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?
FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Interesting)
FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%
I like those odds.
John Galt (Score:3, Interesting)
Galt's Gulch: those who know, know. Discuss.
My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) (Score:3, Interesting)
--
So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:
1. I can not vote at all.
2. I can vote for Obama.
3. I can vote for McCain.
Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.
Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.
Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.
There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)
Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Roma
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
No secret ballot? (Score:4, Interesting)
I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.
What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.
Is Dave Barry on the ballot? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious because he always has a "Dave Barry for President in ####" where "####" is the year of the next election.
I'm wondering how easy it is to get on the ballot.
myke
1 hour lines @ 7am (Score:5, Interesting)
Who are your picks and why.
Third party, since I don't like either main candidate. This happened to be Barr, since I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.
And also what about your actual experience voting today?
I got there at almost exactly 7am (when the polls opened), and the line was almost exactly 1 hour (I finished voting and left at 8:05). There were 10 Diebold voting machines lined up along one wall with no privacy screens, just little flaps on the sides.
Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
Well, that's kinda hard to know, isn't it? (Some might say that's kinda the point of buying from Diebold.)
In Illinois... (Score:5, Interesting)
...I had the option of either voting by electronic machine or paper ballot. As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot for the simple reason that it leaves unchangeable records. Electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate or are far too likely to have glitches. (Especially the Diebold machines based on Microsoft Access.)
The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:
You are supposed to draw a line for the vote you want to cast. e.g.:
Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.
I got up pretty early this morning, so it ended up taking more time to fill out these super-ballots than it did to wait in line. I then went home and listened to WGN ponder why it was taking Obama so long to vote for himself. Perhaps someone should show them one of these ballots! :-P
Re:McCain FTW (Score:5, Interesting)
I find your intolerance intolerable.
It's outstanding how in an election where I didn't start off hating either candidate, McCain's choice of talking points (and running mate) brought me to the point of incoherent spitting fury...I had to read the transcripts of the last few debates because I couldn't stand to actually listen.
I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.
McCain was a guy I'd have voted for in 2000...Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years. But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.
(slightly OT) As a European, I'd like to say... (Score:2, Interesting)
;)
More seriously, I am watching this election closely and dearly hoping that USians will not be as disappointing as in the last two. It's looking good, but I'm wary... Last minute disappointments are not unheard of.
I hope Obama wins, because I'd like to see the US become a good example again, instead of the very bad exemple they've become.
Still, I'm a bit upset to have to wait one more week to know what happens between House and Cuddy.
Re:McCain FTW (Score:3, Interesting)
I was thinking the exact same thing- thanks for typing it out and saving me the trouble.
I wanted McCain in 2000 as well- hes been nothing but a disappointment this season.
dixville notch (Score:5, Interesting)
most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition [wikipedia.org]
quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm [bbc.co.uk]
why is that notable?
in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican
so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?
portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:3, Interesting)
"...a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential..."
Yeah, like turning off all the validity checking on credit card donations via his web site to facilitate illegal donations.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Myths and urban legends (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain [snopes.com]
Obama [snopes.com]
Joe Biden [snopes.com]
Sarah Palin [snopes.com]
Slot machines... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems back in the 90s--your average 20-year-old slot machine is light years ahead of a current voting terminal, in terms of the independent multiple party audit capability, internal logging requirements, tamper detection, and ruggedness.
Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.
Would I know if Diebold ate my vote? (Score:2, Interesting)
Stock Market is rallying despite other bad news... (Score:2, Interesting)
I Voted (Score:3, Interesting)
The polling place was much busier than I've ever seen it in the 24 years I've been voting. I usually vote in the morning because the polls are less busy. Normally I have a 5 minute wait, tops. This morning, about 40 minutes. My vote was #91 to go through the tabulator. It was a longer ballot than some years due to a constitutional amendment question and three local school district levy questions.
We have (in central Minnesota) a fill-in-the-oval ballot which is then read by machine similar to tests in school. I saw no issues with either the election judges or the ballots, and the machine seemed to be working fine, although you really can't tell if it correctly tabulated your vote. But it's pretty low tech, so should be fairly reliable. Ballots were readable and the ovals were clearly aligned with the listed choices. On the whole, MN seems to have pretty good voting methods and equipment.
