the views of their bosses and whichever party is popular at the moment. As a result there is very little critical analysis of how true anything is, you know the stuff journalists used to do. Today's "fact checkers" are a pale shadow since they don't uncover anything new.
The New York Times and New Yorker seem to be one of the very few outlets still doing investigative journalism, and exposing things like the Bush spying program. It drives the right nuts that the only investigative journalism that seems to be left in the U.S. is left leaning.
Re:Bias Language on Ballots (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of exclusivity in our laws; so, for an individual, we don't have to allow more than one marriage to be valid at any one time. I'm not so sure about group marriages, where the "marriage contract" is between 3 or more individuals; but it seems as if [disallowing group marriages] might not be discriminatory. Frankly, I don't have a problem with group marriage -- I mean, if the 3 or 4 or whatever of you think you can deal with it, why should the government stop it?
You forgot between adults and animals, or adults and inanimate objects.
This I definitely don't agree with. Children are a protected class of citizen, and do not have full rights under our laws. Children cannot vote, they cannot be drafted, they cannot enter into [some] legally binding agreements. If your argument was valid, then we'd have to allow marriage involving children today, assuming that they're heterosexual.
50 years ago, marriage between whites and non-whites was considered "an abomination against God" and not part of the "natural order of things". Even when I was a kid (I'm 43), I can remember when a mixed couple out in public caused people to stare.
The only reason to forbid gay marriage is because you don't like homosexuality. Either because your church says it's evil, because you fear you might be turned gay, because you're just "uncomfortable" with it, because you're ignorant, or some other reason. IMHO, that's just too damn bad. Your dislike of the lifestyle of others is absolutely no reason to abrogate their rights and force the government to treat them as second class citizens. *You* don't have to hang out with "teh gayz", and your church won't have to marry them (after all, I can't get married in a Catholic church without being a Catholic). That's different. We're talking about the government here, and the government should not be permitted to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.
Leaving things "as is" is the same thing--when it comes to the law--as being hardcore, rabidly anti-gay. Whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, unless you live in a cave as a hermit, you know gay people. Outlawing gay marriage won't make them go away. Society is changing, and does so all the time. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal", you owe it to yourself to vote down these ridiculous attempts to codify discrimination and hate into our laws.
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:2, Insightful)
I voted Obama a couple weeks ago by mail-in absentee ballot. Give me free karma!
Don't worry, you will be getting that in the form of raised taxes and a weaker economy. Enjoy!
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally it isn't the Federal governments job, but instead the States and the people that live there if they want to continue living there in safety.
Unfortunately this systems has become so twisted in order to keep us suckling off "Big Brothers" teet.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
I can't totally parse what you are trying to say here, it seems pretty jumbled and at least partly demonstrably wrong.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were gov't entities, then were spun off into non-gov't corporations (though everyone thought they had some sort of special unspoken gov't back-up), then were placed back in gov't conservatorship recently. They are not the cause of the financial upheaval going on. They actually got into the sub-prime market late and in a lesser way due to legal restrictions that other companies did not have.
The CRA has been blamed by many on the right largely because it is about the only way to tie the financial shitstorm directly to Democrats. Unfortunately, the argument simple doesn't hold water. Are you really suggesting that a law passed 31 years ago caused no problems for 3 decades caused a sudden and dramatic panic? Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? Do you even know what the CRA really requires of lenders (and which ones)?
encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
Baloney. The CRA doesn't *require* any risks, and in fact CRA-regulated loans are not the ones that have been causing [americanprogress.org] problems [traigerlaw.com].
This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:
And by gov't regulators who warned of problems back last century [fdic.gov]. It is not difficult to forsee that when bigger mortgages are given to a whole lot more people with a whole lot less ability to afford them, at predatory rates & conditions that there will be problems. Many people on the left (and some on the right) called for better regulations, yet we can thank Greenspan for undermining pretty much anything meaningful.
-Ted
Re:Obama's sense of responsability (Score:3, Insightful)
What? I'm pretty darn sure the Democrats blamed Republicans, blamed Bush, blamed big domestic oil, etc... let's at least be objective here... sheesh.
I know. Terrible isn't it? Republicans in charge of the executive and legislative branch for 6 years and all people can do is hold them responsible for what they've done. Blaming the administration for the administration's failures indeed. Tsk tsk! Imagine thinking that the buck stopped on the President's desk.
Sane Gun Control Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
"Private weapons should be legal but regulated to a degree proportional to their utility and destructiveness."
That adopts a libertarian stand of anything should be legal provided that it does not harm other's rights, and yet recognises that there is an inherent risk regardless of noble intent.
