Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here 529
Tonight marks the third and final U.S. Presidential debate in the lead-up to the election on November 6th. It starts at 9PM ET (6PM PT, 0100 UTC), and it's taking place at Lynn University in Florida. The topic this time around is foreign policy, including discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, America's role in the world, "The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism," and China's rise as a superpower. You can livestream it from the usual suspects: (C-SPAN, ABC, PBS, CNN). Politifact has posted an article fact-checking statements the candidates have made about foreign policy. Both they and Factcheck.org will be using Twitter to verify statements in real time. This presidential debate again excludes the smaller U.S. political parties. If you're interested in hearing other voices, you'll be able to see candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties in a debate tomorrow with Larry King moderating. As before, we're doing a separate post for the debate in the hopes that political talk won't clutter other stories tonight. Tell us what you think as the debate unfolds. For live conversation, remember: context helps. And, as reader Ryanator2209 keeps pointing out, you can entertain yourself by playing Logical Fallacy Bingo while you watch.
son of BOSSS (Score:4, Interesting)
a long time ago, Mitt Romney was chair of the audit committee at Marriott.
And Marriott filed tax returns using a very lucrative tax shelter known as "son of BOSS"
I contend that at the time, son of boss was illegal - it was patently a sham transaction.
I don't know if legal liability attached to Gov Romney then, or now, what with staute of limitations, but this incident tells us that MR is quite comfortable filing fraudulent tax retrns.
Which means, maybe all of these things in MR's taxes are real
magic beanstalk IRA with undervalued capital contributions
Rafalca as business that should have been a hobby
sham transactions in cayman island accounts
listing himself as passive instead of active investor...
and the beat goes on....
Re:son of BOSSS (Score:5, Interesting)
Son of BOSS is a real tax shelter, believe it or not. BOSS stands for Bond and Options Sales Strategy. Son of BOSS cost the US treasury billions in taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Boss [wikipedia.org]
And Mr. Romney's IRA is something I'd like to know more about, too. Did you know IRA contributions such as his are limited to $30,000 a year? His IRA has at least 20 million and as much as 100 million, but let's be conservative and go with 20 million. It would take over six hundred years for 30k contributions to add up to 20 million. But Romney only worked at Bain for 15 years. This means his contributions cannot exceed $450,000. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/the-secret-behind-romney-s-magical-ira.html [bloomberg.com]
That means Mr. Romney got a return of at least 44 times his initial investment. If you don't think that's suspicious, maybe you're the one wearing a tinfoil hat...
Re: (Score:3)
That means Mr. Romney got a return of at least 44 times his initial investment. If you don't think that's suspicious, maybe you're the one wearing a tinfoil hat...
It's not suspicious, actually. As a vulture capitalist, he got priority stock. Some of the stock made a huge return. Sometimes it happens. Stock making a huge return is the same way Zuckerburg made his billions, and Larry Paige, and others. The fact you think it's suspicious means you need to take off the tinfoil hat. It's obvious.
Re:son of BOSSS (Score:5, Informative)
That means Mr. Romney got a return of at least 44 times his initial investment. If you don't think that's suspicious, maybe you're the one wearing a tinfoil hat...
44x Even assuming your numbers are correct, Romney is a piker. I'll show you a real rate of return:
Under increasing pressure from the media on Whitewater, Hillary Clinton called a dramatic press conference in the East Wing of the White House in April 1994. She answered the questions with calm authority, momentarily silencing her critics. . . .
First, reporters had discovered that Mrs. Clinton had realized a $100,000 return on a $1,000 investment in commodities futures back in 1979. Jim Blair, a friend and chief attorney for Arkansas food giant Tyson, had advised her. Now, the first lady said she had made the trades by herself. Later, she would admit that Blair and others had taken the lead. . . . -- Arkansas Roots [cnn.com]
That would be 100X for Secretary Clinton. No doubt it was that sort of savy that landed her the Secretary of State's job.
