Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Republicans Politics

Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries 1128

Posted by timothy
from the can-you-see-the-primary-from-here? dept.
SharpieMarker writes "In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever, Democrats are beginning to organize to purposely vote for Palin in the 2012 Republican primaries. Their theory is by having Palin as an opponent, Obama will have the best odds at winning reelection. Recent polls have shown that Obama comfortably leads Palin by 10-20 points, but Obama is statistically tied with Romney and barely ahead of Huckabee. They even have a state-by-state primary voting guide to help Democrats navigate various states' rules for voting Palin in Republican primaries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:53PM (#34715090)

    I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.

  • WCPGW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#34715112)
    What could possibly go wrong?
  • by DocSavage64109 (799754) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#34715114)
    I thought it was rather embarrassing for the republicans when they tried these tactics against Obama. It saddens me that apparently some democrats are sinking to their level. Really, I can't imagine this being successful anyway.
  • by gameboyhippo (827141) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#34715118) Journal

    And this is why we can't have nice things. Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:55PM (#34715130)

    Politicians care more about getting themselves elected than they do about the welfare of our country.

  • by mbone (558574) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:56PM (#34715146)

    This is dangerous. Jimmy Carter wanted to run against Ronald Reagan - 1 to 2 years out he was seen as the easiest to beat. Alas, didn't turn out that way.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:58PM (#34715174)

    The process doesn't matter when the system is already f-ed up.

  • by peragrin (659227) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#34715178)

    They are all politicians. They all play the same stupid game. The real question is why would anyone want to be president. you get all the blame none of the glory, and if someone 20 layers of management under you screws up you still get blamed.

    Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

  • by dachshund (300733) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#34715186)

    ... is that elections are largely driven by economic fundamentals and (to some degree) random chance. Meaning, there's a non-trivial probability that Palin might beat Obama. I'm not trying to be an ass about Palin, because I'm sure she's a nice person in the right context, but she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate. She doesn't appear to have taken the lessons offered by the '08 election in terms of becoming more informed or dedicated --- all she seems to have learned is that she can get traction by attacking anything remotely related to the left wing. That's great for a pundit, not so great for the President of a large country.

    In the long run a Palin presidency would be a disaster for Democrats and Republicans, not to mention Americans in general. These people shouldn't flirt with disaster.

  • by nutshell42 (557890) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#34715192) Journal
    in 1933 the German Conservatives decided to support Hitler as chancellor to destroy the Nazi movement by confronting its ludicrous proposals with the cold reality of real life government.

    The Nazis decided that if their plans weren't realistic, reality would have to budge.

    Not saying (not even implying, hi there FoxNews) that Palin's a Nazi, will create a totalitarian state of some kind or other. I am saying that candidate Palin could become president Palin and Democrats would have noone but themselves to blame.

  • by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross@@@yahoo...ca> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:02PM (#34715254)

    Its already been subverted, explain gerrymandering.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:07PM (#34715310)

    Yea let's have a 1 party dictatorship instead.

    Some say it's already one party -- the Corporate party.

  • Please, please, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mean pun (717227) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:09PM (#34715344)

    Seems like a terribly bad idea to me. (1) It corrupts the US election process, because that's not how it was supposed to work. (2) It legitimizes non-democratic measures to counter this. (3) It increases the odds that Sara Palin becomes President. On the plus side, it does show a rather touching confidence in the common sense of the US voter (that, sadly, I cannot share).

    As a european my most direct concern is (3), because having an airhead as the leader of a large and powerful nation is bad for the whole world, but (1) and (2) are painful to watch too. To use a car analogy: of course my neighbor is free to use a sledgehammer on his own car, but it's still painful to watch.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:09PM (#34715346)

    At this stage what we really need is for the Democrats to grow a spine, and tell the Republicans to put up or shut up.

    Democrats have had control of the Presidency, Senate, and House for 2 years now and things have not gotten better at all, some would say worse.

    So tell us again who has to put up or shut up?

  • by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot.uberm00@net> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:11PM (#34715370) Homepage Journal

    President Palin.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:17PM (#34715440)

    Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

    $65M is nothing to sneeze at [cnn.com]

  • by dirkdodgers (1642627) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:17PM (#34715448)

    This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries. This means independents, most Americans, will have even less say in who our leaders are.

