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.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Funny)
Psh. You know as well as I do that Palin's gonna start her 2012 bid tomorrow.
Shhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
She kicked it off last Saturday [google.com].
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!!!!!
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Funny)
I agree!
Let's get some News back in the news!
Who cares about the economy, or the wars, or human rights abuses?
Let's get back to discussing who Brittney Spears is going to be marrying next!
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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:Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Informative)
I was told she was not his first choice. He had the final say, but it was his people that pushed her forward.
I agree with your take on McCain. After Bush won the 2nd term, McCain decided the only way to become president was to quit being such a maverick. Thats when he started supporting all the Bush initiatives. Thats when he lost his "base."
The real McCain would have been strong with independents. However, I am not sure he could have won the nomination without selling out to Bush.
McCain made his choice. Kicked his independent support to the curb to try and get ultra conservative supporters that never liked him.
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: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: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:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
Having said that, I would trade back to the German insurance in a heart beat. Every time something is not covered by my US insurance, the out-of-pocket expenses balloon, and there is no way for me to get my insurance to expand their coverage. Add the lifetime benefit cap that prevents me from getting the help when I really need it, and it becomes a lot of eye wash.
The German model is assessed as a tax, with a cap based on what you'd pay when you reach the "opt-out level" (You don't have to use public insurance in Germany if you can afford to buy your own, the cap used to be around 100k yearly income). The rumors of "don't get a bed for 5 years" are just bullocks, it's not any more difficult to get your doctor to see you in Germany than it's in the US. And at least insurance acceptance is universal, so if your employer switches insurance carriers you don't have to switch doctors.
I'd love to see a universal HMO be established here, one that can't drop you like a hot potato if your get sick, or flat out refuse to let you in for "pre-existing conditions" if you change jobs.
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:5, Informative)
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
Here's one [umaine.edu], a quick Google will show you a few hundred others all from the same dozen or so primary sources (US budgets, WHO figures, and so on from a few years). Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation [nationmaster.com].
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017. In 2007 the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.
There are numerous cites in the Wikipedia article that you can read.
I would argue that spending over $7000 per person per year in health care, yet having vast numbers of your citizenry uninsured is a powerful example of a health care system that is both expensive and inefficient.
Re: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
Congress has been a disaster, so you vote to strengthen the majority party in Congress?
I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
Re: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: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:5, Informative)
Also worth bearing in mind is that the 2 independents are completely different from each other:
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a real honest-to-goodness socialist. He's far more liberal than any Democrat.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 but now is one of John McCain's strongest supporters.
Re:I'm only going to say (Score: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:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Informative)
No, every time the Republican controlled government sticks its nose into something, it turns to shit, because Republicans do not believe in government. When a party that believes government is good and can work controls things, things get better.
The facts speak for themselves. The stock market has grown by an average of 8.4% under Democratic leadership over the last 100 years, but only 0.4% under Republicans. We can see plain as day what government can do when we believe in it, and how it fails when we don't.
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:5, Funny)
And in a few years you will have the exact same situation. The problem isn't the actors, it is the stage.
Over here in Britain we have a saying:
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in."
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Funny)
If she's smart she'll stay out of it in 2012 and focus on 2016 (unless Obama's presidency is truely disasterous).
Soo.....2012 it is.
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: Palin in 2012 ??! (Score:5, Funny)
Is that what the Mayans forsaw, the event which caused the end of this round of civilization?
Re: Palin in 2012 ??! (Score:5, Funny)
Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...
You mean like a parity error?
Re:I'm only going to say (Score:5, Funny)
... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.
I'll miss it. I've grown up in this election, and when it's over I'll have no idea what to do. I remember when I was four or five years old, back around the time Reagan was elected and The Empire Stikes Back was drawing crowds, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had just started their campaigns. I remember coming out of the movie theater after seeing Back to the Future and seeing buses go by with competing Huckabee and Clinton banners on the side. I fondly recall during the first Gulf War and after September 11th the moving speeches by McCain and Obama.
