Election Dirty Tricks About To Begin 942
An anonymous reader writes "ABC is warning that dirty election tricks are about to start. In the past, they've ranged from late-night robo-calls to voter intimidation. ABC has a pretty good list of what to watch out for as told by Allen Raymond, a former Republican operative, who was reformed after spending three months in prison in 2006 for pulling some of the stunts he now helps to prevent." To make this story timely, last week someone broke into a McCain campaign office in Missouri and stole a laptop computer containing "strategic information" about the local campaign.
As opposed to.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clean tricks?
Country First? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already started (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you guys been? The ads have been on TV for a couple of weeks. The economy is going down the tubes, so distraction is the key.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Because the homeless folks are jumping from state to state to get multiple votes.
Why shouldn't a homeless person have the same right to vote as me?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:1, Insightful)
Demagogues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your source for them being illegal aliens? or just making up facts as you go?
I'm willing to bet it's the later.
They are simply guilty of the greatest crime in America, being poor. Regardless they are still human and if citizens just as worthy of a vote as you are.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
And I personally have lived in the area all my life. I personally doubt you have spent any time with any of these groups. Basically, you see a group with clipboards talking to an Hispanic looking group so they are illegals. I personally think you are talking out of your ass.
Re:Country First? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Re:Country First? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how the first step in victimizing people is convincing them they've been victimized.
In the nation of the media (Score:4, Insightful)
Appearance is 90%.
DEATH is the right punishment ! (Score:3, Insightful)
While some might laugh-off "dead people voting", "100% precinct turnouts", "illegal alien voting", and "Internet contributions from donors named 'Good Will'", these crimes undermine the very foundation of our Great Nation. They cannot be tolerated.
the dirtiest trick is already out of the bag (Score:5, Insightful)
electronic voting. no better device for dirty tricks has ever been invented
paper ballots. ocr. end of debate
anything else, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
fox news? plutocrat neocons? liberal media? america hating moonbats? corporate lobbyists? christian dominionists? uninformed apathetic voters?
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to american democracy
nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to american democracy
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, underhanded, yes, but not fraud. Kindof like the primarily Democrat regions in Ohio and Florida had a shortage of voting machines, while the Republican areas had more than enough to keep the wait short. Or how the polls allowed late comers in Rep. but not Dem areas. Well the latter might be borderline.
Gerrymandering anyone?
Fraud is when the Deceased in Chicago all seem to vote on the same party line.
Fraud is when "you"'ve and "everyone else" voted twice or more for West Virginia, again, all on the same party line, before you've (or anyone else) even entered the polling station.
Fraud is voting machines that change votes.
There's plenty of examples of all these happening, and it doesn't follow party lines. And it's not limited to the locations mentioned either. Each party has their areas that they keep by their underhanded tricks, or their frauds.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, there seems to be no hope in sight. At least they will apparently not continue to dominate the world, if we go by recent events.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Demagogues (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, Fox is on it (Score:3, Insightful)
What dirty tricks you say? The fact that people can register and vote on the same day [washingtonpost.com] for a one-week period. Now, as Fox spins it, this opens the door for fraudulent voting and other dirty tricks since there was a big push to register voters and have them vote on the same day.
Mind you, Fox didn't say word one when the head of Diebold made his infamous statement [cnn.com] because after all, that wasn't a dirty trick nor even the appearance of a dirty trick.
So have no fear, Fox will report all the dirty tricks the Democrats attempt to pull.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
how about the one where that one side convinces it's followers that it's less corrupt than the other side, and (perhaps) takes LESS money from special interests, even though the full disclosure sites show they actually took at least as much, if not more money?
What bugs me about this election, more than any other, is that the sides are polarizing. As a student of history, this is setting off alarm bells.
Republicans and Democratics: Zelotry will get you in trouble.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
i'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed that.. while she did very well compared to early interviews.. saying she "won" is complete crap.. all she did was add drama to things and put in little fear remarks when no one had the chance to question her on them.. such as the closing .. i wonder where she gets off saying we are all going to lose our jobs if democrats are elected..
Re:No, the real trick (Score:1, Insightful)
That's some trick. So... how can you tell (through a TV screen) that someone isn't just *appearing* smarter, cooler and more articulate, but actually *is* smarter, cooler and more articulate?
Maybe it's a high-definition thing. My TV doesn't give me that sort of information.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
The pointlessness of a two-party system based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Sadly, when you look to countries which have more workable multi-party systems you often see far more political instability. Look at Japan, many European countries and so on - weak coalitions that are easily toppled as political allegiances change.
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"almost no questions asked" (Score:2, Insightful)
How DARE you ask someone to provide ID?! Or to certify that they're a US citizen?!?