    The 20% of the population who are hardcore partisan douchebags like these make me sick. What we need is a process that let's the other 80% of the population - most of who are so disgusted by this that they don't even vote - have more say, not less.

  • Re:WCPGW (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bieeanda (961632) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:18PM (#34715462)
    Jesus, no shit. This is going to end in tears.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:18PM (#34715466)

    "she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate"

    Neither has Obama

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:22PM (#34715508)

    If she is smart, she will not run

    Are you mentally challenged?
    This woman is about a dumb as a box of hammers.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:24PM (#34715524)
    You are asking the wrong question. This is less of a perversion than the Watergate break in. And that was done for an election where Nixon was heavily favored and won. Even with a winning candidate, parties will do illegal things for an extra margin.

    Yes, I know that sounds like a false dilemma, but what are the other options?

    It is a false dichotomy. You don't "trick" people just to win. You "trick" them to support you. Even if the popular vote went to one candidate, you still take office and discuss your mandate from the voters. That's an outright lie, but people don't care. When you have more votes, it's more of a mandate. When you have more votes, then you have more power for demanding things. There isn't a "trick them to win" and this being the only time such a thing was heard of. It's "trick them to support you" and has been done by pretty much every candidate for every office in this (and most other) countries.

    Abusing the already-broken two-party system is fair. Complaints against it sound like Dolly running to mommy and complaining "Mom, Billy hit me back." If the Republicans don't like it, they shouldn't have forced it down our throats. The only true bi-partisan topic is that both agree that they don't like any 3rd parties, and the primary system is just another manner of lock-in.
  • by mburns (246458) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:26PM (#34715552) Homepage Journal

    It's better in the long term for the country to have rational debate at election time. And straightforward behavior by voters can encourage this. Else even the reason-based coalition will go decadent.

    I wish that the Republican coalition would deprecate the opinions of their corporate clients and superstitious voters, so that they can compete with the Democratic coalition on matters of government integrity and efficiency.

  • by LittleBigScript (618162) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:26PM (#34715554) Homepage Journal

    Hey, Godwin. What took you so long? The article was submitted a whole NINE minutes ago!

  •     F-ed up or not, consider if the elections aren't rigged by the companies and interests who own and operate the voting boxes. Everything is perfectly fair.

        There are enough Palin zealots riding around on their dinosaurs, pitching stones from Anchorage to Moscow.

        There are also a lot of people who swear by the phrase "never vote for the incumbent"

        Assuming the overlap isn't 100%, and the sum of the two groups discounting overlap is greater than 51%.

        This stunt could put Palin in office.

        Never, ever, ever, put someone up as a candidate that "can't win" to ensure your own party can, because sure as hell you'll get that person in.

        I really don't want Palin in. I don't want to go to the beach and admire the oil slicks from thousands of new oil rigs. I don't want us to declare war on Columbia, Cambodia, and Canada, because they all "sound the same". And by golly shucks, she'll single handedly bring the average IQ of the country down to low double digits (ok, down by 3 points, but still), even if it's just from directing schools to teach what she knows to be true.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:32PM (#34715648)

    Lets put that in the form of a syllogism

    The system is broken, and we need to do something.

    The metagovernment project is something.

    Therefore:

    We need to do the metagovernment project.

    Genius!

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:34PM (#34715670) Journal

    Clinton also had the benefit of a red hot economy, whereas Carter oversaw a pretty shitty economic period. Clinton had it pretty damned easy overall; good economy, friendly relations with most of the countries in the former USSR, slaps on the backs with China, and generally seen in a very favorable light domestically. Carter was seen as a waffler, though I think to some extent he was prevented by circumstances far beyond his control.

    Obama may fall into a similar trap of being unable to deliver the impossible miracles that his supporters seemed to believe he could. It's Obama's fault, too. He raised expectations to insane levels that no one, no matter how competent or brilliant, could ever hope to achieve. He didn't have supporters so much as he had fanatical devotees, and there's no group that will turn on you faster than those types.

  • by fishbowl (7759) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:38PM (#34715722)

    >There are also a lot of people who swear by the phrase "never vote for the incumbent"

    People say this, but by and large on election day, they end up voting for their incumbent. Incumbents are bad and should be voted out, with the exception of yours, apparently.

