A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record 603
Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.
Change (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?
The only thing "changing" in January is the position DC is fucking me in...
I wonder what the FBI has on him. (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting. Is there a J. Edgar Hover wannabe there? Or is it just the current climate with this administration.
the trouble with this is, even though Obama would be the President if elected, Biden would be President of the Senate. So if there's a tie breaker for or against something that would further deteriorate our Civil Liberties, I can only assume Biden would vote in favor of less freedom. And if that should some to pass, maybe Obama would veto it. Then again, maybe not. This country is on a path of safety overrides freedom every time. I have lost hope.
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
/sarcasm.
Remember also that part of the point of a VP choice is that they'll be the ones running for President after the President's term ends.
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll admit, I really doubt anything will "change" with Obama in office. All politicians talk of change and yet it's the same thing every administration.
In this case, we can't complain too much. The US VP does very little in the government. Some even say it's a joke position. He gets a vote in Congress, and has a lead position at NASA and the Smithsonian. Beyond that he has little power.
The one thing the VP can do for him is serve as an advisor.
Some people like that Obama is new, others think he lacks enough experience. By putting someone high profile in his camp that has experience, the nay-sayers can relax.
Why I never trust "voting records" (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has bias. Everyone.
The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.
For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.
This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.
To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.
Re:Change (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden wasn't nominated the VP because of his tech voting record. Just look at what the Democrats are talking about- Iraq, the economy, healthcare, the housing crisis, etc. Net Neutrality is barely on the radar, and you can be assured that NN isn't going to get a vote in the next two years (unless someone piles it in an omnibus) even with a Democratic majority.
Biden is a tactical choice to try to win the election; not a choice of "who would actually make the best VP once we win". All you have to do to realize that is watch Biden's acceptance speech, where he smacked the hell out of McCain. Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on politically; that "seven kitchen tables" line was gold. That's what Biden is there for- to attack McCain (and McCain's VP choice) while Obama is above the fray.
VPs are chosen as an attempt to win elections, not as an attempt to pick the best man for the job.
Who gives a flaming fuck? (Score:1, Insightful)
Against all the parties of capitalism, for a workers party that fights for a workers government!
Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him. (Score:2, Insightful)
Blaming a tie breaker solely on the person who breaks the tie is a little wacky.
Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have lost more freedoms than ever under Republican administrations and this user seems to question the ability of Obama/Biden before they even get a chance - as if its the democrats fault we're in this shit hole we're in today (or as if the parent accepts this shit hole as conservative progress)
Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".
Obama/Biden isn't Clinton politics.
* Going Green is energy policy
* Creating Green jobs is Economic Policy
* Having a right hand mand to fill in the "DC politics" greed that voters will (for what reason i don't know) expect is a BOON.
* Healthcare is a great policy - a social insurance program that could have been funded for every human being if we hadn't been hell bent on WAR
I could go on and on what Obama/Biden can do for us but to people like you, its only what you assume they will do against you without regards for your fellow neighbors, countrymen and US citizens.
Re:Why... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Because she is loathed by the critical "undecided" voters. Most of Hillary's people will vote for Obama anyway, and there's no point in courting the "Hillary or nobody" crowd.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe you honestly believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.
Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".
Too easy. [barackobama.com] Try another.
Have the Democrats got us out of Iraq after pledging to do so? NO!
Have the Democrats passed any laws that increased our freedoms? NO!
Have the Democrats ever passed any laws that increased freedom? NO!
Voting either Repulcrat or Democan is voting for politics-as-usual and no change, no matter what pretty-boy Obama says. When's the last time you saw a politician come through with a campaign promise on policy?
About the only thing that Obama will do that McCain won't is raise our taxes. Otherwise they're identical.
Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Now he can say that while he lacks national level leadership experience he has a close source of advice that is hard to beat. I think that this choice is going to turn out more neutral then anything in a few weeks after the initial announcement wears off.
Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's because Hillary really is a conservative, so they're okay with how she votes on certain issues. Make no mistake though, if she were the Democratic nominee for President or VP, she'd be declared the next coming of Karl Marx.
Much like all those Republicans who declared McCain a traitor to his party for the past 10 years, but now fall in line behind him (though they're right to do so; since McCain is now toeing the party line rather than holding "mavericky" positions.)
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, as an indication of just how badly McCain and the GOP is running their campaign strategy...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/23/new-mccain-ad-gets-more-personal/ [wsj.com]
And guess who's speaking at the Democratic convention? Horrible, horrible move. If she chooses, she could tear McCain a new one for that ad.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich. This will have two beneficial effects:
That said, I believe Obama represents a far bigger and more beneficial change than you seem to see. But even if he does only what you believe he'll do, it'll be a good thing.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two. And they have very good reason. While their position on "high" tech is interesting and all, when you starting asking the real questions, it boils down to their position on our rights to use that tech as we see fit. Because none of them are "against" technology. We have to watch how it will used against us. So the questions become something like, Who's going to to reign in the FBI and their wiretapping? Who's going to stop the TSA from damaging [aero-news.net] our airliners, possibly causing a real disaster? When are we ever going to see real adherence to the Bill of Rights? Not that we ever had, but it's about time we make a real effort. If we want to see truly rapid development of high tech, we have to ask when are they going to put an end to near infinite copyright, and the idea of software patents.
Well, from both of these guys we are getting negative responses to all these questions and more. We are going to get more of the same thing that we have been getting since long before we were born.
So the AC is right
Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama
The only thing I could add is "!"
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quite literally doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.
This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.
You should note that when you vote for the (slightly) lesser of two evils, you are voting for the two-party system by doing so.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
also, it would make obama look very weak to pick the woman who continuously savaged him in the primaries as some sort of concession.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not the governments duty (or right) to force income equality.
Re:Change (Score:2, Insightful)
A company does not develop new products. A company's employees develop new products. A 65 year old company does not exclusively employ 65 year old people; it can employ younger people, who can think of new things. It doesn't work that way with people; if you are 65 years old, that's how old you are, with all your 65 years of experiences, biases, and a stone-hard mindset.
Re:Quite literally doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that it's not a slight difference, but past that: There's a time for idealism and a time for pragmatism. In 2000, I went idealism and voted Nader. I won't be making that mistake this time around.
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as Shigeru Miyamoto how much old people can't invent.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Insightful)
...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.
No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes.
Next time, vote your conscience.
I agree, but most are voting for the guy who brings it home. The system ain't broke. We are. We created this system, and we continue to feed it. Most are just just not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Lack of empathy and downright hate play a huge part.
Who wrote the summary? Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating.
Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.
Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions. Here's an example, in Obama's own words:
I apologize if this reduces the number of McCain troll points [johnmccain.com] for somebody interested in getting some McCain campaign schwag.
I added the bold text for emphasis in the Obama quote above.
Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote). And while both members of the House of Representatives and Senators both do that, Senators have yet another trick because of the existence of the filibuster in the Senate. An example is Senator Joe Lieberman, who voted with the Republicans for cloture (i.e., to end the Democratic filibuster) on the nomination of Samuel Alito the Supreme Court. Since it was known that the Republicans had enough votes to rubber-stamp Bush's nomination of Alito, the vote that mattered was the cloture vote. After that, Lieberman cast his vote against confirming Alito, so he could tell the voters in Connecticut, an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that he had voted against Alito. If you were just to look at the confirmation vote, you might think Lieberman had been against confirming Alito, but on the vote that mattered, he voted with the Republicans.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Clinton pointed out the other day that there is absolutely nothing that can ever prepare someone for the Presidency.
I think he is right. Thirty years in the Senate is not going to prepare you to be the top decision maker on ever single aspect of policy in the worlds biggest economy and military power. It isn't what you know coming into the job that counts, it is what you can learn.