Stop intimidating people! You and your right-wing repupliKKKan friends are just trying to bring back the Jim Crow laws!!
Don't forget ACORN! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest trick is the one that Obama is pulling. The one that makes us all think that he is somehow a better choice because he appears smarter, cooler, and more articulate than McCain.
Oh, you mean COMMON SENSE?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to continue drilling the McCain campaign on economic issues. Neither McCain nor Palin has addressed the economy in an intelligent, organized manner.
We need to continue drilling Obama on the constitutionality of the things he wants to do. Social healthcare is prominent unconstitutional issue and it must be drilled.
We need to continue drilling the media to get more focus on the third party candidates and the up to 10% of the vote they have in some states, especially swing states like Ohio.
Our dirty tricks--we the geeks--can be to FLOOD iReport, Digg, Reddit, and such with third party coverage. They need to be inundated with it.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Darn tootin' right she won! Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory when the criteria for "winning" is that you don't make yourself look like too much of a moron on international issues AND you have to study for a week to pull that off.
Say it ain't so Joe.
At least Putin didn't rear his head into the debate.
Re:I'm already a victim of these tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
Yesterday I received a DVD [imdb.com] in the mail from an obscure group known as the "Clarion Fund." It was a hatchet job meant to scare people about the evils of muslim extremism.... The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label.... The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
This was reported on a little while ago in at least one online publication [rawstory.com]. It was called "Obsession".
I think when we get around to admitting that we're horribly racist and xenophobic in America, we'll be better off than that "open to everyone" crap we try to peddle to the rest of the world.
The very idea (demonstrably false though it may be) that a major party candidate is a Muslim shouldn't be a detractor from them holding the presidency, but as it has been used as a smear...
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not advocating a two-party system as perfect. I just can't see anything better in practice today.
Australian system, compulsory preferential voting and proportional representation in the upper house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system
Yes there's mostly two parties, but its much easier for smaller parties to actually win some seats and make a real difference and we've had a mostly stable system.
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
A typical Joe Sixpack has got to be able to look at the elections and grudgingly admit - "Darnit, my party lost and there wasn't that much cheating".
Rather than "What's this complicated bullshit? They're cheating big time I know it".
And the funny thing is - it doesn't really have to be that complicated. Hand counting scales.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe he meant McCain = Yet Another Bush
You know, I don't buy this in the least. Not that I buy the "maverick" crap either, but McCain isn't really a guy that Republicans love. If it weren't for what an awful job that GW Bush did the last 8 years, they'd never have a guy as moderate as him in their #1 slot. You'd see Romney with Huckabee instead. The simple fact is that McCain is enough of a moderate that Republican primary voters saw him as a change from the status quo.
Honestly, I think we'll be ok with either Obama or McCain. The real scary part of this election is Palin. She's completely unqualified to hold any elected office. She took 6 years and 6 colleges to get an undergraduate degree in journalism, and apparently she has absolutely no grasp of foreign affairs at all. If McCain wins, everyone should pray for/toast to his continued health.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
Maybe we need a country and people that believe in statements like: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, underhanded
Sorry, but what?!?!?!?!
How on earth is it "underhanded" to help underprivileged people exercise their right to vote?
Re:1946? Try 1800. (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh. Try both sides. Dirty politics is a non-partisan endeavor. You don't have to look very hard at all to see good examples from both sides of the aisle, unless you yourself are a partisan and refuse to admit it.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because: ...and so on...
A) They don't pay taxes
B) They don't own land
C) They don't have families
D) They don't have any interaction with most laws (from cars to copyright)
You do realize that in the United States, the minimum age to register to vote is 18, right?
And a lot of 18-year-olds are still living at home, may not have jobs and are therefore not paying taxes (BTW, poll taxes were eliminated in the U.S. by 1966.), and probably don't have dependents of their own?
Wow... by your qualifications, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either, huh?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I wish more people realized the irrelevance of countries. The pointlessness of systems based on false antagonisms and dichotomies.
Actually, I think there's some hope.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even more empty than you realize.
the candidates REFUSE to attend the debate if they dont get to review the questions first. they also will refuse to answer some questions.
The hard questions that people want answered they refuse to deal with. That's how fricking empty it is.
I want them to answer the hard ones.
"when are you going to end this war on the middle east?"
"What are you personally going to do to fix healthcare?"
"How are you going to help address corruption in Capitol hill?"
"What is your position on Medical Marijuana? Why?"
"What are you going to do to restore the constitution and amercian rights?"
They REFUSE to answer the above questions or the other hard ones I cant think of.
They also refuse to debate with the other candidates that are willing to answer those questions. Our election process is a complete joke.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
But McCain and his li'l gal are people the Republicans can use.