And Mr. Romney's IRA is something I'd like to know more about, too.
It looks to me that Romney was a good investor and business man that made the most of the opportunities available, including getting in on the ground floor of several very successful companies. He also did it starting almost 30 years ago. That is a long time for investments to compound, especially for large amounts put in up front, and investments bought at a discount. Maybe this will help:
Myths Vs. Truths: The Truth About Saving for Retirement [financialexcellence.net]
You go to work for a brewery, you might get discounts on beer. You go to work for an investment firm, you may get interesting financial opportunities. Pretty straight forward, I think.
Mitt Romney exited Bain Capital with rare tax benefits in retirement [washingtonpost.com]
Before Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital, the enormously profitable investment firm he founded, he made sure to lock in his gains, both realized and expected, for years to come. . .
Romney’s former colleagues say his retirement package is a well-justified reward for a chief executive who built Bain from scratch in 1984 into a financial powerhouse that backed business successes such as Staples and the Sports Authority.
The structure and tax treatment of his retirement, including the IRA, was legally sound and appropriate, they say, adding that he has earned less money over his career than some other top private-equity executives, who earned billions of dollars during the same period.
His severance package, for instance, allowed him to continue sharing in the profits of the company as if he were still a partner managing it, according to his 2010 tax return and interviews with present and former Bain executives. And because he benefited from the firm’s investments as if he were an active Bain partner, he paid taxes at a lower rate on these earnings than if they were treated as ordinary retirement income. Romney negotiated the package when he was leaving the firm, Bain executives said, while he set up his IRA long before.
. . . Under the law today, individuals may contribute up to $5,000 per year and employers may contribute up to $50,000 a year to an employer-sponsored IRA. The money is invested, and the investments grow tax-free until retirement. There is no limit on how much money an IRA can earn tax-free.
What determines an IRA’s growth is the performance of the investments, and Bain enabled Romney, its other employee
Re:Is it a US presidential debate ... (Score:4, Informative)
I agree the China pissing contest is ridiculous, but. . .
Sky-rocketing crime rate
Any statistics to back that one up? This isn't up to date, [wikipedia.org] but as you can see, the general trend of crime since its peak in the early 90s has been that of steady decline.
Tanking of morality
What does this mean and how does the president have any sway over this? "Morality laws" are generally outside the domain of the federal government as a power reserved for the states. It's unconstitutional for the federal government to make prostitution and gambling illegal, for example (hence Nevada). If the courts hadn't broadened the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to its furthest extent, drug prohibition would also be unconstitutional. How many people here would really want a Mormon to have any sway over legislating and enforcing morality? There's a reason sane people don't live in Utah.
Re:Is it a US presidential debate ... (Score:4, Insightful)
America has a lot of problems right now.
You failed to mention one of the most serious ones [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
To a certain group of people, that's not a problem, it's a feature. That same group of people is certainly a lot more capable of influencing legislation than you or me, so it's likely to be "enhanced" in the future.
People keep saying that "one is just as bad as the other" when referring to US elections. But I would suggest that while Obama may not be effective at fighting income inequality, Romney is a poster-boy for it.
The real problem here is that most people seem to treat income inequality as an annoya
a sad field (Score:4, Insightful)
I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.
Sad, sad field. These ain't the best, and they ain't the brightest.
Re:a sad field (Score:4, Interesting)
I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.
Even outside of debates, the media has become *horrible* about not expecting their guests to actually answer questions. Even when they're playing softball, they usually let the guest cite some irrelevant talking points rather than actually answering the question.
Re:a sad field (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what is sad is how people judge a "winner" of a debate. I've seen honest conservatives who thought the first debate was a draw while the vast majority of people thought Romney won based on being "aggressive". Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.
Re:a sad field (Score:4, Funny)
No, what is sad is how people judge a "winner" of a debate. I've seen honest conservatives who thought the first debate was a draw while the vast majority of people thought Romney won based on being "aggressive". Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.