This is an easy test: What is the risk to the population as a whole if it is intentionally or accidentally misused? A baseball bat is much less likely to kill or injure than say a hand grenade if misused. A baseball bat can be used for constructive purposes, while a hand grenade is pretty much only useful if you want to hurl small pieces of metal in random directions at high velocity. Ergo, a grenade should have a much higher level of regulation than a baseball bat.
I think its a fair request to have more dangerous weapons regulated. The bill of rights wasn't written to permit you to needlessly endanger your fellow citicens while excercising your own rights. Obama's stand seems to reflect this idea.
Re:switfboat (Score:3, Insightful)
So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans.
If by "people" and "country" you mean two thirds of the electorate, then yes. The other third is about as dumb as a bag of rocks, and they're genuinely scared. This is not a small percentage. Thankfully they're not the majority, but do not discount them. The crazy lady at the McCain rally [youtube.com] who said she's afraid of Obama because he's an Arab (which she concluded after reading "a lot of information about him") is NOT just a crazy nutjob; a frightening number of people think exactly the same way she does.
Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would take Joe Biden over "Malibu Stacey" Sarah Palin any day of the week.
Let's see if that gets modded up, even though it contains just as much insight as the parent.
Yes, look at Katrina (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?
No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.
So the government can prevent hurricanes? People choose to live in a sinking bowl of mud with no bedrock and water on three sides of the city, and it's the governments fault? It's the governments fault when those people didn't leave when they were warned that, hey, there's a fscking hurricane coming, get out of Dodge. That's the government's fault?
I know what you mean. I get those same warm fuzzies when I realize people like you vote.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Insightful)
The CRA laws and regulations literally mandated adjustable rate mortgages, and explicitly forbid the banks to consider creditworthiness? Do you even believe that yourself?
The CRA basically says that depositary banks have to extend credit to ethnic minorities on the same terms that they do to white people. The Clinton-era regulations encouraging "subprime" lending set credit standards for subprime loans that the GSEs would purchase. These loans did pretty good, so a bunch of non-CRA private lenders decided to get into the subprime market, made loans that didn't measure up to the GSE standards, and packaged them in the private market. The GSEs then freaked out about losing market share and got careless about what they'd buy.
And remember, this mortgage stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to the losses in the swap markets. Basically, you're skipping the biggest source of losses in the crisis, and putting blame for a secondary one on the wrong folks, by completely ignoring facts about what happened. Congratulations, you're a hack.
Why McCain picked Palin (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).
3) She is not a Washington insider / new face
4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position
And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.
McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.
Hillary never would have had a chance.
Re:switfboat (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't even funny or witty. Can't you do better than that?
ACORN was legally required to submit all the voter registrations they collected, they flagged all the ones they could tell were bogus.....
Try again, your smoking gun isn't smoking or a gun.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not exactly racist, it's more classist.
Have you ever been really truly poor? I mean so poor that you are wondering how you are going to eat and keep a roof over your head? So poor a meal at a fast-food restaurant is a big splurge?
Being on welfare isn't pleasant. Ignoring the social consequences, what you are getting while on public assistance is somewhere around the bare minimum needed to survive: the cheapest apartment available (typically 1 bedroom per 2 people), and some combination of WIC and food stamps. That's it: enough to eke out a meager existence. Any idea that you can get wealthy on public assistance is simply ludicrous.
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Insightful)
I try not to do me too posts, but you're basically spot on.
The Republican party has overseen one of the largest expansions in income redistribution in American history and somehow taking a very small portion of future redistributions and leaving it with the poor and middle class workers is somehow immoral.
It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.
And for the record, David Duke was a former grandmaster for the KKK, he wasn't just a member. I don't know how their power structure works and the title might not be right, but he was a leader of the movement and fairly high up.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
What most amuses me is that the republicans like to paint the democrats as "tax and spend", where as I see the republicans as "and spend". At least the democrats generate income before spending it. Which is how in 8 years, mostly prosperous years, they've gone from the largest budget surplus in american history see here [cnn.com] to the largest budget deficit in history see here [reuters.com]
Government efficiency & markets (Score:3, Insightful)
"Or, like, going to the post office and waiting often for minutes in short lines with government workers who are helpful and fri... wait, that wouldn't back up your example."
Yes, it does, only in ways you didn't think of. The USPS is run more like a corporation than a government bureaucracy now. It's easier to fire a USPS employee than it is to fire drone in another federal agency. And the USPS has to compete with other private firms, like FedEx and UPS. So it keeps them on their toes. They're also governed like a corporation, with a board of directors, and an Executive that basically has all the powers of a CEO. They heavily subcontract out work to non-government third parties to reduce costs.