After all, if you're trying to destroy a government, which conservatives admit is their plan, you really don't look for a great leader. Just a chump who likes to stand and wave. That's McCain.
Palin is the most dangerous. She's Dick Cheney without all the charm.
2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote
and if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's osmething wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's better than what Bush did in 2000. He didn't answer a single question, and somehow he won it.
If your goal is to win, winning without answering a single question is about as good as you can get.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
In a absolute system (one party in power, can do mostly what they want) things get done, and they can steamroll through unpopular things that are for the longterm good, but they can also steamroll through things that are for no-one but themselves
In a true multiparty system you must get concensus to get anything done so it is difficult to get unpopular things done
In a two party system like the US have, when the president and the house are the same party (as they often are in the first half of a term in office) they can push through almost anything .... when the president and the house are different parties (as they often are in the second half of a term in office
Stability is a false good, anyone in power for too long stops caring about mistakes (because they have not suffered for them)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
The line that moved your post from bigoted to just plain stupid was reason D. Your idea of "most laws" is "cars and copyright"? Homeless people have far more interaction with the actually important laws, and far more need for those laws to be reasonable and just, than people whose idea of the "law" is limited to traffic rules and copyright.
I don't know what "propositions" you are talking about (though I don't follow Mississippi politics), but all your "criteria" would be explicitly unconstitutional.
Did you know that most homeless people are not actually homeless for very long? Only a minority would even fall into your batshit-crazy idea that people without land or children have no stake in the future of our society.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what Obama really radiates is a non black-and-white worldview.
Some may say that it is him being a politician (which doesn't make sense considering that many politicans like to paint the world in black and white). Some may say that it is a weakness of his, causing him to do "stupid things" like agreeing with his opponent on occasion.
However, the end result is that you get the appearance of someone who actually tries to understand an issue before making a decision. And that is what real intelligence is about. Not being closeminded, but still being able to make a choice when needed.
Is Obama faking it, possible, but I doubt it. It is not something that is easily faked. There are quite a few things that I don't agree with Obama on, but questioning that part of him is not one of them.
If you want to attack him, it is easier to go after him for voting politically instead of what he actually thinks is best, because there is probably a lot of truth in that. But then again, most politicians do. It is just that Obama has tried to stand up against that, which is coming back to bite him in the ass.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
But Palin was McCain's choice. She illustrates his judgment, or rather lack thereof; we would not be ok with the sort of president who chooses Palin for a running mate.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to say that we were right to try and stay out of WWII even as genocide occurred, I'd be completely within my rights, I could even go further and suggest that it was a good thing, try doing that in Europe. It is a genuinely disgusting sentiment, but here you can actually say it.
"In Europe"? What the hell does that mean? I'm "European", and I can say that in public. AFAIK there's nothing prohibiting me from doing it other than shame and life-long ridicule. I'd say the same applies to most European countries, other than Germany where it may - or may not - fall under the anti-nazi speech laws, but then Germany is the scene of the crime, and what they do is not my concern.
Re:McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:3, Insightful)
"Social healthcare is prominent unconstitutional issue"
On the other hand, life is listed among the unalienable rights of man in the declaration of independence.
In general I find the declaration of independance a far more well written document than the constitution, because it describes what a goverment should be.
The constitution is simply one attempt to lay a framework that tries to keep the goverment in line with the declaration of independance. This isn't to say that the constitution isn't an important document. It represent the basic law of the country.
However, I do find modern day constitution worship somewhat ironic. The law is not always right, and the constitution is no different.
Re:Country First? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Insightful)
As a card carrying member of the I dislike leftist politicians club, I have to say Bush got his clock cleaned in the debate against Kerry. He came across as whiny and petulant ("It's a hard job").
Make no mistake about it, Palin is smart. She did bad in one interview, but both the Couric and the Gibson interviews were hostile cut, splice, and smear pieces.
Keep in mind what Palin did to become governor. She defeated the incumbent Republican in the primary, then defeated a popular former Democratic governor during the general election. You don't do this by being some dumb broad who got lucky. And she's gone on to have a very high popularity rating in her home state.
Re:Country First? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, Bush did not do well against Gore (aside from the fact that he impressed people who care more about how someone looks than what comes out of their mouth). Bush may not have been wooden in the 2000 debate, but he came across as extremely insincere. I'd take wooden over insincere any day. He sounded like a used-car salesman. Maybe that's what most people like, but that vibe has always bothered me. Combined with the fact that every single answer against Gore was "Well folks, I'm stupid. But I can surround myself with smart unscrupulous people who will tell me what to do.", I knew from his first debate with Gore that Bush's presidency would be bad. I had no idea it would be this bad.