  • by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble&hotmail,com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:38PM (#34715734)

    I don't want us to declare war on Columbia, Cambodia, and Canada, because they all "sound the same"

    If you guys end up invading & annexing Canada, I would like to point out that it would pretty much guarantee that the Democrats would run both houses plus be in the white house for the next 100 years. Just something to consider: Canadian Conservative = American Democrat.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:46PM (#34715836)

    If they don't think Obama can win, maybe they should run someone else.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:51PM (#34715874)

    Haha you actually believe that or are you being sarcastic?

    The US if anything is creating 3 dictators or tyrants for each they take down. Your government is a bully who pisses off third-worlds countries constantly and gets them angry at the entire Western World. Your country actually manages to convince people that Democracy is a bad thing, wow! Your FBI is not much better than the Gestapo and you have a sexual abuse army you call the TSA.
    As for the allies of the USA, I think you forget the US government does not consider them as allies. Normally, you're supposed to respect allies.

    Oh and your government is a tyranny already. Your government is also trying to push my country and others to adopt their tyrannical laws, such as your fucked up laws against copyright infringement that are way too abusive to be OK.
    So don't tell me the USA is protecting the world against tyranny. Did I mention how the US violates the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights? I don't have a problem with most Americans, but the US government should be dealt with. It's a threat to the security of the World.
    But hey, it seems you're now paying the price of your government's actions. In 10 years people like you will be too poor to afford to waste bandwidth to comment on the Internet.

    The US government is a parasite. While the rest of the Western World has reached a higher level of wisdom and seeks to build a better world, the USA is still trying to get ahead of everyone else and be the best, even fucking up other countries and governments just to push them back and make sure they don't become better.

    If you want to support your Nazi government be my guest, but don't expect anyone else to believe it keeps us safe from tyrants.

  • by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:52PM (#34715886)

    Intelligence is overrated when it comes to the president. They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average. Common sense and real life experience (outside academic and political world, which don't count) and understanding of history are more important. A slightest inkling of a clue about economics would be a nice change too. Not saying that Palin qualifies by any means, just that the fact that Obama has high academic qualifications doesn't make him a good candidate, as his presidency so far has demonstrated.

  • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:57PM (#34715942)
    I think it's pretty moot which republican is voted to office. If it's Romney or Huckabee, the oil industry and military contractors will continue to run the country, having built up favors with both during their campaigns. If it's Palin, the oil industry and military contractors will continue to run the country without her knowledge or consent.
  • by protektor (63514) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:59PM (#34715966)

    I would laugh my butt off if the Republican party pulled the same tricks to make sure Obama would loose the primary for the Democrats. Not that it matter because the Democrats definatelly don't listen to what the people want, not that the Republicans are particularly better.

  • by pfrCalif (819380) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:00PM (#34715980)

    "In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever ..

    Isn't it a little early to call something like this "the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing"? Not that it's the end-all metric of popularity, but it has 16 follows so far 25 facebook likes for god's sake. Slow down a bit before you hurt yourself.

  • Delaware=sane (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hellfire (86129) <deviladv@g m a i l . com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:02PM (#34716006) Homepage

    Yes but the average delawarian is a little more sane than the average Alaskan or Texan. Delaware is a swing state and the Republicans and Democrats they elect are moderate. Put Christine O'Donnell in Kansas and she might get her ass elected.

    Also remember Palin won in Alaska. The US on the whole is more right leaning than Delaware is on the whole. There are enough nutjobs that think that voting for a Democrat amounts to treason and will even vote in an idiot like Palin to avoid that.

  • by Marcika (1003625) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:05PM (#34716048)

    Intelligence is overrated when it comes to the president. They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average. Common sense and real life experience (outside academic and political world, which don't count) and understanding of history are more important. A slightest inkling of a clue about economics would be a nice change too. Not saying that Palin qualifies by any means, just that the fact that Obama has high academic qualifications doesn't make him a good candidate, as his presidency so far has demonstrated.

    Given that you can (theoretically) choose among the best and brightest of more than 200 million people, it might not be too much to ask for a candidate to have been at least in the top 5 or 10% in his classroom -- in order for them to understand the issues at least.

    By your criteria - excluding academic and political experience from a candidate's CV and disregarding intellect - ex-CEOs Dick Cheney and George W. Bush should have been the most competent stewards of the US economy out of the past few decades' leaders... Look how that turned out.