Voted Early And Often (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Voted straight Dem ticket this year, except the county auditor (who was in the room -- small county) who is an R. I figure, the fact that my ballot didn't arrive may not have been his fault, but the fact that I found out about it and was able to correct it is at least partly due to him, so kudos, and 4 more years!
Also I wrote myself in for sheriff. I feel good about that.
Paper Ballot & Incompetent Election Officials (Score:3, Interesting)
Title pretty much sums it up. The election officials don't know their ABCs, so you pretty much had to grab the book and find your name in it. They didn't have pencil sharpeners, but they had boxes and boxes of brand-new unsharpened pencils.
Remarkably, the R's and D's were behaving themselves, across the street from the polling place, quietly holding their signs.
Supporters of other issues on the ballot (mostly new sales taxes to support special-interest groups) were campaigning INSIDE the polling place and refusing to leave, in violation of state law. I expect they were eventually escorted out by the police, but I didn't have time to stick around and watch. Election officials just ignored the whole issue.
Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good luck with that. I really hope that Obama's presidency comes out as good a people think it will. I'm not so sure myself. I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.
I remember Jimmy Carter. He came in with pretty much the same promises that Obama has. Problem with him, like Obama, is he didn't have the political clout to pull it off. What we had was pretty much a lame duck in the Whitehouse for 4 years. That is what I see Obama's presidency is going to be about.
For the record I'm throwing my vote in with the libertarian party this time around.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well. Education is of an exceptional standard, and every person from every background is given equal opportunity to do and become whatever they choose. It's basically social capitalism, by which I am implying that raw capitalism *in practice* is one of the most anti-social and dehumanising concepts on earth.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Well said. I voted democrat in 2 local elections today. The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?
Plus, it fits with my anti-incumbent strategy since congress has been such a disaster.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Very good post. I think even if the party were to "fix" itself tomorrow, the bad taste they've left will be remembered for quite a while. I think it'll take at least 8 years before they can redeem themselves in the eyes of the public.
Re:No secret ballot? (Score:4, Interesting)
i voted for obama, but (Score:4, Interesting)
even if mccain won, none of the things you say woudl come to pass
your problem is you are confusing popularity with power. certianly, the usa has become immensely unpopular under bush, but it has lost none of its power. continue bush's policies though, and it WOULD lose power, but not because of anything you worte, but simply because america's ability to create and project power would be diminished because of internal factors
for example, before the global economic meltdown over the last 2 months, there was much hemming and hawing about becoming a non-us centered world, economically. however, as the meltdown progressed, the us dollar perversely gained in value. simply because, even though the problem was started in the usa, it was still the most stable thing still standing as the whole world went down with the usa
someday, the usa will indeed not be the center of the world economically and militarily. but it won't be for any of the flowery and powerless popularity contest-level considerations you put forth, but simply becaus esome other country, such as china, will siply be able to create and project economic and military power, again, simply because of internal efforts, having nothign whatsoever to do with what the rest of the world thinks of china
your understanding of how the world actually works is quite... silly
for example: "Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES."
any country that woudl be foolish enough to do that, would see their economy suffer, since americna businessmen wouldn't be able to get in the country and do business. do you know any country then that would give up millions or billions simply to make a statement that they hate americans?
again, learn: popularity is not the same thing as power
it is possible to be deeply hated, but be in complete control
it is also possible, by the way, hint hint, to be loved everywhere you go in the world, but be absolutely powerless to affect any change about any issue you care about
no, the truth is, even if obama wins (and please god, let him win), the usa will be hated by many (and loved by some), and see its power still quite large in the world, but still slowly dimming while china slowly amps up. and this would be true even if mccain won
power!=popularity
Re: Palin in 2012 ??! (Score:4, Interesting)
Mayan Doomsday: December 21, 2012
Inauguration Day: January 20, 2013
Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...
Re:In Illinois... (Score:3, Interesting)
See, back when I voted in Sauk County we had simple bubbles to fill in. The ballots were slightly confusing in the way that SAT/ACT tests are, but nothing untoward. And they were a lot easier to use than trying to draw a straight line. (Which I happen to be horrific at. :-P) Of course, the polling stations were usually much better configured and managed than in Illinois. And you didn't have to get up before the crack of dawn to get your vote in. (Though that's probably a population density issue.)