Now we hear McCain saying the same thing (about the economy, at least). Fortunately Obama looks good and comes across well to the same people who decided that Bush won his debates against Gore without answering a single question. No one can win an election if only the intelligent people vote for him.
Re:Country First? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how "changing politics as usual" involves attacking a woman's family and accusing her husband of incest.
Are you seriously claiming that SNL and the Obama campaign are one and the same?! SNL, which with great success made fun of Obama in the primaries...
Maybe a side issue, but the SNL skit about incest was ment to make fun of the press, not the first dude.
Re:2 things (Score:4, Insightful)
Just turn the electoral colleges into ridings. State has 20 EC votes? State is broken into 20 ridings. People in each riding vote for whoever. Whoever has the most votes in that riding gets that EC vote.
That having been said, the EC made sense when America was, in fact, the 'United States,' which it isn't now. The Federal government has a direct impact on American voters; therefore American voters should vote directly for the Federal government.
Americans don't want them to answer honest (Score:5, Insightful)
See the problem with answering questions honestly is that americans don't want to hear the truth. Carter proved that out when he asked the americans to tighten their belts and live within their means. They called his speech a "malaise" because Americans didn't want to hear it or accept it. So Reagan was voted in when he said "Carter is wrong, you can have anything you want!"
Bush Sr. said no new taxes. But a tax hike was required at an important time, so he helped raise taxes. He was then voted out.
A significant portion of Americans believe that the US government is required to preserve their specific way of life, no matter what that is. What's why we require so much foreign oil. That's why we have such large cars. That's why so many people have such large credit card debt. We want our politicians to tell us we can have everything, and they want them to ensure that we can get it. Few Americans are willing to accept that maybe we personally all have to accept responsibility and start buying less and tighten our belts and accept higher taxes. We have to start thinking about quality of life, and not "quantity" of life.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Insightful)
<p>OK, have a look at a HTML cheatsheet.</p>
<p>Notice how you can use <p> to start a paragraph, and </p> to end a paragraph? Slashdot formatting works the same way. </p>
<p>I'm just saying.. </p>
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
That's their job but I think there was much more to it than that. I'm a 50-ish Aussie who knows virtually nothing about Biden or Palin, I watched the debate on youtube expecting to see a loudmouth yanky politician argue with a rabid "soccer mom". What I saw was a polished statesman forced into debating a not so rabid "soccer mom", eg: in his conclusion he pratically begged the American people to choose reason and science over fear and faith.
That he had to have the debate with such an ordinary crackpot speaks volumes for American democracy, choosing Biden would speak equally well of Joe Sixpack.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
I find that a very dubious claim. The Constitution enumerates the powers that the federal legislative bodies should hold, and grants them the authority to do so. The problem is that politicians use the clause giving them power to regulate interstate commerce, combined with the necessary-and-proper clause, to put their hands into everything. The typical defense of this view is McCulloch v. Maryland, in which SCOTUS granted the federal government the power to institute a bank. Given that the Constitution grants the power "To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof," this isn't too troubling. But today you'll find all sorts of situations where powers have been stretched much, much further.
While recent Republicans have been quite guilty of this, I view the Democrats as the worse offenders. You won't find federal authority over education in the Constitution. Or welfare. Or science subsidies. Or health care.
I'm not saying these are bad ideas. I'm saying the Constitution does not grant that authority to the federal government. Implied or correlated powers are one thing, but completely unrelated powers are another. Someone who's read and understood the Constitution by itself should conclude that these are issues that should be handled by the several states. It's sad that neither party represents the viewpoint that a lot of people hold -- that the federal government should be made weaker, not stronger.
Re:McCain v. Obama v. third-party (Score:2, Insightful)
Please see the Tenth Amendment. It's unconstitutional.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Why was this modded up? The first sentence is simply untrue. In every major presidential debate, the moderators make it perfectly clear that the questions were not shared with anyone prior to the event. Do you think that journalists such as Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, or the late Tim Russert would flat-out lie to their viewers? It's true that the candidates haggle over the most minute details, such as podium height, but I think you're confusing finagling over the details of the format of the debate with knowing the questions in advance.
As for the second point, I'll admit that candidates will sometimes refuse to answer questions (Palin especially comes to mind). But as Gwen Ifill explained on MTP this week, it is not her job as moderator to force Palin to answer. It was a debate between the candidates, and therefore her role was merely to guide the questioning. Biden should have been the one to call Palin out on her non-answers. That was his failure, not Ifill's. As for your "hard" questions:
1. Was talked about extensively in the last debate, which focused on foreign policy.
2. Was talked about to an extent in the last debate, which is substantial given that it was supposed to focus on foreign policy. Will probably be a major focus of tonight's debate.