Before voting, ask a zoologist if a candidate is right for you.
Re: (Score:3)
The weak opponent doesn't have that benefit already being weak. Mitt Romney had it too easy, surrounded by yes men or suckers not used to taking on really skilled opponents if Obama pushes him hard Romney could lose it and expose his vicious self serving nature
Romney is the weak one? Romney, who had to fight for the nomination against a large field of challengers versus President Obama who walked through the primaries? I don't think that makes sense.
Romney is surrounded by yes men? I think you somehow missed picking up on Obama's cult of personality. [investors.com]
Romney: weak, but also vicious and self serving? You seem a bit conflicted there. I'm not sure that will hold up either.
In 2011, the Romneys donated about 29% of their income to charity – $4 million out of their total $13.7 million in income. For 2010, they donated about 13.8% of their income, $2.98 million out of $21.6 million. Over a 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income, according to an accountants’ letter they provided on Friday. -- Romney’s Taxes: A Window Into Charitable Giving [wsj.com]
Re:a sad field (Score:5, Informative)
I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.
Sad, sad field. These ain't the best, and they ain't the brightest.
The problem is that a person has to have been living under or a rock for the last year or just stupid if they don't know who they're going to vote for at this point. Since not many people live under rocks, let's assume these people are stupid. That's the assumption the candidates and the media make, as well. Stupid people don't know who's right or wrong on the 'Libya issue' because they have no idea what's being discussed. They don't know the pitfalls of a laissez-faire system because they don't know what that is. They think 'socialism' is evil because that has something to do with the Soviets or the Chinese or some other county they watch their favorite action hero beat up on.
Recent elections have been decided by very slim margins so that very slim percentage of the population that's stupid enough to still be undecided at this point in the election are those whom the candidates are courting. These people are going to cast their votes based on who "looked stronger" and "sounded more like a leader" and "seemed to know what he's talking about." These are the people who handed George W. Bush a second term after getting his ass thoroughly kicked in debates by Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Because, unlike his opponents, "he seemed like the type of guy you'd like to have a beer with."
These guys probably are among the best and brightest. But proving that isn't what these debates are about.
Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (Score:5, Informative)
There is going to be a debate at 21:00 EDT on October 23, hosted by Larry King. [2012presid...onnews.com] The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode, and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.
Re:Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (Score:5, Funny)
Three of my high school friends and I are also having a debate on public access TV on Oct. 24! I figure that we have as much of a chance of getting an electoral college vote as Rocky Anderson, so don't forget about our debate!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you on the ballot in at least 48 states? Is your debate being hosted by Larry King?
Good grief, who needs it! (Score:3)
I can't watch ANY of it, and quite frankly, the Libertarians are the worst. All of the politicos spout platitudes describing things they will never do, let alone even attempt, pandering to the extremes with promises that can'r possibly come true...
And the Libertarians are the absolute worst, with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche (who has in fact been dead for years - his body was preserved by the same folks who did Stalin). LaRouche and Ralph Nader, now there's a ticket I would vot for, just to be entertain
Humble proposal for the next debate in 2016 (Score:3)
Well, since any third party will likely be excluded AGAIN from the "official" presidential debates, why not gather the third party candidates together for some sports analyst-style commentary on the debate? The debate will be streamed live into a studio where the other candidates are gathered. They will then be given a chance to comment or savage the arguments or lack thereof of the Democratic/Republican candiates. Of course, it won't have the immediacy of a real debate, but since the official debate is sh
Bingo! (Score:4, Informative)
Somehow, I don't suspect we'll see anything different than we saw in the first two: heated exchange of cliches and platitudes, punctuated with awkward smiles. Enjoy it while you can.
Play logical fallacy bingo! [lifesnow.com] It also makes a great drinking game.
Political Debate Drinking Game (Score:2)
Perry Metzger tweeted the following suggested political debate drinking game - if a political debate comes on, turn on the TV and go out for a drink with your friends!