Strictly speaking... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
And while we're on the subject I would definitely argue that a negative income tax isn't Marxist or Socialist - the idea was invented by Milton Friedman, the darling economist of those notorious lefties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say that Palin lost credibility among people listening any time that she went off of stump speeches and spoke her mind in an interview. SNL had nothing to do with it.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Interesting)
"However, most people believe in... in free markets"
I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.
It is certainly true that a number of the economic problems we have were due to government intervention in the markets, like Fanny and Freddy. Government interventions in markets are almost always bad. The current Treasury program to secretly pump $700 billion in to the pockets of the same system where they work is HORRIBLE.
But credit default swaps, for example, were completely unregulated and a sterling example of what happens when you let greedy people do things without any checks and balances. They are an "economic weapon of mass destruction" where people were making billions writing insurance on investment vehicles when they had no mechanism to pay them off if they ever came due. John Cassano made something like $200 million, personally, selling CDS's as a contractor at AIG, When his house of cards collapsed AIG kept paying him $1 million a month because only he knew the entire history of his screwed up division. His tiny division of a couple hundred people took down a giant company of 100,000 people, and created a gigantic gaping hole in the economy its not clear even the Fed can plug if all the CDS's they wrote, come due.
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.
He'd discovered that you couldn't trust people or companies to do the right thing when unregulated. He thought people and company wouldn't do stupid things, if it might end in the destruction of their company. He apparently lacked a basic understanding of human greed, in particular if people see an opportunity to make a lot of money in the near term, they don't necessarily care if what they are doing will ultimately lead to calamity, as long as they know they wont be the one paying the price for their misdeeds. They know that once they have their FU money in hand, it doesn't matter if they cause complete devastation in their wake, in fact in many instances they know the company they are intentionally destroying will give them a golden parachute as reward.
Obama's capitalism versus McCain's capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do Eric Schmidt and Warren Buffett endorse Obama? Because he is for growth-oriented, social democratic capitalism. Growth through innovation, educating your populace, with a safety net, and did I say education?
McCain's capitalism revolves around military contractors and, what I am not unafraid to call plain old imperialism. It is also based on monopoly capitalism - like the monopoly Verizon has over the local loop. Exploiting low-educated workers to the last penny.
The choice of Obama is obvious, unless you're of the worse-is-better school.
So much for science funding... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nature magazine studied the origins of this earmark and it seems to be pertaining to olive fruit fly research in order to safeguard California's Olive Oil industry (link between stories [nature.com]) and so perhaps collaborating with France is what she disagrees with? France was conducting this type of research and it seems the money was spent to fund this research abroad. Regardless, she speaks of fruit fly research as though it was completely ridiculous... But of course, genetic research may be against her beliefs.
incredibly stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system. bush could have won the popular vote and lost the ec election in 2000. it favors neither left nor right
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking hard for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote, its a very lame excuse on your part to think you don't matter, when you most certainly do still matter
then the question is: why are you looking for an excuse not to matter? if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's something wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement. your rationalization for not voting because of the ec points to character flaws you possess. it tells us that you invent excuses not to matter, not to care, walling yourself off from the world by thinking about how you can't affect any change in your world, in utterly helpless ways. self-fulfilling prophecy
your excuse not to vote is wrong, and lame. the ec is a tweak on your vote, not a nullification of it. you need to think long and hard about the way you think about your relationship with your world and remove some deeply seeded issues with trust you have
your psychological problems are showing
Voter Suppression (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone have any good stories?
I live outside philly, in a traditional republican area, and while I waited to vote, two election officials were openly discussing how to slow down the line by forcing people to que up outside the building instead of in the large lobby. I thought it kind of interesting.
My dearest wish for elections in the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
I do really wish that we would move past the single-vote plurality system when voting for federal office (President, Senate, House). I like approval voting [wikipedia.org] for its simplicity and its moderating effect. I love the idea that it might be possible to elect a true compromise candidate instead of violently swinging from one extreme to the next.
But that's not what I want the most (nor is it all that likely to happen any time soon).