3. The fact is that this isn't a big issue for most people, especially with the economy in the tank. Nevertheless, the candidates' positions are readily available: McCain will continue the Bush administration's policies towards medical marijuana, and Obama will instruct the Justice Department to not enforce the federal laws on medical marijuana patients.
4. The way this question is worded, it will never be asked. It is loaded.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
And she's gone on to have a very high popularity rating in her home state.
How long do you think that's going to last now that the McCain campaign has flown in a bunch of high-priced Washington lawyers to interfere with the troopergate investigation? Frontier independent types aren't going to like being told what to do by out of town lawyers -- even if they disagreed with the investigation in the first place.
Make no mistake about it, Palin is smart
What's smart about believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man and the dinosaurs walked the Earth together?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
What it proves (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I didn't think he won. I don't think anyone with any intelligence thought he won, either. Although it proves that P.T. Barnum knew what he was talking about.
I think it proves you're one of those people Pauline Kael made famous when she said "I don't see how Nixon could have possibly won. No one I know voted for him"
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
How long do you think that's going to last now that the McCain campaign has flown in a bunch of high-priced Washington lawyers to interfere with the troopergate investigation?
Hmm....cite the source for that please.
As I understand it Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan is an "at will" position. That means she doesn't even HAVE to have a reason to fire him. Also, he was offered [wikipedia.org] a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.
What's smart about believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man and the dinosaurs walked the Earth together?
No...what's dumb is believing that everyone who esposes creationism thinks that. And certainly Palin has never expressed that belief.
What's so smart about believing that democrats only want to tax those making over $250,000/year? They bring out that bedtime fairy tale every election.
Re:2 things (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose of the EC is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Without the EC, the candidates would not even bother to campaign in flyover country, since their best return would be in the cities. Again, the Founding Fathers have shown great foresight.
The people in the cities should not solely decide the direction of this country.
Consider that the Democrats control Congress and have a major responsibility for the current economic crisis. This dwarfs any errors Bush has made.
And installing a president to rubber stamp this Democratic Congress that received a 9% approval rating is the wrong direction.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:1, Insightful)
Well as long as we all sit here and watch the Reps and Dems destroy our country then yes we all lose. And we only have ourselves to blame. Is it the republicans fault that they have spent the last 8 years ruining America or is it our fault for letting it happen?
Whoa whoa whoa - the Republicans? I suppose the Democratic majority congress had no hand in American politics these past several years then?
Boy is that lopsided.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so smart about believing that democrats only want to tax those making over $250,000/year? They bring out that bedtime fairy tale every election.
And how does the incumbent party responsible for the largest increases in national debt in history continue to claim that they're the fiscally responsible party?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Really expensive keggers, with millions of servants running around dishing out snacks and booze.
wrong, in a different sense (Score:3, Insightful)
when the sun king ruled france, all of the propaganda and lies you pointed to above was in full force, deeply ingrained in the social dna of aristocrats and serfs. and yet the people still rebelled. not so much because they were smart and knew better, but simply because they were hungry
china's government has been described as the harvard alumni society with a standing army. it can do no wrong. it is perfect. except it isn't. it's human. it can, and has, made mistakes, and will do so again. the difference between the usa and china is that when the government deos something that proves deeply unpopular with the people, or makes some teribble mistake (the great leap forward, or invade iraq), or some horrible national crisis hits, in a democracy, the government can be swept aside and a new one can take its place, bloodlessly and without any effort. meanwhile, in china, in a totalitarian state, no matter how many lies are spread, the real world effects of that mistake or crisis persists, and grows, and stays a permanent mark on the system. not that the people have to even know the truth. they can blame foreign countries for something their own government did wrong if the propaganda machine is solid enough. but you can't make up a lie that covers an empty stomach. meaning: the mistakes compound over time, and you permanently impoverish the country, regardless of what the people believe is to blame for that impoverishment. and that leads to revolution: the empty stomach
the usa is not even 250 years old. and it is the most powerful country in the world. more powerful than much larger countries and much older civilizations. why?
because of democracy. when you have the freedoms and social stability in a democracy, you get a country that can adapt to horrible challenges and difficult times, and survive, because it can, with a snap of the fingers, change course with a new government and a new ideology. the ultimate in adaptive pragmatism. no totalitarian state can be that nimble. its more like an aircraft carrier trying to turn on a dime: it has massive investment in an ideological framework, and it cannot merely elicit edicts that contradict deeply ingrained ideology
well, actually, in some ways, it can. does it strike you as odd the the chinese communist party lords over the most capitalist system in the world? do you think this ideological hollowness results in no decrease in legitimacy?