McCain's analysis of every single foreign policy crisis of the past twenty years has led him to the conclusion that what is needed is a new war or a bigger war. He was an advocate for invading Iraq before Bush. He wants to immediately allow Georgia to join NATO, thus requiring the US to declare war on Russia under the joint defense clause.
What is the value of 72 years experience if you have learned nothing from it? McCain is visibly uninterested in every aspect of policy other than warfare, and that seems to be more than a little related to his desire to redeem his own military career which he is in the habit of talking about even more often than Rudy Giuliani talks about 9/11.
David Brooks, a conservative was advocating Biden because he was going to be an independent voice, not someone who would hero-worship or tell Obama what he wanted to hear.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:1, Insightful)
She and Bill also seem ambivalent (and that's a generous assessment in Bill's case) about Obama winning this election - I'm sure they have serious thoughts about running in 2012 if McCain wins.
You don't want a running mate who is not 100 percent committed to winning the election. Otherwise you get someone damning you with faint praise - "Sure, he lacks experience, but the alternative is even worse!" like that. And we'd still hear the continuous whining from the entire Clinton camp about what should have been, had it not been for massive media bias, sexism in America, DNC doing this and that, etc.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Because she could not graciously concede, once it became apparent to all who understood delegate math, that she would be unable to get enough delegates for nomination. Instead she had to bitterly and derisively, carry on until the last possible moment. Which is entirely her and her campaigns right, in my opinion. But I suspect that from the view of the Obama Campaign and the Democratic party, she put herself before her party and so lost any rational claim to be V.P.
Also, for those who can understand electoral math, the bitter holdouts are not as important to winning the election as the non-party voters in key battleground states.
Why is CNet writing a voting guide anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are legitimate reasons to vote against Internet gambling. There are legitimate reasons to vote against H1B visas. There are legitimate reasons to vote against free trade with China.
CNet is a news site. It shouldn't try to push a political agenda, even one that it thinks its audience shares.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it would be good that we live in a republic who's only ties to being democratic is in how we elect representatives.
The government's job is to govern the country or the post they are in. Nothing more nothing less. They have no obligation to you or anyone else unless that somehow effects the post they are over. They have no obligation and I would actually say they are stupid is they think they are supposed to make the world a better place.
As the Parent said, it isn't the government's job to manufacture income equality. And no, this isn't because of something he says, it is because the very essence of freedom means that you are free to put your resources to work and make money. Even if you end up making more the someone else. You are essentially taking freedom away when they artificial barriers are put into place. And to make things worse, addressing income equality by limiting the people who are doing something to make money will only make things worse. Imagine a life where you have unemployed people because they don't want to work or they fuck off and get people hurt so they were fired. Then fire as many people making the most money just to open jobs up for these original slacker unemployed people. That is what you are wanting to do by raising the rent on the rich just so they don't have as much or more then the poorer people when do something to make money.
It is a lot like lowering standard to include unqualified people instead of elevating unqualified people to qualified status. You still have a bunch of ignorant fools not qualified for the job but now they are proving it and showing everyone else their special treatment when they aren't fired. And somehow, people think this special treatment will end racism just because they can say, look, they are hired and getting jobs, our work it done here.
That's what I hate about ignorant asses like you, you only care about your little agenda and don't have the wherewithal to see it for what it is. Income equality is something that is earned not forced or given. At least not in a free country/world.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but there are multiple ways to govern.
If they didn't, our system wouldn't be even remotely democratic. In reality, officials need to stand for re-election. In some jurisdictions, they can even be recalled mid-term. (See California.) These mechanisms ensure accountability. (Which is why I oppose term limits but support recall votes: that combination ensures maximum accountability.)
Then they are abrogating the duties of their offices.
No. Your freedom ends when it impacts my freedom. It's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. It's illegal to go around punching people. And it should be illegal to go around ruining the economy to buy another Yacht.
