Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal 898
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
That statement is only valid for the few rights that haven't already been annihilated by the current administration.
Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better, but that was also what we thought when approaching the 2004 presidential election. Yet somehow we were proven wrong.
Democrats (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans voting against Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only question left is Florida and Michigan. Particularly the latter. If she manages to seat her Michigan delegates and none for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot), I will be disappointed if Detroit doesn't take to the streets.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1, Insightful)
How do you come to that conclusion? Have you seen the same ads I have? "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" - "Healthcare for everyone". This can only translate into more of my labor going towards strangers.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
Texas is hardly a win (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA: In the Texas primary, [Clinton] won with 51 pecent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Obama.
3% is winning the state? Remember that Democratic state delegates are divided up by vote percentages, unlike the Republican "winner take all" delegate process. So Clinton's win in Texas is fairly thin, and frankly a poor showing after all the money and campaigning she's spent lately in a state that was always considered an automatic win for her.
Ron Paul Not A Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Ron Paul SHOULD still be in at this point. That's not trolling.
There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. Ron should and will stay in the race, and those McCain haters are going to vote for him, just like they did for Huckabee. Hopefully they'll also learn something. The current election is always about the next one for the candidates who don't win. I think that inspite of what we know here, and the best efforts of many on this board, there are about 300 million citizens in the US [census.gov] who don't know anything more about Ron Paul's positions than that he is completely against the Iraq war. If the nation becomes better informed about the REAL cost of lowering interest rates and devaluing the dollar [fishdan.com], things might actually change.
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
How does that follow? Unless you mean it literally, in the sense that these individuals will send more of our taxes overseas to support the underprivileged. Other countries have had their share of female and black presidents, both good and bad (and very bad: Idi Amin).
If I were a democratic strategist... (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternatively, put forth the strongest dream-team, a Regan/Bush 1980 style team. Idealist speechgiver as the main ticket, the strong and reasoned seasoned senate veteran in the VP chair. Push forward using the collapsing economy as your footprint. Forget the war, people don't think of war when they're worried about their jobs! It's the economy stupid!
Expected it (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.
Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat -- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.
The bigger problem for both of them is that they both have to keep left to win the primary, delaying their inevitable tack back to the center to try to win the independent vote. But, McCain is already in the center. Part of their strategy is going to be to pain him as a right-wing extremist, but that's going to be a hard sell when bills with names like "McCain-Kennedy" and "McCain-Feingold" floating around. So, instead, they're going to trot out a tried-and-true political tactic: character assassination. See, for example, ahref=http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.htmlrel=url2html-25095 [slashdot.org]http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.html>
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets put this stupid liberal guilt shit to rest. A black man has been tearing up the campaign trail and looking like a possible win on the Democrat side if not the whole race for the top. Can we PLEASE get over this sensitivity crap. I think having a black man with a pretty viable shot at the oval office pretty much means that the whole slavery thing is long over. It's time to quit the apologizing.
Stunningly ironic is that the party that goes on about those "poor minorities that need our help" has a black man making a damned good run. Seems kinda counter to the nonsense about the minorities need our help and handouts.
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the public is never going to get this through their thick skulls as long as they thing their candidate will set up a system whereby they are able to get things slightly cheaper at other people's expenses. Everyone thinks they'll cheat the system but they're only cheating themselves as long as they let the government have its fingers in the economy.
Re:In the end, does it reallyl make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Referring to centrists like Hillary and Obama as Socialists indicates an intense and pervasive ignorance of all matters social and political. Socialism does not encourage private property or corporate participation, just for starters. You really should visit some places that embrace Socialism before you make pronouncements like that, but like most Americans staying fearfully within your own borders is as much as you can handle. With ignorance on this scale being commonplace it is amazing that we can do this well.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in Mexico, and often refer to Hispanics. My girlfriend at the time gave me crap because some group of them (I'm assuming it was The Council of the Wise) decided that Hispanic reminded them of the Spanish conquest, and they preferred Latino. Which I think is ridiculous, because when I say Hispanic, I mean a Spanish-speaker (which excludes Brazilians), and when I say Latino, I mean a Latin American (which excludes Spaniards).
Also, Iranians are caucasians, so calling white people caucasians is stupid. So hey everybody, let's just stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting, and stop bowing to unfounded, ridiculous reactionary pressure. And if you find out that one person prefers Latino over Hispanic, use the word they prefer when referring to them. It's super easy.
Close enough for the popular opnion.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to the current system where the ER is often the first, last and only choice for the poor, resulting in increased medical bills that are unpaid and passed onto wealthier hospital patrons who do have insurance?
There are places that capitalism fails. Healthcare looks like it is one of them. Even if doctors could refuse treatment until after they were paid (what a dystopic thought!), the lack of access to healthcare would decrease the total health of the population, resulting in a population that is more prone to infectious diseases and epidemics.