  • by protektor (63514) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:14PM (#34716122)

    Republican's didn't force anything down anyone's throat. Stop stooping to such inflaming rhetoric. The people voted the Democrats out in November because they didn't like where they were taking the country. So now you guys freak out and say everyone is against you so you have to play games to trick people? Give me a break.

    All you are trying to do is divide the country and make it them against us. That does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. By this kind of talk you have made it clear you don't care what the Republicans do you will never work with them. Which is exactly what you are accusing the Republicans of, which makes the whole thing ironic and funny.

    If you want to say it is ok to game the system because you have no chance of winning fairly then go ahead, but don't be surprised when the whole thing blows up in your face and pisses the voters off even more than they already are.

    America is completely bankrupt just look at the actual balance sheets rather than believing the GAO. The Congress has been mislabling liabilities for years and distorting the actual level of the debt. The actual US debt is $202 Trillion.

    Fighting like this will never solve the economic problems at all. You are just making yourself more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

  • by Krishnoid (984597) * on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:17PM (#34716156) Journal
    "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." -- Eugene V. Debs

    Not sure who he was, but it's made me recast these kinds of things in a different light.

  • by mozumder (178398) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:21PM (#34716194)

    I thought his presidency has demonstrated the positive effects of his high intelligence?

    Thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama, we are out of a recession.. so what more do you want? Free money? Blacks to go back to being our slaves? A church in every high school?

    Obama has demonstrated why we should elect people like him.

  • by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:23PM (#34716244) Journal

    I always vote against the incumbent unless the alternative is considerably worse. Unfortunately, the alternative is always considerably worse.

  • by FrootLoops (1817694) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:41PM (#34716424)
    Calling Palin dumb is only half the story. She's an administrative disaster waiting to happen, but she's quite smart when it comes to playing to her supporters. That's why she's dangerous: she has the ability to stir up (the generally stupid) masses to support her. In every other way I've seen, she's an idiot, but in that important way, she's very smart. I thank God she seems divisive enough not to become president.
  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:46PM (#34716480)
    Republican's didn't force anything down anyone's throat.

    Yes, they did. They (and the other participant of the two-party system) have introduced and passed many things which enforce the two-party system to the detriment of the people they claim to be representing.

    Stop stooping to such inflaming rhetoric. The people voted the Democrats out in November because they didn't like where they were taking the country.

    Oh, I get it, you didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm not talking about anyone currently in office. But you heard someone say "Republican" that wasn't followed by "are the best" and attacked like an illiterate rabid dog. Try reading my post again without frothing at the mouth. Go ahead, I'll wait.

    If you want to say it is ok to game the system because you have no chance of winning fairly then go ahead,

    You are assuming lots of incorrect things, like that I want Obama in office or that there is no chance of winning without the games, and all sorts of implications that I simply never said. Again, deep breaths, a little Valium, and read my post again, slowly, twice if you need to.

    You are just making yourself more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

    The party system is the problem. The fix includes screwing with the system. I am part of the solution. You are part of the problem, with some mindless zombie attachment to some party in particular.

    The actual US debt is $202 Trillion.

    Oh, and that's a lie. That's not a debt. "If I drop past your house tomorrow, I'll give you $10" isn't a debt. You can't count my Medicare and Social Security as a debt, as you have to fabricate that number. Those could be stripped tomorrow with a simple act of Congress. That's not a debt. It may be a promise, but it most certainly isn't a debt. It's only a debt to the people that are insane and want to lie for effect. Oh, and that number doesn't count the fact that there is income to offset those promises such that with only the smallest tweaks in collection rates, ages, and such, the overall system will have no debt. But why bother with reality when we can lie about the problem for effect? Again, you are the problem, not a solution.
  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:46PM (#34716494)

    He maybe he a liar and cheat but he graduated HLS with highest honors and was the editor of their law review. No way he is a dummy.

    I doubt he misquotes the constitution, he is an expert on constitutional law. Please provide evidence. Also please show any evidence for his religious claims that change.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:47PM (#34716496) Journal

    As an independent voter, I would agree that both parties are corrupt and controlled by the extremes who self delude themselves into thinking they are the national majority.

    However, you simply cannot compare the raw intelligence of Obama to Palin. Obama went to Harvard. He was president of their law review. Even without attempting to mention anything negative about Palin, that is a high standard to match. He may do things I disagree with, but that does not mean he's stupid.