What the fuck are you talking about? Making taxation more progressive has nothing to do with abolishing meritocracy. Of course we should have welfare for people who refuse to work. We can't have them starving in the streets. But if they want a life better than bare survival, they have to work. That's a humanitarian incentive, and incentive enough for the rest of the free world.
I oppose affirmative action, actually. But that's beside the point. What the fuck are you talking about? You can have a progressive society that remains a meritocracy.
Actually, I believe you best describe yourself there. You're the one who has not thought through his position, and I am the one who believes in a happy, prosperous society for all.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if the world really worked like that, you'd have a point. But the people getting rich aren't the ones with knowledge and skill. They're the tall, confident ones who wine and dine important people. They play the game, and who join the old boy's club. These qualities do not translate into worth to society at large. The ultra-rich are parasites.
Also, small government über alles is not a sustainable philosophy. At least government is accountable. Corporations, unchecked, become little autocratic empires that aren't good for anyone but the owners.
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
McCain needs to find a young, anti-abortion middle-class outsider who can go toe-to-toe with joe biden in a debate. good luck with that one.
and if he is really smart about it; he sould pick a woman. That will really take "change" votes away from Borate Obama.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither [ucsb.edu]" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
Re:I'm not voting for Biden or McCain's VP (Score:1, Insightful)
I fully intend to vote, just like I have in every election I've been legally allowed to.
I'm just not voting for a presidential candidate from the big two parties.
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
You overlook the fact that the reason Georgia was not allowed to join NATO was precisely the fact that they had an existing border dispute with Russia. Moreover the current Georgian President was elected on a platform of starting a war with Russia to reclaim the territories concerned.
So why exactly should NATO give Georgia a blank check here? NATO has always been a defensive alliance, McCain is proposing turning it into an offensive alliance. The regions concerned have been occupied by Russia since 1992, Georgia has only been independent since 1991. Russia does in fact have a reasonable claim to make that the people who actually live in the region would prefer to be a part of Russia than Georgia.
Russia would not have sent the tanks in if the Georgians had been competent and blocked the only tunnel between Russia and S. Ossettia. So not only would McCain have us take sides in this squalid irredentist dispute, he would have us ally ourselves to an incompetent.
You're confusing a natural instinct to have the federal government NOT INVOLVED in every little aspect of your life with being uninterested.
Funny the way that wingnuts cannot talk to anyone without denigrating them as ignorant, stupid, etc. I guess that must be over-compensating for having a candidate who cannot remember what car he drives or how many houses he has. Is he really that confused or just senile?
McCain has never displayed the slightest interest in domestic policy. That is a problem because the levees that McCain called 'pork' are what the inhabitants of New Orleans called their protection from flooding.
Why aren't you concerned with how little thoughtful observation time Obama seems to be giving the actual reality on the ground in the middle east, as it relates to what the troops - whom he wants to command - are accomplishing?
McCain has made many untrue claims here. Was he lying when he said Obama had not talked to Petraus or had he merely forgotten that McCain was present when Obama questioned Petraus in the Senate hearings? You are repeating a Rovian talking point, it has no basis in fact.
Or (just as likely) he has a very predictable, oily level of disengenuous scorn for the people on the left to whom he's been promising one thing when - of course - he'll "refine" his position, and simply ignore once he gets the job.
Projection, projection. The party of Abramoff, Reed, DeLay, Stevens, Ney, Cunningham did exactly that. They promised much and then when they got into government they spent their time making it bigger and selling favors to their fat cat friends. They were willing to let Stevens build his billion dollar bridge to nowhere because they were going to get a cut from his kickbacks as well. Stevens got a $500,000 house renovation done for free by Veco, how much did the rest of the sleazy gang get?