PS: We have the ability to wipe out polio from the world relatively easily. That's due to government, not private practice footing the bill. We also have the ability to eradicate the MMR trio if we are willing to push for an international campaign to do so.
Goddamn you Hillary (Score:1, Insightful)
Wasn't it bad enough that her husband spent 8 years undercutting and selling-out the liberals in his own party? Must she now be a Brutus as well? IS Chelsea already planning how SHE is going to fuck us over too?
Re:Ok, I'll ask and hope to receive (Score:3, Insightful)
I think some do. Maybe not many, but in all honesty, let's look at the long term viability of my posting on slashdot:
1. People add me as their friend. This means they have some respect for my style of writing, even if they disagree with the content.
2. People email me often. My real name is up there, not a fake name or worse "Anonymous Coward." I appreciate that people connect me to my posts on slashdot, and when future customers Google me, they will get literally thousands of Slashdot posts pointing to my opinion. I even tell people to Google my name along with what they want to know about me, and Slashdot comes to the rescue, usually pulling up a few past posts over what I said. I profit from what I say here, as do those who learn from me (or help me learn from what I may have missed).
3. Slashdot provides a venue for alternative opinions, and not just a heads-or-tails situation. We have a fairly massive user base, but the content that comes out of the users is more varied than almost any other blog or forum. This means that we all learn from each other (or help each other learn). My posts are just a drop in the bucket, but they add something to this system of learning.
4. I am moderated generally high, but I am not a Karma whore. If you go through my mod history, you'll see that I am -1 about 1/2 the time as +5. That's fine with me, it helps me gauge "the market" of what people are interested in hearing, and what they're not. I no longer user the term "anarcho-capitalist" in my posts, because people didn't like my use of the term. I learned.
5. There are features that allow you to ignore me on the board completely. Make me a Foe, moderate foes to -5, and I'm gone from your screen. Easy as pie.
Let me tell you what's really sad, a (presumably) grown man like you who finds the need to repeatedly share the details of his life on a technology web board.
So I'll ask "GO THE FUCK AWAY". Will I receive?
Well, the first thing that you need to see is that Slashdot works for me as a community to bounce ideas off of. These ideas are either accepted fully by some, or denied fully by others. Rarely do I get any gray area in how people relate to what I have to say. Now, why would I share details on my life? Because Slashdot is heavily archived by Google, and I love to look over the years at how my opinions have changed, plus I can compare it to what other people said. My blogs don't get as much traffic as Slashdot does, so I have an excellent archive of how I have progressed over time, versus how technical/geek society has changed. When I first registered at slashdot, just saying "libertarian" was sure to get you moderated Troll. Now it is almost as sure to moderate you up. Tech society has changed, and I'd say for the better.
So I will go away, but you have to take the steps to do so.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1, Insightful)
Please read my reply again. What I am concerned about is the fundamental violation of my rights and the rights of my neighbors and fellow citizens. I am being told that I am less and less entitled to the fruits of my labor. Last year, Tax Freedom Day [taxfoundation.org] fell on April 30th. That basically means that, if you started on January 1st and put all of your labor toward taxes, you would have to keep doing that until April 30th before you would be free to get 100% of your income for the rest of the year. With universal healthcare, this date will surely come later in the, each year.
"You're already paying for healthcare for everyone (if you spend anything on healthcare) in the form of high costs that have built in the assumption that something like 40% of the patients will never pay."
Thank the government for the situation we are now in. If the market were free to function of its own accord (as it can and always will despite the public's irrational fears), competition would lower costs. But competition has been eradicated. The government granted tax exemption status to certain insurance companies (Blue Cross / Blue Shield), which then gained a monopoly. They were then able to modify the definition of insurance to include not only emergencies, but routine medical visits. This, combined with tax-breaks for employer-sponsored insurance, has minimized incentives for customers to comparison-shop for medical services, and also minimized incentives for doctors and hospitals to compete on price.
When people learn that the government should keep its claws out of money altogether, we'll stop getting these idiotic solutions that are only proposed in order to stir up support from voters, but end up having devastating effects that last well beyond the candidate's political career.
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, wait, I forgot -- you believe that every man is an island, and apparently Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher ever. Your worldview sadly doesn't accomodate the fact that relationships (inclduing power relationships) actually exist, regardless of how they are codified (via the Constitutions of the US and of the States, and the laws issued in accordance with them).
The biggest problem with your worldview is that it is unrealistic. There are issues far bigger than one person, that cannot be resolved in a manner consistent with the greatest good (or, if it helps you understand better, optimal utilisation of resources) without a decision being taken en masse that applies to all. The "tragedy of the commons" is a great example to illustrate why sometimes it is necessary for one decision to apply to all in order to maintain best use of resources.