(In this case I'm going out for a music jam with friends instead, but it'll do the job.)
Re:Political Debate Drinking Game Typo Fix (Score:3)
if a political debate comes on, turn OFF the TV and go out for a drink with your friends! - Let's try this one again...
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, Obama and Romney will lie more (Score:5, Insightful)
Why listen to lies, when you can uncover the truth?
fact checking (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking, after seeing clips from the previous debates, that the debate's host should include a real-time fact-checking panel of about six people seated behind the audience, with computers so they can contact their support staff and get quicker results. Then the debators could say "I'd like a fact check on that", and the audience (local and remote) would get a near-instant "vote" from the panel as to whether the purported fact is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is about as likely to happen as a third party candidate being allowed to sit in the audience.
Better yet, have the TPCs pick the questions and serve as moderators.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking about how that would work when Hillary runs in 2016, but then I remembers it is Hillary, she probably has more balls then the two current candidates combined.
Worthless... (Score:2)
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well. both are lying pussies that REFUSE handle real questions from voters. and the media is too lame to ask the hard questions.
What kills me is the conservative nutjobs that are foaming at the mouth thinking that their guy is any better.
News flash. They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!
No matter who wins, those of us that are not stinking repulsively rich will lose. that is what the Libe
Re:Worthless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well.
True.
They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!
They are NOT. They are LARGELY the same, with the exception of a few issues where they clearly are NOT (taxes, gay rights, health care)
While I very much see your point, just because 80% of the issues have been cemented by a repulsive silent agreement between two parties, is still no reason to state that they are the same. There is still a lesser evil and a greater evil here, even though it isn't as much of a difference as I would have hoped.
Re:Worthless... (Score:5, Insightful)
well, one is a lot more publicly religious than the other. I don't like that. I actually hate that! its a showstopper for me.
the other keeps his religion in check.
this is not just them, either; its representative of their parties.
vote NO on american taliban.
that one issue will get in our way of so much progress. please don't send us backwards again! we had that with bush and the other republicans since reagan. enough with the christian bullshit, already! we are a mixed nation and we like it that way.
now, bring republicans back about 20 or 30 yrs and we might have something. before they got all preachy and holier than thou.
but the current R crowd, makes me sick. physically sick. that says a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That will not happen with a Republican in office, the press will be more than eager to ask the tough questions
were you alive during the bush era?
he got more passes than your favorite football star.
tell me again how the 'liberal press' really socks it to the R's. I could use some good fantasy about now.
I was alive. Were you awake? (Score:3)
were you alive during the bush era?
he got more passes than your favorite football star.
Were you sleeping or what?
Bush was hammered on every small detail, every small flub in a way that Obama (and even Biden) have never been. The media attacked him constantly before and during the Iraq surge, until they realized it was working. Nary a peep against Obama's Afghanistan surge, before during or after even as it fails.
I'm not saying it was wrong. I'm saying it happened then and happened not at all for Obama,
Re:Vote non-Democrat so hard questions will be ask (Score:4, Insightful)
It's well documented that a vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats
And their bosses -- the people who own the big media empires -- are registered Republicans.
Who do you think has the bigger influence, the boss or the peons who work for him?
Saturday Night Live (Score:3)
is where i watch the president debates. They seem to be more real.
This should be interesting.... (Score:2)
Ferretman
Neither of them cares... (Score:2)
Non-Americans don't matter... unless they are Israeli. Both candidates know they can trash talk the entire world for political points... to demonstrate how "tough" they are.
And for reasons I don't understand, they will both want to curry favor with the Israelis - for what reason, I don't quite know. (I mean I do understand how a boogey man is needed to keep the Arabs in line but why is the US such a fop in front of the Israelis? I don't understand why we must take such scorn in the rest of the world for a
Preview (Score:2)
My friend from the future sent me this exclusive footage from tonight's debate. [youtu.be]
Russia is the enemy! (Score:5, Informative)
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)
3rd parties (Score:2)
We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs t
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'll sit this one out .... (Score:3, Interesting)
I watched the last debate, out of what I guess was a partial sense of guilt and a partial sense of duty as an American citizen ... but it sorely disappointed me.