Now once there was a guy called John McCain who used to be against that type of thing, but unfortunately its not that McCain who is on the ballot. Instead we have Rove-McCain, which is what you get when the old John McCain sells out all his principals to the religious right and the corruption wings of the GOP to win the primary. The old McCain is gone, all that is left is the empty husk left to be filled by his aides.
Re:Why I never trust "voting records" (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay. Let's pass laws against being polite in bars, against driving safely, and against honoring contracts!
You don't mention the thousands of drugs that never made it past FDA inspection, and would have killed people if they had. If our testing process is flawed, we need to fix it. But you don't present a compelling argument for our being better-off without testing.
Any organization will make mistakes. You've put the FDA in a catch-22 here. If they don't issue retractions and warnings, they're guilty of complicity and corruption. If they do issue retractions, they're guilty of incompetence and cowardice. In your world, the FDA can't win.
Perhaps because Tylenol is one of the most popular drugs in the world? Perhaps because any substance can be a poison in the right dose? Without a source, it's hard to say. Are you claiming the FDA botched in its approval of Tylenol?
Nevertheless, even these minimum standards have saved many lives. Industrial accidents are far less common than they used to be. If the standards are insufficient, perhaps they should be made stricter, not abolished.
Then write a letter to your newspaper and start the bad publicity train a-rolling! Or... err... wait... perhaps your "proof" isn't as strong as you think. (Hint: scientists don't use the word "proof". They use words like "evidence" and "support".)
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Insightful)
They have to follow the Constitution before they can follow the Bill of Rights.
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here."
Or, he was just saying that to win the primaries. He is, at the end of the day, still a politician. Everyone tried to paint Obama as young and inexperienced, a risk, and it didn't work. To read anymore into it, I think it a bit foolish.
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
The most important thing about a president is to recognize that that person is a figurehead. The transition from Nixon to Ford changed the president from being a colorful driving person to a gray eminence - but on the other hand, it was probably a good idea to not stand out too much after the Watergate event.
Personally I think that the government of the US has been overdoing it's way after 9/11 by being far too paranoid. This with a no-fly list that also traps innocent people (at least innocent of terrorism, they may have other things to be guilty about, but that's a different issue) just because they happen to have the same name as another person suspected of involvement with terrorism.
The big problem with McCain will be that a lot of the advisors and other people behind the scene will remain the same or continue in the same tracks as before. A change of government party will at least shave off a bit and also make some people think twice before acting.
It's very easy for a state to grow into a police state. Just be aware about the laptop searches and a lot of other things that will affect many of us. It's called democracy but sometimes I start to doubt it when I hear and see what is going on. Laws are made to be used as excuses for actions that were unthinkable 20 years ago. (Patriot act, DMCA...)
And if nothing else - you can always call on the pedophile scare and blow the reputation of a person completely.
So even if Obama has his faults he also have the advantage of being flexible and relatively unblemished by scandals. Experience is something you build by time, but by selecting Joe Biden he will have someone that's really experienced behind him.
As for Hillary Clinton, I suspect that she can do a good work in another prominent position, like secretary of state. But that has of course to be decided after the election, given that Obama is elected.
For McCain it's also likely that he will only be in office for one term, but it's of course not certain. His age is a disadvantage here, and even if he is healthy now (or at least appears to be) things can deteriorate quickly at his age.
And Obama is also running the risk of being a one term president, mostly since there are a lot of cleaning to do after Bush. A lot of uncomfortable decisions to make, and a lot of people to piss off. I have a suspicion that there will be changes when it comes to taxes to clean up the shortcomings of the Iraq events. It's not a task that I would like to have on my desk, but some things just have to be done. Maybe he should hire Mike Rowe and make a Dirty Jobs episode of it? :-)
And regardless of who becomes president - you will have to accept that that person can embarrass himself on some occasions. But don't let that be something to decide who to vote for, just accept it and let it be a good joke afterwards. Like someone said about the Lewinsky affair - "I'd rather have my president happy than frustrated".