I think this is most telling. Your aversion to something has colored your understanding of it. If you really want to understand how the world works, you'll need to set aside your aversion to the political process in order to evaluate the good parts of it, and why they are there.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:1, Insightful)
When they're all abolished, big corporations won't have to spend vast sums of cash to take control anymore.
Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Goddamn you Hillary (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination by only the super delegates vote, and have lost the popular Democratic vote, would it be fair then for the opposition (Democratic as well as Republican) to label her the "Selected" rather than "Elected" Nominee?
Will Democratic Party leaders think that the risk of ignoring the popular vote is worth the possible reward of nominating someone who the party leaders think may be the more "electable" candidate in the general election?
Regardless of the above, it looks to be an interesting Democratic Convention coming up.
Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, an ignorant (and worse, stupid) population voting is almost as bad. I've known of people who (at least claimed) to have voted for a particular candidate because he was expected to win. When you have people voting for that reason alone, it's pretty hard to take politics seriously.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of sad. Obama published an award-winning 384 page book of his vision (The Audacity of Hope), but people are quite convinced he doesn't have one.
Re:Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Hogwash. He is white. You say Barak Obama is "black" because his father was "black". I say he is "white" because his mother was "white".
Someone who is truly cutting through the "political correct cry baby crap" would say he is "multiracial".
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
You give the media too much credit. (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel sorry for the winner in November (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Disagree: An Obama nomination will bring out a massive number of young voters who didn't register in time for the primaries who happen to be BLACK.
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
>-- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press
>hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.
Obama's strength in beating Mccain is tactical in nature and has nothing to do with "how the press is treating him."
Obama and Hilary are extremely similar candidates in that they both have very little experience compared to Mccain; however, Obama has a number of strong points that work well in a general election.
1. He delivers better speeches than either candidate. (btw, It's ridiculous Hilary deprecates this considering what an important skill this is for a head of state).
2. He has strong appeal to centrist voters which are typically Mccain's base. Without the centrist voters, Mccain has to rely entirely on the party base which has already made moves to desert him.
3. He appeals to the young vote, and so is likely to bring more total voters into the democratic side, many of whom despise Hilary over her stance over net neutrality, video game censorship, and general hostility towards the baby boomer generation. In contrast, Hilary's elderly party regulars voting for her in the primary can be counted on to show up at the polls no matter what democratic candidate ends up in the general election.
4. He's demonstrated that he can raise way more money than any other candidate out there, and has run a much better organized campaign than Hilary, despite all of her claimed political experience.
5. He can honestly say he was opposed to the war from day one. Hilary on the other hand is going to get *nailed* for flip flopping in the general election the same way it happened in the 2004 election. After all, if the war was a mistake, it was *her* mistake, and that is not an endorsement for presidency.
Hilary complains that the media went after her more harshly than Obama in part because she is a genuinely weak candidate with lots of points to attack her on. If this were any year other than 2008, when the general election may just be handed to the democrats, no one would take her candidacy seriously. She's just not that strong.
Re:Goddamn you Hillary (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, it NEEDED to be asked (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tim, we all know that a lot of people who like kicking dogs and throwing puppies off cliffs are big fans of yours. We also know that you are widely respected in the child porn industry. What do you have to say about that?"
That's not a hard question, that's a loaded question. A hard question would be:
"Our economic advisers believe that your economic policy will fail for reasons X, Y, and Z. Explain how your plan will work to avoid X, Y, and Z."
But watching a man defend an economic policy is no where near as fun as watching him defend himself from accusations of being a terrorist, a Black Panther, Muslim, corrupt, Jewish, antisemitic, etc... If you want some tough questions, get some English interviewers over here to badger the candidates on the issues. If you want BS and fluff, stay tuned to American TV for it's 'Entertainment Value'.
-Rick
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, your rights to have everything you want. I take it you won't drive on any bridges, flush your toilet into any sewers, or rely on any police to keep you safe, because the government shouldn't be "clawing away" your money. And definitely you wouldn't want to put that money into a bank insured by the FDIC, or take a mortgage backed by the same federal guarantees (explicit and implicit), or participate in a stock market where liars and thieves are kept (somewhat) at bay by the SEC. Nor do you want any assurance that your medicines are not contaminated, your foodstuffs safe, and your children's teachers are not psychopaths.
The "market will solve everything if you only you set it free" meme was new (and woefully simplistic) in 1971. Now it's tired, overused and foolishly simplistic. Your whole lifestyle is made possible by a profound set of government-run or backed institutions. If they're broken, the answer is to fix them and work for fair, well-regulated markers, not scrap everything we've learned and go back to the 1860s (as appealing as them sometimes seems from within a fluorescent-lit cube). I'm all for leaner and more effective government (as, in fact, are almost all of us who think government has a key role in society), but the nonsense about greedy government taking all your tax dollars sounds increasingly petulant when bridges are falling down, tainted food and drugs are being allowed into our stores, and people are losing their homes in droves, and the top marginal tax rate is the lowest its been in decades.