What I want the most is for the US to finally welcome international inspectors to watch our elections. We expect emerging democracies to admit inspectors, so we really should eat our own dog food. Would it be painful and humiliating? Quite possibly, for the first few years. But it would be a nice step toward shedding our reputation as a nation that says, "Fuck the rest of the world, we're the US-of-goddamn-A." Oh, and it might actually drive improvements to our voting system, just maybe.
Where are we going? (Score:3, Interesting)
I find calls for âoetax reformâ to be somewhat comical, when you take into account the history of American taxation.
The first income tax was in 1862:
âoeThe income tax is imposed upon a certain proportion of the income of these two classes, viz:
1st. Every person residing in the United States; and every citizen residing abroad who is in the employment of the Government of the United States.
2nd. Every citizen of the United States residing abroad and not in the employment of the United States.
Every person in the first class will be taxed at the rate of three percent when his or her annual gains, profits, or income exceed $600 and do not exceed $10,000. Every person in the first class will be taxed at the rate of five percent when his or her annual gains, profits, or income exceed $10,000, after the following deductionsâ¦â (From the 1962 Federal Income tax Return http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/9134d0498e7c820085256e4400040844?OpenDocument [taxhistory.org] )
$600 in 1862 is $15,000 in 2007.
Congress then got fast and loose with their terms and the Supreme Court over turned a law in 1894 in the Pollock Case, because the language was not clear if it violated the Constitution or not. This then was the impetus for the 16th amendment, which is a very poorly worded amendment⦠But eventually we get to a tax of 1% on incomes over $3000 ($75,000 in 2007), topping out at only 6% in incomes of excess than $500,000 (12,500,000).
Those are truly modest amounts compared to what we pay today.
Prior to our modern income tax scheme, the Federal government was funded mainly by import tariffs. Congress would get to bicker on what to raise or lower the tariff on, sugar and cotton were favorites. The problem was this meant a man of meager means paid a larger portion of his earnings to fund the federal government. It was then proposed that the government be able to tax the vast sums of accumulated wealth of the likes of the Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgans, etc, which held about 80% of the wealth of the nation. The reasoning was money that creates money through investment should be taxed because no effort is expended in the creation of the additional wealth. Also, as an excise tax on the increase, the original principal is left untouched to continue to grow.
The speeches in congress at the time were quite noble, the idea was to remove the burden of funding the federal government from the poor or common man to those who could better afford to pay it. People spoke nobly about it, and that is was an instrument that would be wielded with considerable care as it would a direct line into the bank account and household of every American.
Given our current state of affairs: 30%+ taxes, bail out after bail out, it seems that any modern tax âoereformâ is just a shell game. True reform could only come as a consequence of government reform, and specifically the role of government. As we go forward, we continually enlarge the role of the federal government. We never talk about doing away with federal governmental operation, because we think more of something we want must be better. For example, the Department of Education. We all want education, so we are too scared to eliminate the department of it, because that might mean that our county-operated schools might suffer (how exactly?). We are contemplating national healthcare which we all know to be an active industry full of people inventing new ways to spend money. It grows 3x the rate of the GNP.
People are going to the polls today to vote for either big government or bigger government.
I am reminded of the words of Alexander Tyler (1787):
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
It is all due to this strange, but widely held belief, that the person most interested in their health care is the patient him/herself. This does not always hold true, of course, and the opponents of personal responsibility [dcexaminer.com] reject proposals, that "leave the decision-making process up to individuals" (I kid you not!).
When a fool, who used the freedom irresponsibly and chose a better car or whatever over health insurance, can't pay for care, he is presented as a poster-child for socialized medicine... And the case is made, for taking out that choice for good — along with others, lest they'll also be used to make decisions, that are worse than those made by the all-knowing, omni-potent, and benevolent government officials.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Interesting)
I usually vote anti-incumbent, but this time around I simply chose not to vote for anyone who was for the bailout... which is almost the same thing anyway.
Of course, this limited my vote for president to 3rd party candidates. In Maine, this means either Nader or a write-in.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not much of a cunning plan. I voted to change whoever is currently there regardless of party.