Re:Quite literally doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
And so in 2006, you presumably voted Democrat, in order to end the War, stop illegal wiretapping, restore Habeus Corpus. Oh wait...
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Except the Democrats no longer care about gun control, and haven't actually cared about it for almost a decade. And the Supreme Court decision gives them a way to cleanly and officially remove it from the equation.
All Obama has to do, the second it comes up, is state that he will follow the Supreme Court decision and not pass whatever laws there's a flap about.
See, the problem for your theory is that being pro-gun-control on the left has never been as important as being anti-gun-control on the right. There is, indeed, a large group of people who will not vote for pro-gun-control people...and there's not really any opposite to that group on the left.
Promising to crack down on guns is just a way for Democrats to look 'tough on crime' when Republicans inevitably accuse them of being weak on crime...but that almost certainly isn't going to be an issue this election, so they can just ignore guns until they actually become an issue in and of themselves, and then state whatever position they want.
It might cost him some inner-city votes...but probably not. And the NRA types who actually honestly care about civil rights, and were worried on that one issue, pretty much have to vote for the Democrats for all other civil rights issues.
As for Biden's previous position...the nice thing about the VP slot is that positive positions made in the past help the candidate, whereas in positions the presidential candidate doesn't like, he can just override the VP's candidate. (Obama: Joe Biden and I have had a long talk about gun control, and while I have not convinced him of my position, he has agreed that, under me, he would vote in a manner consistent with my position.)
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a really good solution is to use Instant Runoff Elections [1]. Then you can choose the candidate that you really like, and a second and third place candidate. Then if the person you really like doesn't get enough votes, your vote hasn't been thrown away.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting [wikipedia.org]
Does he support increasing number guest workers? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is probably the biggest issue facing tech workers.
I know where McCain stands. McCain wants to rip the lid off any kind of a guest worker cap.
I get the idea that Obama wants to do the same, but Obama is not as brazen about it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:3, Insightful)
As the Parent said, it isn't the government's job to manufacture income equality. And no, this isn't because of something he says, it is because the very essence of freedom means that you are free to put your resources to work and make money. Even if you end up making more the someone else. You are essentially taking freedom away when they artificial barriers are put into place.
There are a lot of situations where some level of freedom is given away to promote the overall good of the people. In fact, every single form of government takes away some level of freedom. Monopolies aren't allowed to exist so it can better our economy, but that sure is a restriction on my freedom to run a business. Remember that the only form of government where you are completely free to do as you please is anarchy.
Imagine a life where you have unemployed people because they don't want to work or they fuck off and get people hurt so they were fired. Then fire as many people making the most money just to open jobs up for these original slacker unemployed people. That is what you are wanting to do by raising the rent on the rich just so they don't have as much or more then the poorer people when do something to make money.
Imagine a life where you have corporations controlling every aspect of society -- corporations so big that it would take you several lifetimes to amass enough wealth to get near their level of power. The opposite end of the spectrum seems pretty scary too, doesn't it? The point is, you can't dismiss an economic system by painting a picture of it's worse-case scenario, where everyone exploits the system and no one tries to fix it.
Income equality is something that is earned not forced or given. At least not in a free country/world.
Historically, as income equality got better in the US, so did our economy. It is typically when the middle class disappears (think the Guilded Age leading into the Great Depression, and how it mirrors what's happening today), that our economy as a whole starts to tank. A certain level of income inequality is a good thing -- Communism would probably never work at a large scale. But free reign of income inequality has always been a bad thing, because as income inequality increases it becomes near-impossible to jump from one class to the next. I'm not against there being ultra-rich elite, but I *am* against there being such a high amount of those that are homeless, being foreclosed on, being forced into bankrupcy, being forced to live in 3-4 income households, and with no visible light at the end of the tunnel.
Re:Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting recor (Score:1, Insightful)
Submitters just can't win can they? If they left their bias exposed, they'd be blasted for exposing their bias. They try to make their summary neutral and stick to the facts, they get blasted for concealing their bias instead of exposing it!