Government regulation of healthcare is indeed a gigantic mess, and the Blues are a great example of that mess. And yes, government intervention in a market can indeed make a problem worse. But it takes two to tango, so let's recall Gingrich-led cuts to Medicare in the 90s, and permanent resistance to Medicaid's existence (because after all, that's just more poor - read "lazy" - people clawing your government-backed money away) and general conservative opposition to every government program that doesn't involve fat contracts for their buddies don't really to much to promote fair, orderly and efficient markets either.
Sure, comparison shopping for healthcare would improve the system and make the market for healthcare more efficient, if there were choices real humans could afford. Have you ever priced non-employer sponsored "insurance" (the quotes are because health coverage is much more a bundled service agreement that it is insurance against unlikely adverse events)? The prospect of paying $10,000-$15,000 per year sounds like great set of choices, huh? I've learned a fair bit about the dysfunction of the medical reimbursement system in my current job, and I'm not sure a government-run healthcare program is all peaches and cream, primarily because the current incarnations sidestep the hard questions we need to debate about how much care should really cost and who should pay for what. There is a cost control element to healthcare that's deeply difficult to answer once your parent gets cancer or your sibling gets a debilitating disease. But that's a debate about how to structure things well within government and the private sector, not a worn-out screed about drowning government in the bathtub.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, an argument can be made that insurance is already forced upon you. Most post-secondary institutions in this country require all students and employees to carry insurance. Many private companies also require insurance as a condition of employment.
Even more so, what fundamental right is being violated in universal health care? The right to die? The conservatives have attacked that many times already (see the Terri Schaivo case, for example).
Well, somebody [whitehouse.gov] made the invasion of Iraq their chosen cause. I never supported it. I didn't support it before it was done, and I certainly don't support it now. But I don't get to chose to withhold the portion of my tax dollars that go to the war because I don't support it.
If I can't withhold the part of my tax dollars that are used to kill people, why do you get to withhold the part of your tax dollars that could be used to heal people?
Wanted: Liberal party and Conservative party (Score:5, Insightful)
It could use a party for real conservatives, too since this latest batch of Republicans is a spend-happy, big-government social-engineering disgrace. But even that would be a short-term solution as the real problem is that our Federal government is no longer bound by the limits of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment. The Federals are supposed to just run the Navy, print the money, and mostly stay the hell out of our lives. Instead, well, we have our current situation of Bread & Circus.
10th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant an authority, the Federals can't do it. What a quaint notion.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:1, Insightful)
So the roving "strike teams" of Obama caucus-goers were essentially neutralized by a Texas system that downplays the caucus itself, leaving Obama with his pants down and a telling primary loss.
It is my understanding that Obama has been winning caucus states in the past, particularly in the states where you're supposed to stick around and defend your choice. My theory: No rational person wants to waste their time arguing with an 18 year-old in an Operation Ivy T-shirt over who did or did not co-sponsor an education bill.
Re:Damn (Score:4, Insightful)
So tell me, what did the strong party discipline of the Republicans get us? Let me list you a couple: tax cuts at the same time at the same time as deficit spending, the Iraq War, & nominations for high office (including the supreme court) whose only qualification is loyalty to the Republican party or Bush. What you're calling weak party discipline is actually a rational debate about what the best policy is, in this case, who the best candidate would be. This is governing in the interest in the public because policy decisions are discussed in the open rather than ruling by fiat which is what the Republicans do, where the real decisions are made behind closed doors without public input and the result is presented fait accompli. Open and transparent government is not a bad thing!!
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Insightful)
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way. In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies, and in every case, I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me. Again, there are numerous ways to prepare for MANY unlikely situations, but most people don't care. They just want to spend today (and spend tomorrow's income today) and ignore the bad things that may happen. Then, when they do happen, we all have to pay for them. We don't share in their joy of overspending and irresponsibility, but we have to share in their problems.
What about problems that don't stem from the person who has them making a bad decision ? Or do you follow the "You've got problems, so you must have made a bad decision." line of thinking ?
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
6 figures doesn't really require HUGE mistakes. Some car accidents will be right in that range (especially when people are injured). You just don't realize that you've been lucky so far.