Remember the Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" ads where McCain was enjoying a big square burger next to Clara Peller with her miniscule competing burger? Remember Hillary Clinton's break dancing extravaganza? Or when Seattle Grunge Artists for Obama did their tour in the early 90s and Kurt Cobain called Obama "the real spokesman for our generation?" My whole life was shaped by these campaigns. Tomorrow I may have to get a hobby.
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!
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...
FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Interesting)
FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%
I like those odds.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Funny)
The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Funny)
[quote]I think that's half the problem that's going to see. No matter who wins, there are going to be cries of fowl.[/quote]
Chicken! What sort of hawk would devolve to such a turkey stance? You're just pigeonholing the dodos out there.
Re:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... knock me over with a feather -- not everyone laughs at the same things.
Ah well... I'll let this be my swan song and duck out.
(That's what you get for egging me on...)
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:FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Informative)
What? Obama is *not* gun friendly
BTW I dont own a Gun nor will I buy one (I have little kids and I make the personal choice not to have such an item in my home):
Obama: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"
Obama on Handguns:
Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama: "I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns (made so by laws he supports) off the streets"
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
--
The man clearly is not a staunch supporter of the second amendment..
Re: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!
Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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:5, Informative)
[sarcasm]As opposed to Bush, who, as we all know, was a great respecter of the Constitution.[/sarcasm]
Obama is an expert on the Constitution to a level that is hard to even define...He taught Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. So it's not unreasonable that he may have criticisms of the document, the same way any expert may have criticisms of things under his area of expertise.
But I do not think that he has anything like the arrogance and disrespect for the law and the Constitution that has been shown in the last 8 years, and having anyone imply that with a straight face makes me laugh.
Obama - A template for future US politics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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 - 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 - 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.
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.
No problem (Score:5, Informative)
Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.
All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.
Voted!! (Score:5, Informative)
Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.
Re:Voted!! (Score:5, Funny)
We'll see what the lines are like tomorrow, when it's the Republican's turn to vote! Don't get too cocky yet you crazy liberals!
Cthulhu! (Score:5, Funny)
Why pick the lesser evil?
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.
Re:No secret ballot? (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that you voted is not secret. Only who you picked is.
Obama's sense of responsability (Score:5, Insightful)
We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.
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
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?
Election? (Score:5, Funny)
Election? What election?
I pride myself on keeping apprised of current events, but I wasn't aware of an election today.
Who is running and for what position?
Srsly, whoever this CmdrTaco is who posted the story should at least give us this basic information in the summary.
Bias Language on Ballots (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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
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.
Time to watch the polls on senate seats (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame me (Score:5, Funny)
I voted for Kodos.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:McCain FTW (Score:5, Funny)
McCain FTW
"Fails To Win"?
Re:McCain FTW (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:McCain FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
He was against it before he was for it. (Score:5, Informative)
It's funny you pull mention his talking-point on waterboarding, because John McCain in fact voted against [washingtonpost.com] a ban on waterboarding. So his stance is maybe not as clear as you think.
Re: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:switfboat (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.
Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?
You mean like this [wikipedia.org]?
They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.
As for accuracy... [factcheck.org]
Re: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.
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.
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: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:switfboat (Score:5, Informative)
You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!
At the end of the 6th paragraph [adamsmith.org]
This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax [google.com]. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax [google.com].
It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself [youtube.com] advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.
Re:switfboat (Score:5, Informative)
No, he called him one for wanting to increase income taxes on people who do pay income taxes and then write checks to people who don't.
Fixed that for you. If you claim that he's giving money to people who don't pay taxes at all, you are spreading a common misconception. Sorry.
Re: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?
The myth of "spreading the wealth" (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.
Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources [state.ak.us]." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!
Now, let's talk about Palin.
Palin said [newyorker.com]: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"
Palin passed a windfall profits tax [cato-at-liberty.org], literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.
Re:Lines (Score:5, Informative)
My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..
If I was told I had to wait several hours to vote, I'd be very mad.
Re: Is prolife was really what's about "right?" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.