The key here is competition. The Post Office has it, and thus treats people like valuable customers than can be lost. The DMV doesn't. Where else are you going to go to get a drivers license?
"Oh yeah, Wal-mart."
But Wal Mart is a perfect example of markets. Their motto is "low prices, always". You're making a choice when you go to a Wal Mart to forsake other things... better service, for example... in exchange for the lowest price possible. But you have a choice. You can choose to take your money to other places... Target, Circuit City, Sears, JC Penney, Macy's... where you have the choice to spend more money and get better service.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. I just know this: The US spends more money, both in public and private dollars, to fund a system that works *worse* than the systems established in most of the western world. If that doesn't demonstrate that the system is fundamentally broken, I don't know what does.
Furthermore, given that these other systems forgo the highly privatized approach that the US has adopted, and end up providing greater coverage for less total dollars spent, I think it's clear that the privatization experiment has fundamentally failed, and that the 'socialism" boogeyman is just a figment of the imaginations of those still listening to the echos of the red scare.
Now, is the US capable of adopting such a system? I don't know. There are some awfully powerful special interests very much invested in the status quo. But given the alternative (stumbling further along with a system that's horribly, horribly broken), I really don't see the alternative but to at least *try*.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Greenspan WAS a champion of free markets. But you cannot say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve -- an entity whose entire purpose is to regulate the market -- is in favor of free markets. Manipulating the cost of capital is not a free market. Regulating certain securities and not others is not a free market. The problem with regulation is that it is imperfect and changes the competitive landscape. This is ALWAYS the case. The problem with credit default swaps, for example, is not that it is unregulated; the problem is that most other similar securities ARE regulated. That's what grew the market so large.
You cannot look a the failure now and say that is due to free markets. In fact, there is a VERY strong indication that it is due to government intervention in the free markets. See the role of the GSE's and the Community Reinvestment Act's manipulation of the risk gradient. Wikipedia "moral hazard".
But if you are quoting the House Oversight Committee minutes, then you already know all this.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ask Alan Greenspan, champion of free markets and less regulation;
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?
ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
Except the financial industry is heavily regulated. To classify it as a free market is utterly ignorant. I have no reason to believe Greenspan is ignorant, so I have to assume he said what he said to protect his legacy.
Re:Voted Early And Often (Score:2, Insightful)
I voted early, but got a call from the Obama campaign saying that the county hadn't received my ballot (which I mailed). I showed up at the county courthouse yesterday and they were right. I filled out another one.
How did the Obama campaign know the county didn't have your vote? How did they know you voted for him? How did they get access to the county voting records? How does the county know not to count your mail-in ballot (since you also voted in person) if they find it on the floor later today?
That comment raises a lot of questions for me.
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Insightful)
It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.
But it doesn't work like that. Do you know anybody who has their own business and DOES make more than $250,000? Here's the theory. They got that way by growing their business. Maybe started off barely able to make ends meet but took all their extra money and corporate profits and reinvested to make the business grow. Then the business got big enough to give them a health salary. Now, with their big salary, they take their extra money and add a location, or buy a new truck or more equipment. That, in turn, creates jobs which allow everybody else to make some money. If the average profit margin for a company is 8%, which I'm not saying it is, but that works for the folks I've worked for, then increasing taxes by 8% pretty much wipes out profits. Wipe out profits, wipe out growth. Wipe out growth, wipe out jobs. Wipe out jobs....well...you guess.
Re:Barack Hussein Obama and David Duke (Score:3, Insightful)
Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...
Nah. He's got you there. Say what you want about Clinton, but he did a good job with the economy. That's pretty much undeniable. He made it a priority early in his presidency to focus on reducing national debt instead of tax cuts as a good way to keep the economy strong and he was right. It worked. Huge surplus, record low unemployment, smallest growth in government spending in a while...He did a fine job. I don't think you can really provide evidence that says otherwise.
Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just heard Obamas victory speech.
We here in Australia, are traditonally extremely cynical about politicians in general. But to my amazement I was inspired and moved in a way I rarely have by a speech of any kind. I was too young to hear JFK speak at the time, the same for Dr King, and this was the closest thing I have heard to the recordings of their speeches. I fell like a pivotal moment has come.
Hopefully Mr Obama can restore the admiration the rest of the world has had for the US for as long as I can remember prior to this century.
I dont believe it, for the first time since 2001 I feel some hope for us as a species. Shit.
Damn that cynical little voice thats telling me "You've been sucked in"
Heady stuff indeed.