Don't even get me started on car accidents, which are completely harmed by government intervention in the insurance and tort/civil industries. First of all, the only insurance that should matter is YOUR insurance, based on YOUR needs. A very wealthy individual should be buying uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to cover what HIS loss would be in a near-fatal accident. If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance. The same is true for medical malpractice liability: it should not exist. Instead, people should buy "negative outcome" insurance based on what their needs are in the event of a negative outcome. The insurers have gotten together with the State to protect their assets, while requiring ridiculous insurance for all so that everyone's insurance options are limited. Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance? Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist. Easy enough.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming," I'll say "Then you didn't research your decision well enough." I got castigated here on Slashdot for YEARS when I recommended people rent or buy a mobile home in 2004 and 2005, and hundreds of people told me I was wrong. Well, I researched it, and in the end, I was right. I've told hundreds of people to consider NOT going to college if it will cost them $150,000 out of pocket in student loans, and some listened, got good jobs, and in 4 years are making well more than the college graduates who now have $500,000 to pay over the next 15 years (in interest and principle). Again, I researched it. I've explained to many friends that marriage is a terrible idea unless their religion requires it. Now, more than 55% of those who got married are going through horrible divorces because they did not think things through. Again, research will give you the statistics for you to protect yourself against.
Unemployment? That's why you SAVE. Disability? Get good disability insurance (one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea) to cover the remaining years of income. Divorce? Don't get married without a prenup. Death? Life insurance. Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
It is endless: the excuses people make for why they didn't prepare for negative outcomes. Yet the information is there, and people just don't listen. They want things NOW, but the important things they want others to pay.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:2, Insightful)
Media exposure could be bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw the effects of this in 2006 when the two candidates did their absolute best to turn voters away from the other candidate. The end result after the primary was a lot of people who were so burned by the attack ads, that they refused to aid the winning candidate against the opposition with campaign donations. (Many also refused to vote in the upcoming election, but most said that they'd hold their nose and vote for our candidate but that they intended to donate money to other members of the party in other elections.)
The net result: A landslide victory for the opposition as the candidate who won the primary was never able to reenergize the party base and unable to match the opposition's funding afterwards. Our candidate tried to run on issues and on the corruption of our opponent, and the opposition ran on personality and won hands down after the sour note left by the primary.
If voters are left saying, "Who's McCain?" then that's not necessarily a good thing if all they can remember about Clinton or Obama is months of attack ads. Brand recognition isn't a good thing when the product's tainted.
Re:Ron Paul Not A Troll (Score:0, Insightful)
Consumers are not interested in the nominal balances of money, but in the real balances that they hold. Increasing the supply of money (and thus lowering interest rates) only increases investment spending, and if the central bank monetizes the government deficit, it helps support increased government spending, both of which lead to an increase in the level of income. Yes, an increase in the money supply leads to inflation, but it's not going to be hyperinflation, and wages and prices will increase at the same ratio, thus keeping the real disposable income the same.
Now, stop believing in whatever crap that loony feeds you and go study some real economics.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
I now view the republican party as the party of corporatism (a flavor of fascism), oligarchy, lost personal freedom to live as I want, irresponsible spending (wildly more so than... say bill clinton was), and foreign intervention.
And I was a reagan republican- brought into voting by him basically.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's Randian sophistry. If a corporation acquires a monopoly on food distribution in my town, then while it isn't rifling through my pockets and then dumping food into my bags, I may well have no practical option other than to shop there. It real terms it is not much different from a country where the communist party owned the local store. Of course, right wing people will delight that I am free to starve to death, but I'm sure the communists would have said the same.
I love it how Randians try to blame corporate corruption on governments. "There's only corruption because of government regulation!!". It's like saying: "There's only murders because the police are trying to prevent crime!!". Of course no corporation would ever bribe officials or suppliers, or blackmail people or hire goons to beat workers or journalists, or to sabotage its competitors, or spread malicious rumours about the content of rival's products, or hire or sell a car that would blow up if you backed it into a post, or impale you on the steering column if you went in frontwise.
No... that would never happen. Like that time all those people in Eastern Europe got poisoned because the food companies were all grinding up lead paint into their products to make them look nicer.
It would result in a nation of Al Capones.
I'd love to see a Randian country come into being. It'd be like Cambodia in less than a week.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Troll.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics suck perhaps, but I don't think Obama has beaten Hillary - she is a formidable adversary.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the deal with voting by sexual organs or by skin tone? I thought we were supposed to be past that?
Re:Looking Forward.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am watching the campaign from across the pond, and as I see it, Obama is the only campaigner who is all substance. It would be political suicide to go into too many specifics - that's just not how you win an election. If you check out some of his speeches on youtube etc, he is often the guy who is saying what needs to be said (from an intelligent person's perspective, anyway.... rednecks might be disappointed). The reason he projects change and hope to the world (not just the US), is not that he says "I will bring change", but that every word from his mouth shows a whole different attitude, that is a breath of fresh air.
To my mind, he is the only one of the lot who can restore respect for USA as a nation. Because he is the only one who is about building bridges and the only one who really understands international relations/diplomacy.