Not that I expected better, but it just served as a reminder of what a circus the whole thing is today.
As I pointed out to some friends of mine after the debate, both candidates are primarily concerned with putting on a good show. They went over their allotted speaking time over and over again. I've seen high-school debate classes with students FAR more capable of getting their points across within their time slots! You have to ask yourself if Romney and Obama are really that unskilled at time management? I think you and I both know the answer to that one. They're only running out the clock and continuing to talk because it's a TACTIC. If a candidate really doesn't have a good, effective comment or rebuttal to make, he wanders off topic to run the clock down, and then pretends to start addressing the issue as time is running out. That way, he can appear to have simply not been given enough time to explain his position rather than do so in full and look foolish. Alternately, he can purposely exceed the time limit in an attempt to irritate his opponent and rattle him.
Beyond that? I expect more of the REAL issues will be directly addressed by those "alternative, smaller political parties" we finally get to hear debate in their own little CNN hosted program tomorrow.
If you want to really discuss where the U.S. stands in the eyes of the rest of the world, a good start would be expounding on the recent Wall Street Journal article explaining how U.S. citizens living abroad are suddenly finding foreign banks no longer want their business. The U.S. government (and IRS in particular) have become so demanding and ruthless in their quest to "know all" about each person's investments and spending habits, they've made it uneconomical for foreign banks to comply anymore. Even the Swiss bankers (once considered almost untouchable) are being given the ultimatum by the USA ... turn over all those records of who has what in your bank, or else. Some people have even tried to turn in their passports and renounce their U.S. citizenship, only to find the IRS invalidates it, because they haven't paid past taxes (or even an "exit tax" they expect to be paid first).
It's an ugly state of affairs when your country believes it literally "owns" you, despite your express intentions to leave it behind. And the rest of the world realizes how draconian the U.S. government is getting, and doesn't want to get involved in that mess.... Here's betting NONE of this is even hinted at tonight in the "debates".
Arming the Syrian Rebels? What Will That Solve? (Score:3)
Oh! But yeah, go ahead and arm Syrian rebels! Iran totally won't view that as an aggressive act! No, they'll sit by and watch that happen! And just say "Gee, I guess the people of Syria have spoken!" Try meeting with them then [go.com] and using diplomacy to reduce their nuclear efforts!
Re: (Score:3)
Both the same? Only if your an "Edgy Nerd"... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are both the same? Not to me. As a cancer patient who has gone from unemployed to a semi-well paying job, I can now get insurance that I couldn't get/hope to afford before Obama.
You close your eyes and ears and say it all looks/sounds the same. Your an albatross around the neck of this country, and if you truly feel that way, brush up on your Mandarin and move to China where it really is all the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty obvious Romney lost (Score:4, Insightful)
Just from all the "fuck politics, I'm going back to being a libertarian" pouting I'm seeing here. Just like right after the 2008 election.
As for the actual DEBATE, anyone catch Romney's comment about Syria important to Iran as their only shipping route to the ocean? Or, how about how he went from "the Arab spring sucked, we shouldn't have done it" to "I agree with deposing Mubarak." He also went back to defending the $5/$2 trillion tax-cut/defense spending hike he DENIED in the 1st debate.