And when it comes to strengthen the majority party, I'm fine with it for now. The republicans need to be shown that the neocons and fundies are ruining the conservative party. The only way to show them is to have them lose big. I know it's a risky strategy since it could be hard to rollback policies that get through, but Bush and crew have led us to this.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that I disagree with her isn't what made her lose credibility. It was the fact that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about when it came to a number of topics like
Those are reasons why she lost credibility. The fact that I disagree with her on topics of religion, abortions, economic policy, and so on don't affect her credibility.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:3, Interesting)
My aunt forwarded an anti-Obama email that quoted a few books. It began by telling me to go buy or read the books ASAP before Obama has them banned.
I still marvel at the audacity of that claim.
Re:Obama (Score:1, Interesting)
As someone who lives in the UK, it's obvious to me that the failure of socialism here came about largely due to the privatisation of the services.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically the DMV lines in VT and here in AZ aren't long at all, I've always got right in not having to wait longer than 5 minutes.
Of course DMVs are state managed, not federally managed so it's not really an apt analogy anyways unless you're trying to prove why universal health-care would work.
In VT, all children have healthcare and it seems to be working out quite well so far. Of course that's a small scale as the city of Phoenix has a larger population than the whole state of VT. Still, I don't see why it can't work. The problem becomes less about how to individually pay for healthcare and more about paying for training to have more doctors and nurses since the load will increase if everyone is suddenly covered.
That would be an argument to phase in coverage slowly over several years so the system has a chance to ramp up their resources.
There are problems with all systems but I think the problems of a universal healthcare system would be easier to solve than the people today that go bankrupt after a major surgery they needed to save their life.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:0, Interesting)
An American explained this to me a couple of years ago here on Slashdot, but unfortunately I can't find that post now. But here's the essence of it:
The huge insurance bureaucracy which makes American healthcare so expensive may seem like a bad thing to us Europeans, but to Americans it serves an important purpose. Americans are willing to pay more than in other industrialized countries for their healthcare, not to get better healthcare (they know they won't) but to keep healthcare away from those who can't pay.
This sociopathic tendency is what makes it so difficult for a European and an American to understand eachother in a discussion about healthcare financing. To the European it's unthinkable and to the American it's self-explanatory.
The american dream (Score:5, Interesting)
You are forgetting about the american dream. The dream that one day YOU will be elite, the rich, the powerful. Eat dirt today because tomorrow you will be eating cake. And of course, if you are eating cake tomorrow, you hardly want to share that cake or have it turned into bread for all. No, eat dirt today, because tomorrow...
It is the american dream. If you were cynical, you might see it as a near perfect ploy to keep the masses content. Not that dissimilar to how certain religions do it. Suffer life now, the after-life will see you rewarded. Never mind dear suicide bomber that you are pisspoor despite millions in support to the palestines. Your reward awaits you in heaven, never mind that your leaders life in luxury in the west (check were the palestine leadership lives, and for instance how many millions old beard face had and where he houses his wife)
The american dream tells americans that they too can one day have it all, and since one day they will have it all, why should they then share it or ask those who have it now to share?
Make no mistake, the american dream is the ultimate enslavement tool. Because the truth of course is that NOT everyone can make it, no matter how they try because a capatalist system needs its homeless to allow for the superrich. The american dream at best is an lottery, but one where the winners can buy the winning tickets.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you that blind?
This is *already* how it's done.
I had the misfortune of teaching at a medical vocational school. The...people I taught have convinced me to never ever go to see a doctor if I can possibly help it. As an example, one of the courses I taught was Math. Wanna know where we started? Decimals. As in 0.5 + 0.5 = 1. They usually managed to muddle through that. Up next was fractions. The concept that 1/2 + 1/2 != 2/4 was something that took a whole lot of time and effort to pound through their heads. All of these kids were 18+ years old.
I eventually left because the Administration of the school was pressuring me to pass students, because if we failed them they didn't get the tuition money to pay us. And because it's a for-profit institution, that's pretty much all the administration cared about.
All of these type students are getting jobs in the medical industry, right now, at this moment. DMV workers are quite frankly of a higher caliber. And the main difference between DMV workers and the MAs and Coders (Medical Coders) I taught was that DMV workers actually have no particular reason to reject you from the system, whereas the medical students I taught will be pressured by insurance companies to not cover you. So that means you have the same caliber of people who would actually need to fight on your behalf to get you the medical coverage you pay for.