Re:In the end, does it reallyl make a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it NEEDED to be asked (Score:5, Insightful)
No one ever gave Ron Paul much air time to begin with, and we all know it.
This whole "guilt by association" thing is one of the most ridiculously flawed arguments in political discourse, whether we're talking about specific issues, parties, or individuals. The frequency with which this propaganda technique is used however highlights the unfortunate fact that it must be an effective one.
1. Person/Group A is BAD
2. Person/Group A supports P
3. Therefor P must also be BAD
It's utterly and completely absurd.
1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler was a vegetarian
3. Therefore vegetarianism(vegeterians) must be evil.
Right?
It's an emotional BS argument that has no place in an intelligent debate. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler are used for this purpose so often that someone coined a term "Reductio ad Hitlerum" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) to define the phenomenon.
We definitely need a new term in the lexicon of U.S. politics to represent the frequent attempts to associate people and organizations with racists/racism because of such ridiculously tenuous connections.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
A system of healthcare exactly like what you described existed in the developed world from antiquity up until 1930 or so. There was no insurance, no regulation, no licensure, no anything; healthcare was exactly like any other trade, and those who would provide healthcare competed solely on the basis of price and advertising. The result was nothing short of miserable. Those who could afford it had the best medical and surgical treatment they could buy, although that generally wasn't much (no training requirements, remember?) Those who couldn't relied on folk remedies (what we now call "alternative medicine") and their own physiological reserves, and if they became seriously ill or injured, too bad. Oh, and the average lifespan was about 35 years give or take, and the sick were left to rot on the public streets - or, if they were very, very lucky, they were taken in by charitable groups and largely treated with benign neglect. I sincerely hope that you can figure out why we abandoned that model of healthcare.
In public health, it has been proven hundreds of times that when you have large numbers of sick people in circulation, the general health of the population tends to decline, and the diseases they suffer tend to increase in severity. In short, sick people make the people around them sick as well. If nothing is done about the sick (i.e. they're left to die), the population's health rapidly becomes so severely compromised that any suitable crisis - a plague, a famine, a drought, whatever - can kill off the entire population in one shot. Luckily, though, the reverse is also true: when a population is maintained at a certain level of health, the illnesses suffered by each individual tend to be less severe than they would be otherwise, and the lifespan, working capacity and general health of that population tends to increase. Thus, from a pure cost-benefit standpoint, you'd actually be smarter to provide a certain, basic level of healthcare to each individual out of the common treasury, since it costs far, far less to treat the minor illnesses than the severe illnesses, and it also results in massive net gains in productivity when everyone is healthy enough to work. Everything else, of course, the individual can pay for, but providing basic care - an annual physical, immunizations, emergency care when necessary, etc - ought to be a no-brainer.
Our current system is far from perfect - anyone will tell you that. However, throwing it out the window for some mythical "free-market" solution is just as foolish and ultimately even more harmful than single-payer care could hope to be. It is true that people in good health, who can be expected not to incur any particularly egregious health expenditures in their lifetimes, would pay less for their care at first. However, people in poor health, who not only cost more to care for but generally aren't physically capable of working hard enough or long enough to earn the required amount of money to pay for their healthcare and all their other expenses, will be in even worse straits. Meanwhile, thanks to the masses of sick people in circulation, now all of a sudden the healthy people are getting sick more often and more severely, which throws your putative cost savings right out the window. You're right back to the Middle Ages - either the sick would be rotting on the streets, or you'd be asking physicians, nurses and allied health providers to shoulder those patients' costs through charity care. How is that fair to me and my colleagues, for us to subsidize a tax break for you? Are we not entitled to the fruits of our labors?
I find it amusing how you and your ilk tout the wonders of the free market, without ever realizing that what you propose is neither free nor market-driven. You're just demanding that someone else pay the bill for you, whether through taxes or charity. Funny how that's so often true - the people who yell the loudest about free markets are also the ones who demand the biggest handouts, breaks and subsidies from said markets.
I'll thank you to take your trolling elsewhere, and good day to you, sir.
(Full disclosure: The author is a healthcare professional.)
Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you tried your local public library?
Re:Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.
Re:Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Do we still have cotton plantations where white rich men are whipping blacks in the fields? Are we we still bringing black people from africa stuffed like sardines in the hulls of ships? Are we still lynching hundreds of black folks a year? Are blacks not allowed to vote, or have a good paying job, or make decisions that impact the entire country? Are blacks not allowed to talk back to white people?
Please. Slavery is long over. Black people today do not know the meaning of the word racism. Racism isn't having a hard time getting a cab or having trouble becoming a CEO. Racism is getting the shit beat out of you because you weren't picking fast enough.
Slavery is finished, in the past...accept it.