I imagine given what the poster's bias is, it really doesn't matter what their party affiliation, both republican and democrat are equally poor on tech and copyright issues.
Re:NOTA (Score:5, Insightful)
our votes don't really count under the farce that is the electoral college.
Your vote counts just fine for selecting the electors from your own state. Lest you forget, the United States is a Republic made up of 50 states that retain their sovereignty. One of the points behind the Electoral College and US Senate is to prevent the domination of small/sparsely populated states by large/heavily populated ones.
You can have a debate about the wisdom of such a system but calling it a 'farce' seems to convey a pretty poor understanding of our system of Government. It's part of the Constitution. If the Electoral College is a 'farce' then I guess the Bill of Rights is as well.
Re:Change (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Nader voters? They're not responsibile for the crappy campain that Gore ran, for the fraud that gave Florida to Bush, nor for the inaction of Democratic senators who let it pass.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trickle-down economics has been widely debunked. The gist is that creating luxury goods does less to help the economy than Keynesian projects.
I think Godwin's Law ought to apply to all oppressive leaders, not just Hitler. Yes, my ideals, executed naively, lead to communism. Your ideals, executed naively, lead to fascism.
The key is to create a workable system for the benefit of all while still providing incentive for individual achievement. Neither extreme achieves that goal. Today, however, we are still too far to the right.
Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, come on. His whole point was that if Georgia had been quickly allowed into NATO when it SHOULD have been allowed in, Russia wouldn't have sent tanks into it in the first place. Are you unable to grasp the utility of a deterrent? There's a reason we never "declared war" on the Soviets.
Isn't this all a moot point given the fact that Germany and France were opposed to bringing Georgia into NATO? And is it really wise to invite yet another country that can barely defend itself (let alone contribute to the defense of others) into NATO?
I've researched the history in that region and came away with the conclusion that there really aren't any good guys there. The South Ossetians and Abkhazians have done their best to make life for ethic Georgians in those regions unlivable. Historically the Georgians did the same to them -- under the USSR and after the breakup of the USSR. Meanwhile the Russians are using the situation to try and destabilize a country that they've always considered to be within their sphere of influence.
I don't condone the methods of Putin or ethic cleansing on the part of the break-away regions but I can certainly understand why those regions don't wish to be a part of Georgia. Stalin redrew the map to lump them into Georgia back in the day -- and the Georgians did their very best to try and assimilate/bury their culture.
Somebody said that this is a situation that doesn't lend itself to black and white images of "good" and "bad". That's the understatement of the year, IMHO..... What a friggen mess.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the main problem that's being talked about here stems from a near complete lack of critical thinking [wikipedia.org] among the American public, which is why I think election campaigns are lower-levelled and politicians can get away with anything, i.e. "my opponent = Paris Hilton", "my opponent = terrist", "my opponent = cliché angry black man". I think that's pretty much the root of all evil the USA, a lack critical thinking, which makes the American public believe things that European publics would just scoff off, and that's why you realise you got owned when it's way too late. To put things in perspective, while both the American and the British government were for the war in Iraq, only the American opinion was favourable to it, while the majority of Britons were opposing it from the start. The very fact that the evolution and climate change debates are even taken seriously by most Americans is I believe a clear indicator of that intellectual gap between this country and most other countries you can decently compare them to.
I think it all mainly stems from the quality of education in the USA, and I think every cause of the current and future downfall of the USA can be traced back to educational issues.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not voting for Biden or McCain's VP (Score:1, Insightful)
George Bush is a leader? WTF are you smoking?