that harvard alumni society with a standing army realizes this [peopledaily.com.cn]
a totalitarian state cannot persist, no matter how absolute its control over the people's will. for the sake of retaining power at all costs, it simply devoles into a weak, brittle, impoverished country. no lie fills an empty stomach. and then its revolution, or mass starvation, and even greater weakness
meanwhile, a democracy simply changes its ideological colors, and marches on, as demands and crises change, completely adaptive and nimble. this country outsurvives, outcompetes, and is richer than the ideologically brittle ones
so yes, if absolute retension of power is your point, yes, you win: you can lie to the people completely. however, if also want to have a country that can stay healthy and rich and survive as a force on the world stage, then you want a democracy, because a totalitarian state can do nothing but devolve into poverty over time
you can say china is an example contrary to this statement. actually, china is liberalizing economically, just not politically. the story is incomplete. there will come a point where any further growth, or even retention of growth, will require greater nimbleness that can only come from a democratic government. that further adhesion to a totalitarian ideological iceberg will simply mean china will begin to slide back into poverty. then its the empty stomachs of the peasants that will lead the way to revolution, that have always led the way to revolution, no matter what the propaganda is or what people believe
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember when people got elected for what really matters?
Not really, .... no.
Looking for the point, & a solution 'Palestine (Score:3, Insightful)
> Iraq is not a war. It's an invasion and occupation.
And your point would be? The usual result of a war is the taking of somebody else's territory and the normal word for what happens after is occupation. By your 'logic' WWII was not a war, we just invaded and occupied Germany and Japan. And Hitler and Tojo didn't even start a 'War' they just invaded and occupied some minor countries. In a few years when you graduate and realize that not only do YOU not know squat, that your profs were 'tards too you will regret your words being imortalized in the slashdot archives.
> Just like Gaza and the West bank.
See? Ignorance on display. They could have peace any time they wanted it. It's easy. Requires some simple things:
1. Understand that War does solve things. They fought on the wrong side in WWII and lost. Thus the Jews got a big hunk of their territory gifted to them by the victors, to whom the spoils of war rightfully belonged. That is a done deal for the forseable future. So accept that 'driving the Jews into the Sea' isn't an option because of the ginormous disparity in military, political, diplomatic and economic strength between the two sides.
2. If for no other reason than needing the goodwill (and buttloads of military and economic aid) of the US and the West in general the Israelis are willing to make a deal. Being a Western Democracy (on paper ar least... more like a socialist theocracy in practice) they pretty much can be expected to honor a treaty.
Personally I think the Israelis have been more than tolerant with the abuse they have taken from the so called 'Palestinians'. My solution would be to demand a ballot measure in the occupied territories on a couple of general questions.
1. Does Israel have a 'right to exist?'
2. Are we willing to forsake violence in exchange for a two state solution?
If both questions passed (cold day in hell) it would be time to help em throw off the terrorist yoke and establish a real State.
If only one passed I'd call off all talks and tell em to first have a serious conversation with themselves about what they really want, because no deal can happen in the absence of a large majority in support of both questions. Odds are this would quickly gell public opinion to one of the other choices.
If both failed I'd empty the territories while I still could, driving every last one of em into the neighboring countries. Thus would I repay the same treatment the Jews living in the Middle East suffered upon the creation of Israel.
One way or another the decades long problem would be solved and there would be peace.
Re:dirty tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
You missed the part where giving people multiple votes based on owning land violates the equal protection clause. Don't worry, I'll keep repeating it for you.
As far as me creating my own context...you said that since "they don't pay taxes" means their vote should not count the same as yours. What you may have meant was that they paid less in taxes than you, but unless they never buy anything at all they do pay taxes. That is an elitist caste system mentality. And it is the reason the equal protection clause was added to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Not to mention the 24th, which does not allow taxes to be used in any voting determination.
As I pointed out. Three times now.
Your next point was that since "they don't own land" their vote shouldn't count as much as yours. I don't own land either. Should my vote count less?
You then said "they don't have families." Did you mean your narrow view in that they most likely aren't married with children? I'm not married and don't have children. Should my vote count less than yours? Or did you mean they don't have any family? No brothers, no sisters, no parents living? That being an only child with no parents living should make a vote count less frequently?
By your rationale, elections should be decided by the number of multiple-voters who decide to turn out. That we should put it all in the hands of the married homeowners with children and minimize the significance of the single, the renters, the childless.
Hence the 14th amendment.
Re:how wrong can you be (Score:2, Insightful)
I see. So, by your reasoning, white people and Christians should have the majority of power and make all of the laws?