    Please note the difference, we could use more voters who understood the difference between people who have different beliefs and values than us versus people who have a low intelligence.

    I also disagree with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and Rush. But, I wouldn't say any of them are stupid.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:48PM (#34716518) Homepage Journal

    This stunt could put Palin in office.

    No, it can't, and it won't even get Palin the nomination.

    Any of you who pay attention to right-wing media know that the word must have gone out to sink a Palin candidacy. There's been segments on every major conservative media talk show talking about how Palin shouldn't run and can't win. Even Fox News has been touting polls showing that Palin is extremely unpopular, even among Republicans. And one thing for sure, when you see a story this specific showing up all over Right-Wing Media, from Glenn Beck to Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson and Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, you know there's been a decision made in whatever brain trust send these whackos their talking points: It's just not Palin's time.

    Even if you don't pay attention to the right-wing swamp, you're bound to hear one of these stories as they dribble down the corporate media stalactite. Eventually, one of these stories will reach you out on the long tail. See if it doesn't and remember what I've said.

    At the moment, smart money is on the holy rollers Huckabee and Kasich as the golden boys of the "christian" "values" voters. As long as "what happens in the barn stays in the barn" they've got a good chance to pick up the nomination by the time the second round of early primaries happen.

    Fortunately, though, the tea party folks are feeling their oats so there will be a significant drooling moron effect that will make the GOP primaries very entertaining. But the suits who bankroll and run the whole shebang aren't going to let the Alaskan Christine O'Donnell get anywhere near the nomination. The teabaggers have served their purpose and now it's time for them to sit quietly on the back of the bus and behave.

  • by localman (111171) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:49PM (#34716530) Homepage

    Everything you say is true, but the parent comment was stupid because Obama certainly demonstrated "the knowledge and/or responsibility one would expect of a Presidential candidate". If you don't think so, you've never paid attention to anything he's said or written. Whether he's been an effective leader is another issue, and that will be decided a bit further down the road, but he is certainly knowledgable and responsible, even if you don't agree with him.

    I can say many Republicans are knowledgable and responsible even if I don't agree with them. I cannot say that about Palin. It's always nice when people can tell the difference between things like disagreement, corruption, and idiocy.

  • by Man On Pink Corner (1089867) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:56PM (#34716618)

    It's likely that IQ tests and other exams he took in college are not indicative of his mental performance in his late 50s. 20 years of heavy alcohol and coke use can't be good for the ol' gray matter.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:04PM (#34716684) Homepage

    Given that you can (theoretically) choose among the best and brightest of more than 200 million people, it might not be too much to ask for a candidate to have been at least in the top 5 or 10% in his classroom -- in order for them to understand the issues at least.

    Maybe if 90-95% in the class room don't understand the issues, that is your problem - it certainly seems like it would making democracy difficult. I think the point is that as an executive you are getting executive summaries, you're not looking at the mass of raw data spotting the patterns and connections with your superior intellect. You are more setting the overall strategy, and everyone that's read a strategy document knows it's quite well rounded and not an exact science. And you're delegating, so it's not like you'll be the one executing the strategy which means it's very important that you communicate well what and how you will do. And not to mention why you're doing it for motivation, inspiration, support and best execution. Those things don't come very naturally from academia, I know many academics who'd be brilliant in a white coat in the corner of a research lab but very poor leaders.

    As for political experience that is perhaps a necessary skill but quite frankly political broilers that have been raised only on ideology sometimes have very little attachment to reality. Particularly here in Norway on the left side we have socialists that have never been neither workers nor capitalists, they're just idealists and ideologists that have read about how it ought to work. Granted, she was leader of the youth party and not the whole party but when you want "equal pay for work" - not "equal pay for equal work" mind you, people asked - then it's obvious you've never had a non-political job in your life. So while I'm not saying I agree with the GP I too would generally be skeptical to someone that's never done anything but academics and politics. But then people only have so many years and you can spend very many of the in the "real world" learning very little except how to do boring menial labor.

    Considering he was probably handed the worst situation a president has started with since the Great Depression, I think he's still doing decent. I think people want a bit more from him than is humanly possibly even for the POTUS.