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:1, Insightful)
A democrat controlled congress voted to make the patriot act permanent. A democrat controlled congress voted to give telcos immunity. I voted democrat across the board for the first time in my life last election in the hope of changing the way the country was going. They're lock-step in sync with the republicans when it comes to taking your freedoms away. They've proven that over the last 18 months. The only difference is they want to tax me more too, because I'm not a 'working family'... that's just disgusting... I already pay waaaaaaay more than my 'fair share' into the pool - and to have more taken, while being insulted at the same time makes me want to pick up and leave.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
But Obama is not talking about doing anything about the richest accumulating ever increasing wealth. He is talking about raising the top level income tax. The richest people either pay minimal amounts of income tax or none at all. How much impact on their wealth do you think income tax has for the Duponts or the Rockefellers?
Re:NOTA (Score:5, Insightful)
An electoral college that doesn't represent the popular vote is little better than establishing a monarchy by divine providence.
Repeat after me: The United States is a Republic. 50 Sovereign States get votes for POTUS. How you can compare this to a monarchy established by "divine providence" is beyond me. Your state gets X number of votes in the electoral college. Your vote helps to determine who those votes go to.
You can complain about the system or point out flaws but the comparison to monarchy is just absurd.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:End NATO then (Score:3, Insightful)
"We recognized the independence of Kosovo on the basis that the local population had the right to decide that they would not be part of Serbia any more."
I will be the first to argue to you that Kosovo was a massive mistake on our part, and I put the blame squarely at the feet of George W Bush. What he did was either open the door for every postage stamp territory in Europe to declare independence... Wales, Catalonia, Sicily, northern Greece; or if we don't let the Basques and every other minority in Europe declare independence, we end up looking like hypocrites that pushed Kosovo just to say "screw you" to Serbia one more time. I believe the invasion of Georgia was direct payback for Kosovo. That doesn't make it right, but I recognize it for what it really is.
"We should now recognize the exact same principle in Georgia. "
Actually, we should just own up to it and say "Kosovo was a mistake", but that's not going to happen.
"But Putin is certainly not an existential threat to the west or to any western government. There is not going to be a Russian invasion of Poland or Slovakia. "
History repeats itself, and disagrees with you. Russia invades its surrounding states when they think they can get away with it. And in the case of Georgia, they judged the limp-spines of Western Europe perfectly.
"Now we could embark on another wingnut fantasy exercise in wishful foreign policy. I don't think that we can risk ayet more neo-con naivety."
NATO's "wingnut philosophy" was created and implemented by Democrats, thanks. Furthermore, it was built on ideas that went back to that famous Republican, Woodrow Wilson... oh wait.
Georgia never agreed to let those territories split, and Russia still has no moral superiority on this, or they would have let Chechnya go a long time ago. They did this just to poke NATO in the eye... and to test them. Consider that test a failure for the alliance. They don't give a shit about the Ossetians any more than you do. That's a convenient excuse. The idea of collective security for free nations isn't a "wingnut fantasy" unless you're one of those Kissenger "realpolitik" types. Russia doesn't have a damned thing to fear from having nations on its border in NATO... unless they were planning on making vassal states of those nations.
This is guaranteed; leave those countries like Georgia out there alone, and sooner or later, Russia will swallow them up, and take it as a sign of western weakness that they were allowed to do so.
Re:Reagan and Clinton were both successful leaders (Score:4, Insightful)
...But, Clinton started out with a stellar academic career (you know, Rhodes scholar), wheras Obama went to a no-name college.
So you've never heard of those no-name colleges "Columbia University" and "Harvard Law School" (where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review)?
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:3, Insightful)
I say this as a guy with a Libertarian Party card in his wallet -- Bob Barr is worse than either Obama or McCain. He's fucking crazy -- seriously.
This is my major problem in this election.
I don't like Obama. His messages of "hope" and "change" seems to be hoping you don't realize the only change he wants is Democrats in office instead of Republicans.
McCain I have other issues with. He gets a little credit for knowing his weaknesses, but not enough.
I'm looking for a 3rd party candidate that isn't a complete fruitcake, and I haven't seen one yet. This is seriously frustrating to me.
Any suggestions?