This is why we have a Republic. To prevent this sort of abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Democracy_and_republic [wikipedia.org]
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter
Yeah, but the common Fox News crowd opinion seems to be that by not coming across as a moron or a lunatic Palin "won" politically. It was widely feared in Republican circles that Palin would completely foul up the debate and lose all credibility. If that had happened it would put McCain in the unenviable position of having to choose between supporting her (and looking like he was an idiot or a fool), or dumping her (and looking like he made a fantastically bad choice in the first place). By doing OK Palin avoided a complete disaster, so she "won".
The problem with the whole debate in my opinion was that Biden couldn't "win". Palin could "lose", if she really made herself look like an idiot or said something crazy, but Biden could have been Cicero and it wouldn't have mattered. The nature of the two candidates totally put the the ball in Palin's court. If she did well she would win, if she did OK she would tie (and still in a way "win"), if she bombed she would lose. Biden was going to more or less be fine unless he bombed (and lost), but could never "win" on he own.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
And how does the incumbent party responsible for the largest increases in national debt in history continue to claim that they're the fiscally responsible party?
I'm pretty sure that was the cause of the Republicans getting booted out in 2006, and will probably cost them them the 2008 election.
Republicans do a great job talking about fiscal conservatism, but my conservative friends all tell me they've had enough. My response: "What took you so long?"
Re:No, the real trick (Score:5, Insightful)
No no nonononononononono. No. People are dumb. They don't know what's good for them even when they know what's going on, which they rarely do. There's a good goddamn reason the US isn't a direct democracy.
Re:What it proves (Score:5, Insightful)
Did something I say go over your head? I know exactly how he won. He won by appealing to the lowest common denominator, just like P.T. Barnum. Although unlike P.T. Barnum, Bush was not a genius at manipulating people to take advantage of them. He was just some dumb cowboy that came across as more likable to people dumb enough to vote for President based on who they'd rather sit down and have a beer with.
Before you shoot back with a reply, I'm not talking about his Republican base, who would've voted for him in 2000 almost no matter what. I'm talking about the people who were sitting on the fence. I'm talking about people who switch sides in a poll over the most asinine things, like Gore hugging his wife on TV because people thought he was too stiff (surprisingly enough, people did switch over that). I'm talking about dumb-asses, and there are more than enough of those to sway a national election.
So did he win the debate on merit of the intelligence of his answers? No. Did he win in terms of voters swayed? Yes. So IMO he lost the debate, but won where it counts (in the polls).
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do you get off justifying your slurs on the US Constitution? The Constitution, like the Magna Carta before it, was nailed down on paper precisely so it cannot deviate, or be conveniently misremembered, changed, concealed, or any number of other dirty tricks. At most, it can be amended. The writers knew there would be cases where the law isn't crystal clear, and set up an entire branch of government devoted to figuring out exactly how it all should apply to the infinite variety of situations that arise, and keeping things as consistent and therefore fair as possible by recording reasoning and decisions for posterity. They had a lot of precedent to draw on from the experiences of other civilizations, and made good use of it.
The attitude here just the sort of stuff of which the fall of great nations starts. Wailing that we can't be sure what anything really means, the Constitution is a pile of crap that says anything a judge wants it to say, there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans they're both political parties and all politicians are liars and scum, they're all morally equivalent both pulling tricks of approximately equal dirtiness at approximately the same frequency. We can't know if global warming is real, it's okay to falsify income on loan applications because it doesn't really matter and everyone else does it too, it can be believed that the federal government's largess has already turned us into a nation of deadbeat welfare recipients because no evidence to the contrary (or in support either) is trustworthy, we also can't know for certain that any activity really does hurt the environment, it doesn't hurt to teach Intelligent Design in school because it could be true but we'll never know because we can't know anything at all, and, of course, the VP debate had no clear result so might as well call it a tie. All because, according to this attitude, no one can ever be sure what's real, and everything is going to hell anyway. It's the ultimate in defeatism by knowledge denial.
That attitude is worse than wrong. We can research solid facts, we can know what is true and what isn't. On all the questions above, despite what naysayers think we can get answers good enough to act on. We can make sound decisions based on these facts. We won't ever have complete information, but that's a far far cry from no trustworthy information at all. We won't always make the best decision, but that's hindsight. As to the VP debate, it's a solid victory for the Democratic side. Palin tried very hard to spin pretty much every question, even one straight from grade school civics classes, "Is the VP part of the executive branch?" Palin earns an F for her non-answer. Biden earns a B, since he didn't get the facts completely correct. The Republican party has thoroughly embraced this totally unproductive and self-destructive anti-knowledge attitude. You know it's bad when they refuse to give straight answers to basic civics questions we'd expect a 10th grader to know or be able to figure out easily. Very disappointing that their best maverick reformer showed by his VP pick that he wasn't turning away from these anti-fact liars and losers that infest the Republican party. "Doubt is our product" Sure, kindred spirits feel it was a Palin victory. Let us hope those kindred spirits are few in number. They are so going to crater this election.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, the real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds good to say that, but how do you actually do it? There's no real barrier to the creation of third (or fourth or fifth) parties here in the US, they just don't get votes of donations. The Dems and Repubs could and, if it ever came to it, might put real barriers up if they wanted or needed to, but as things stand it's pretty much a social problem. People feel that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, but until more people vote third party it will continue to look that way. How do you fix that?