To you, this is more efficient. To me, this is the height of inefficiency.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Interesting)
Fun with Diebold (Score:3, Interesting)
I went in thinking I would just request a paper ballot instead of using the Diebold machines (in Ohio we can request paper ballot if we want)... but at the last minute I decided to go with the machine because I was trying to get in and out quickly (every poll worker was 70+ years old, didn't want to do anything out of the norm). I get to my machine, make my choices.. and went it was printing out the paper ticket so I could review my selections, the paper roll was jammed so nothing was happening. I told a poll worker that it didn't work, and that I wanted to cancel this ballot and do a paper one.
Lesson learned. Of course then they only gave me the first page of the paper ballot (which left off a few local proposals). I pointed out the missing proposals, they found page two, and I got to finish. I was the 9th person to do paper ballot, so the previous 8 didn't get that 2nd page.
Am I alone here? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the government is getting dangerously big.
I want smaller government.
Therefore, I don't have a vote.
Vote Republican you say? LOL!
The Repub's oversaw the largest expansion in spending in history.
Vote third party you say? ROFL!
We have a two party duopoly headed for a one party monopoly.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
Denmark does have a surplus on oil trade however, we drill less oil per citizen than the US does. If the American spend as little oil as Danes did, the US too would be an oil exporter.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Or pay less taxes for more freedom and the ability to defend your home/community without being penalized for shooting a trespasser or a bank robber... it's your choice.
You could even take some of that tax money you get back and let the local government use it to maintain some of those bridges you use on a daily basis. Besides, who do you think has a better finger on the state of these bridges? The State and local authority or someone 200-3000 miles away? Who do you think would be better suited to respond to an Earthquake? Someone in California, home of the great fault line and schools that study it, or someone in Chicago who's felt a few shakes in his life? Localized disaster recovery would be better suited fro whatever emergencies arise for the area in just about every case.
Also, look how well the Dept. of Education has done. I mean, bureaucrats running education have done wonders for our children's education. I hear they are giving passing grades to all the children so they feel good about themselves.
History is already being re-written (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't care who wins, per se - but what has driven me nuts is the Bush Bashing. I know that he didn't lie, the very claim that he did is itself a lie. Yet it is repeated so often it is actually believed.
So: what history is being rewritten? Just look at this article from The New York Times, as reported from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575933265095405.html [wsj.com]
I dare say that the big loser of the past 8 years has been the American people and how we've let ourselves be brainwashed by the agenda driven Media.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
"truely"?
Dude, get Firefox, and it will put a little red dotted line under boneheaded mistakes like that. Then you don't have to undergo the ridicule that people like me will heap on you.
I voted but...??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No problem (Score:3, Interesting)
A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.
Hang on, I'm confused. You're telling me it told you the current tally of number of votes?? That could seriously influence people's choices.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, it only took him about 15 minutes to convince me.
It was when he was in Eugene and answered a question by a member of a local Socialist group by explaining why their ideas, while good-hearted, were wrong, unworkable, and would never be practical as a national economic policy.
Mind you, what got me is not that he stated this, but that he actually took time out of his prepared speech to explain why he believes in capitalism.
Well, that and his abortion stand. I've always considered it the one issue where no common ground could be found, but he's managed to find it.
Finally, a candidate who would make a better president than I would. For the first time in my life, I don't feel like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils.
I might have voted (Score:1, Interesting)
The poll workers were unable to determine if I had voted or not.
They called tech support, who had no idea. Level 1 support referred it to the County's Registrar of Voters.
He agreed that there was no way to verify if a vote had been cast or not. Nor were they able to verify whether any votes cast by the machine were recorded in accordance to my instructions.
The only thing they know for sure is that the paper vote printed for my verification, then when I tried to verify it, a big red screen came up to say that the smart card was not valid.
They think that it must have recorded the vote, then ejected the card. Then I must have bumped the card back in. Or maybe it failed to eject properly and that caused the error. That's what they think. But they don't know. And they have no way of verifying that the vote was actually counted. Nor could they cancel my vote and let me vote again. Not even with the error still on the screen.
With the smart card still in the machine, and before anyone else voted at the machine, there was no ability to vouch for the integrity of my vote.
Some system.