  • by Bemopolis (698691) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:24PM (#34716900)
    [Non right-wing makey-shitty-uppy citation needed]
  • Godwin argument (Score:4, Insightful)

    by captainpanic (1173915) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:28PM (#34716934)

    Hey, Godwin. What took you so long? The article was submitted a whole NINE minutes ago!

    The topic is about the right wing politics, and in some fields, racism isn't far off. A remark about WWII is very valid in that case.
    If we cannot refer to the lessons learned in that terrible period, then we are just stupid. Of course we have to learn from our history, and therefore it is necessary to repeat what happened in that time.

    The "Godwin" argument was about any random internet discussion... not about specific political racism, where it is actually near-mandatory to repeat WWII facts so that we never ever forget.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's near-impossible not to Godwin. We should never forget WWII, or what caused it.

    To kill an argument which correctly mentions anything about WWII just by calling it a Godwin is a Godwin in itself.

    In this case, the comparison is valid. It is one of the few well-known cases in history that compares to this move by the Democrats.

  • by protektor (63514) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:38PM (#34717020)

    Most people forget he originally said he wouldn't run for President because he didn't have enough experience. He turned right around and started running for President about a year and half in to being a Senator. So much for truth and honesty.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:57PM (#34717190) Journal

    Right. Fuck freedom of speech and democracy if it means that the wrong guy can be elected.

  • by Quila (201335) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @09:33PM (#34717498)

    Someone who thinks we have 57 states, can't spell "advice" and thinks "Austrian" is a language.

    Oh wait, he's now President.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday December 30, 2010 @09:57PM (#34717676) Homepage Journal

    Will it ever be Palin's time to be president? God I hope not

    I don't think you need to worry. The American experience is that the second act for people like here tends to not be so pretty.

    She'll be around, but only barely. She's already losing popularity fast. The tea party hangs on because these are people who are constitutionally incapable of admitting (or understanding) that they've been hoodwinked. There are such people all across the political spectrum, but Palin's popularity is unique in that it's made up entirely of such folks, for whom self-certainty is the thing of which they are most certain. The thing they know for sure they are right about is that they are right about being right. They are put in this world to plague the rest of us.

  • Re:WCPGW (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kinabrew (1053930) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @10:00PM (#34717702) Journal

    I think the fact that it's not obvious what the actual candidate said and what a comedian impersonating her said says a lot more.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @10:14PM (#34717838)

    However i do agree with every else you said.

    Well of course you do because you're both closed-minded, left wing Marxists. What a couple of snots - oh, I forgot - it's ./, home of the snots.

  • by zach_the_lizard (1317619) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @10:46PM (#34718098)
    Correction: No matter who controls the White House, the special interests rule. The Democrats may sometimes speak out against (some) of the special interests, but they are just as good at paying tribute to the real leaders. It's like when a Republican talks about small government; expect no cuts (except perhaps taxes) and spending to increase sharply.
  • by forestgomp (526317) on Friday December 31, 2010 @12:16AM (#34718680)
    > there will be a significant drooling moron effect

    Much like the effect that got your post modded up instead of tagged as troll/flamebait? Consider:
    "whatever brain trust send these whackos their talking points"
    "right-wing swamp"
    "what happens in the barn stays in the barn"
    "the Alaskan Christine O'Donnell"
    "teabaggers"
    "sit quietly on the back of the bus"

    Insults and condescension through the entire message. You're like that ass in my namesake movie Forrest Gump who beats his girlfriend while complaining about Vietnam and Nixon.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 31, 2010 @01:03AM (#34718984)
    If he is a liar and a cheat, how can we trust his graduation with highest honors?

    Now, I wouldn't call him a dummy. He has been successful at a few things. However, I challenge anyone to say he knows the Constitution. He may be able to recite it (oh, wait, he leaves out important words), but he does not understand it. He is definitely acting to subvert it. (He's not alone, of course, a lot of Repubs have been doing the same thing for the past 16 years.)
  • by Hartree (191324) on Friday December 31, 2010 @12:22PM (#34722300)

    "I have no idea why this is on Slashdot. It's not technology news. It's not even news at all."

    907 replies, thus far. That's why.

    Slashdot has learned that topics that guarantee a left/right flame war attract lots of page views.

    Crossfire generated big ratings on CNN with its confrontational style. Now, most of the available cable news channels air similar.

    If the public wants crap rather than quality, it's crap and pap they get.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...