I'm guilty of it too, I'm not acting holy here. I haven't really even looked at the third party candidates this year, because I badly enough DON'T want a Republican that I'm going to vote Democrat. It's wrong of me... I should vote for the guy I want, not vote against the guy I don't, but it seems the lesser of two evils right now.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if she had had the luxury of campaigning for 15 months, with handlers providing her with all the details she needed via a teleprompter at every stop, she probably wouldn't be as uninformed as you indicate. Of course, during that time she was doing the job she was elected to do, and gaining real world executive experience, unlike some others in this campaign.
I'd personally rather have a VP getting on-the-job [youtube.com] training than the President.
Vote is more valuable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you considered this? There probably are people out there that are better off than you. There are many ways to measure worth, wealth, morality, politically connected, intelligence, strength, health - you name it. Does this mean their vote is worth more than yours? In my opinion when you start to measure the worth of an individual (or their vote) you yourself become a worthless individual.
Ad misercordiam (Score:1, Insightful)
> Funny how "hope" and "change" seem to involve attacking an elderly war vet because his injuries prevent him from typing.
No matter how honorably you come by your ignorance, it's not a good thing. We need the most capable leaders, not the least! And you're distorting the claim. They never attacked him for not being able to type, they attacked him for not keeping up with things. It's perfectly possible to learn to use a computer even if you can't touch-type. I've personally taught many elderly people to use the computer, several who were older and more crippled than McCain.
> Funny how "changing politics as usual" involves attacking a woman's family and accusing her husband of incest. Funny... really...
I don't believe Obama has ever made that claim. You're comparing what some nut with a blog did to what McCain personally did. Right now, they're inciting their supporters into a rage with accusations of Obama "palin' around with terrorists" and some have shouted things like "kill him!" If that's not like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, I don't know what is! I've seen more than a few people online who probably are mad enough to assassinate Obama and I can only hope that they get caught.
Besides, if you want to talk about "change", I think McCain stole that theme already.
if health care is unconstitutional, so is NORAD (Score:3, Insightful)
Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If your response is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide". If your response to that is that General Welfare in Section 8 only applies to the listed powers, then Common Defense is also similarly limited.
So if nationalized health care is unconstitutional, so are:
And that's just off my head. Conservatives who complain about the so called unconstitutionality of socialized medicine are being just as selective as Evangelical hacks that don't protest usurious rates from Countrywide or NRA hacks that fight Democrats tooth and nail for supporting gun control yet give a 100% free pass to Republicans that support gun control, like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Now that that chestnut has been put to bed, the reason why you want socialized health care is because it provides better care for less money. It provides better care for less money. It provides BETTER care for LESS money.
Re:No, the real trick (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I'm an independent and I really don't want to but into the feverish partisan brawl going on here, but I honestly loath hearing any talk about taxes from the GOP. They have never done a damn thing to help small business.
Democrats are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really annoying to me to have to call the Democrats "the Party of Fiscal Responsibility", because they didn't get that way by being responsible and wanting to cut government spending, they got that way by default, with Bush,Cheney,&Rove spending borrowed money like there's no tomorrow.
Bill Clinton does deserve some credit - it *was* the economy, stupid, and his administration did a good job of managing the situation they got left with, though they did manage to spend the proceeds of a radically productive technology boom. And a lot of the spending restraint he showed was because the Republican-dominated Congress kept attacking him over his tacky personal life so he couldn't do most of the Democrat-agenda big-spending programs like HillaryCare, whereas after Bush got elected they were too scared to say no to anything he wanted (and even after Katrina and losing the war demonstrated the failure of Bush's Strong Trustworthy Powerful Father-Figure model of government got enough of Congress replaced by Democrats, Bush kept them scared as well.)
Re:dirty tricks (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're placing IP protection laws as more important the laws relating to the violence and abuse that homeless people endure, I think you need a better perspective on life.
Are you honestly saying that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to vote? Didn't the greeks try that once?
Re:No, the real trick (Score:1, Insightful)
The lesser of two evils is still evil. How does it feel to vote for someone you admit is evil?