Re:These polls mean nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
It is obvious that a good chunk of your statement is pure FUD and not a shred of truth. The question is, what about the rest. In particular, what real dirt do you have? Keep in mind, that ppl like me can be changed. But I want to see proof. There is far too much FUD and BS all over (and
If Clinton has proof of these things, and not just BS, she absolutely should bring it up. Better her, than later.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not counterproductive for Rush. He's salivating for a Clinton presidency, as it means ratings for his show go through the roof for the next 4 years.
Re:Still about Florida and Michigan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people make this mistake. Hillary Clinton is a woman[Tm], not a time machine. Slashdotters should know the difference. Time machines have more knobs and gages.
Even if she were a time machine, it would be very difficult to reproduce the conditions which allowed a decade of prosperity despite the actions (or lack of) of two corrupt and stupid presidents. Imagine going back to 1992 and making sure you don't step on a fly, lest you change these conditions:
- The reasonably peaceful breakup of the Soviet empire. (Clinton and Bush just watched, they didn't even take advantage of the once in a lifetime opportunity!)
- The invention of computer and internet technology which allowed JIT warehousing, enabled globalization and led to vast improvements in efficiency. (Neither Clinton, nor Bush nor Gore can take credit for this)
- Opening up of China, Latin America and other markets and their cheap labor while deficit spending and cheap credit allowed us to isolate our labor force from potential deflationary impacts on wages. (O.K Clinton did sign NAFTA and seemed to have a good relationship with Chinese campaign donors so maybe he did have something to do with this, but Nixon, Carter and Reagan probably had more of an impact on China.
- Global wage arbitrage and productivity increases resulting from computers and internet also allowed the Fed to keep interest rates low, spurring growth here but offshoring the inflation.
- Oil prices were less than $20/bbl (Clinton signed the "SUV loophole" laws which created the demand for such beasts and helped drive oil back up to $102/bbl where it apparently belongs.)
- The bulk of our population (Baby boomers) were in their peak earning years so Clinton/Bush et al could sweep the Social Security insolvency under the rug for another 12-18 years... and whistle in the dark, hoping no one would notice. (Gingrich was the perfect diversion from Clinton's numerous non sex related shenanigans, so he took the fall but I assure you that had mother Theresa suggested a Social Security fix as early as the mid 90s, she would have also been put on a skewer.)
It could work, but don't step on any flys and keep your hands inside the vehicle at all times, it is moving at the same speed as reality.Re:crank crank crank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:-1, Insightful)
so why is it a problem when the republicans do it? hypocrisy must be good for the dems...
Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Serves the Democrats right for crossing over and voting for McCain in Republican primaries. They have no right to complain after they stuck us with one of our weakest possible candidates (the only way it could've been worse would've been if that idiot Ron Paul ended up winning).
In the long term, maybe this clusterfrak of an election will demonstrate the folly of open primaries. What's wrong with the two parties getting to choose their candidates without interference from outsiders?
Re:Wanted: Liberal party and Conservative party (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is really a very interesting topic when it comes to democracy, surely it's rule by the people but what people? Who has the right to decide the regions and the level something is decided at, who has the authority to change it? One the one extreme you have the globalist idea, if 5 billion on the other side of the earth decide something the other 3 billion should obey. On the other extreme I can wall off this room and call myself a sovereign nation that has declared independence. Reality is somewhere inbetween.
Some things could in theory be decided in the UN, some things are decided in the EU, some things are decided on the national level, some things on the regional level, some things on the county level, some things on the city level, some things down to the city district. Does "we, the people" in the county have less authority than "we, the people" in the nation? Formally it does because the way it is organized, but if they came in and said we'll run everything centrally they'd have a revolution on their hands. And if they claimed that we can't democraticly break free because the grand majority don't want us to, is that democracy or was democracy just crushed?
In short it's not implict that a majority means it's a majority in an authority you recognize, even if it's democratic. The trouble is that sometimes you want a local law, sometimes you want a universal law. I for one am not at all sure I'd like laws and regulations passed by my city council any better than by the parliament...
Re:No, it NEEDED to be asked (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if you give me a bit of time, and the kind of budgets these candidates are working with, I assure you I can find someone who has been convicted of morally horrendous crimes who is a fan of Russert. Heck, if I could track down two or three that have seen his show a few times, I could go so far as to claim "a large number of child molesters like your show!", with some proper staging and demographics work, I could probably even come up with a cool graphic pie chart that shows 68.5% of all child porn photographers polled like his show.
-Rick
Quick question (Score:1, Insightful)
Please tell me and the rest of us what obligations could possibly take precedence over ensuring your children's future? What do you think "politics" are?
You're complaining about being inconvenienced, and attempting to make your short term obligations to your family seem more important than your long term obligations to them.
Don't get pissed that some of us see through your rationalization and understand that you're being penny-wise and pound foolish.
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not, if you could imagine them then you could prepare for them.
Incorrect... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, they haven't stepped up to the plate when it comes to Impeachment, and for that they will suffer.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are missing an important fact - deep down inside, in a place they hope no one can see, many Democrats want Bill Clinton as President for Life. And they think that, by electing Hillary, they will really be getting Bill.
Re:crank crank crank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why no one much talks about coattails -- if Obama is the nominee then a lot of dems will get into Senate, House, and state offices. If Clinton is the nominee then a lot more Republicans will show up just to vote against her. That's why I don't understand why more of the superdelegates aren't behind Obama -- the coattails are amazing there.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you're calling your cousin in dubai who's a known terrorist, FISA would allow that. That's not the issue here. Hell, if you were to call your cousin in Canada who once visited a mosque as part of an interfaith program, that wouldn't be reasonable but if done in good faith FISA would sign off on it.
The problem comes when the government is knowingly spying on lawyers, reporters, doctors, and peace activists with absolutely no reason to believe they are doing anything wrong. That would not be allowed under FISA, and that's what's been lost under Bush.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Hundreds of thousands? According to cnn.com right now, Clinton has 1,455,959 votes and Obama has 1,356,330. That's just slightly under 100,000 and a far cry from "hundreds of thousands."
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be interested to know just how much of each dollar spent goes to actual health care, and how much goes to all those other things.
Re:more liberals than republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
>his constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy ended up stretching
>the great depression out for a decade.
This is nonsense propaganda that is not backed up by historical fact. Do you even know what "economic meddling" FDR did?
The FDIC, the SEC, social security. All of these are core institutions in modern america, not "economic meddling." Why do you think the depression occured anyway? This wasn't some ordinary "economic cycle." The economy was *broken*, *no one* was employed, you couldn't retrieve your money from the bank, and people were starving to death en mass. Iraq has a better economy than we had.
FDR instituted the necessary reforms to *have* the kind of economy we have now, including *insuring your money in the bank* so that if the banks screw up (are you aware of the current sub prime loan crisis?) the banking industry still *exists* afterwards.
There a number of failed FDR programs that were repealed, which he can be rightly criticized for, but he basically *built* america's modern economy, which was *shit* prior to it. We weren't exactly an economic powerhouse *before* the depression, and without his reforms we couldn't be where we are today.
Next you're going to tell me that the Fed is the greatest evil to our money supply, like those ignorant ron paul wack jobs are always spouting off about.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this company maintain its "monopoly" without the help of the government?
What make you think they need any help from the government.
What's stopping you from starting your own competing food business, with your own supply chain all the way up from the growers?
Economies of scale, competing against a larger better financed organisation, the competition can modify prices to run you out of business, do I need to go on.
What's stopping anyone from doing so, if the "monopoly" is indeed engaging in price gouging?
Refer to above.
Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on having immediate access to the food we need to buy for that day, or else we starve? What happened to canned food, gardening, canning, hunting, and deep freezes? Isn't it better to save and plan ahead, so we don't actually need the monopoly's products, since it must then adjust prices downward to maximize profit at the lower level of demand?
Whinging about why society is they way it is doesn't do anything for your point.
Have you considered that without the "monopoly" providing you food at a price higher than you feel is fair, you'd starve just like your ancestors did in a famine?
Have you considered that with some competition the same thing could happen but for a lower price. Have you considered that a monopoly might choose to starve you?
Go ahead, vote in more bureaucrats, and price-fix their asses. That's what you want, right?
No. Nice strawman, make it yourself.
Wait, now they don't seem to have as good of a selection on the shelves, the food isn't as fresh, and the items you want are always in short supply.
Monopolies do that.
Now you use your bureaucrats to mandate that they must have product on the shelves at your fixed price.
Back to strawmen.
Wait, now they're packing up and going home because they have more profitable ventures to pursue? Outrage!
Cause that is what happens on "socialist" europe?
Here is where you can insert the favorite government program some politician promotes because, quote, "the free market has failed".
Here is where I insert my comment: Libertarianism is both unworkable and a way of justifying personal selfishness. Libertarianism ensures and entrenches the domination of the weak by the strong.
British Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
It is always interesting to listen to English journalists, even Canadian journalists seem to be more confrontational than Americans. And sometimes this is really satisfying, and sometimes it isn't. It gets a bit frustrating when they ask things a candidate can't reasonably explain in a short period of time, and it is even more frustrating when the journalist ends up grilling the person primarily as a result of some cultural thing that the journalist doesn't get. But over all, I think we could do with a British interviewer or two to keep the politicians on their toes.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you learn the word "socialist" from watching Hannity and O'Reilly? Hint: Europeans see the Democratic Party as being mid-far right, and they've got *nothing* like the Republicans. It'd do you some good to visit other countries.