Also notable was Romney getting called out on his Big Flashy Numbers approach to military spending which works fantastic when you're cheerleading for your base, but really poorly when there's someone to challenge you. OMG did you know our Air Force is smaller than it was in 1947???? When we had tens of thousands of prop jobs and 1st generation jets as opposed to a mere hundreds of supersonic modern fighters with state-of-the-art electronics???? Oh noes!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is what socialism, I love it.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try Anonymous Coward.. But most of the Slashdot readers here are educated enough to know that Obama is only slightly less authoritarian than Romney and 'socialism' is just a word used in the wrong context to demagogue Obama. Further, most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see that Romney changes his rhetoric for whatever crowd he's entertaining and either candidate just continues the march towards facism.. It's just that Obama seems to want to march slower.
I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.
Please tell me you don't live in a swing state.
It is sometimes your duty as a thinking individual to choose between two evils. No one wants to have to, but it is sometimes the choice that is in front of you.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
It is sometimes your duty as a thinking individual to choose between two evils. No one wants to have to, but it is sometimes the choice that is in front of you.
Relevant quote from Douglas Adams's So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish:
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:4, Insightful)
That attitude is what's wrong with US elections. Vote your conscience. Sure, it might cause your least favourite party to win this election, but how big is the difference anyway? And if you keep up the strategic voting crap, nothing will ever change.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I approve of a lot of Gary Johnson's platform, but the idea of eliminating the IRS, income taxes, corporate income taxes...I'm sorry but I think that's insane. Not even Ireland has 0% corporate income tax, and consumption (sorry, "expenditure") taxes are regressive.
I'd love to support Mr. Johnson but I rather like the civilized society that we live in and I know that taxes are the price we pay for such a society.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to convince people to change why not spend your protest vote at the State or local level where it might matter?
In the event that a 3rd party did win a presidential election under the current conditions it would be because an already famous person became their candidate and won on the basis of their own fame, not because you voted for a Libertarian candidate most people never heard of in 2012.
If on the other hand you focus on the local or state level, capture the state legislature in a friendly s
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try Anonymous Coward.. But most of the Slashdot readers here are educated enough to know that Obama is only slightly less authoritarian than Romney and 'socialism' is just a word used in the wrong context to demagogue Obama. Further, most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see that Romney changes his rhetoric for whatever crowd he's entertaining and either candidate just continues the march towards facism.. It's just that Obama seems to want to march slower.
I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.
And that's the attitude that got us 8 years of Bush! Al Gore won the popular vote and take away the Ralph Nader votes and it was a landslide for Gore in 2000. Kerry lost over the Swift Boat BS which should have never been an issue since it was obvious lies. Voting for Gary Johnson IS a vote for Romney and history supports that stance. Obama means things won't change much. Vote for Romney and he's said he wants tax cuts for the rich and fewer deductions for the middle class. Get over the fact Obama is black
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Interesting)
550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.
Would we? Here are a couple of views:
The History of the U.S. – If Al Gore Became President [thedailybeast.com]
If Al Gore Had Won in 2000 [townhall.com]
Here are a few of mine:
Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration.
It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened.
If 9/11 happens, it's pretty certain a global war against Al Qaida follows, and very likely war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Invasion? Probably.
Economic crashes? Of course. The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so. The internet-centric business meltdown was the result of trends started in the Clinton administration. The actual wrong-doing for Enron occurred under the Clinton administration. The housing bubble was a result of policies with broad bi-partisan support.
Iraq? That is more of a wildcard. The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration. It is virtually certain that there would have been conflicts with Iraq, including armed action. Would it have lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq? Somewhere along the line of less likely to no. There almost certainly would have been bombings though, probably a lot more of them to compensate for the lack of ground forces. Saddams army in 2003 was strong enough to hold Iraq against rebellion that wasn't aided externally. It seems pretty certain that either Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power. They might even have thrown off sanctions due to the "Oil for Food [cfr.org]" program bribes and the loss of interest in the world community in containing him. Saddam with no sanctions means a Saddam rearming and continuing to support terrorism (no, not Al Qaida). He might ever do it with a vengence. Would Iraqis be better off? Very unlikely [archives.gov]. Saddam used the food money to build palaces [msn.com] and buy weapons while the infrastructure crumbled, and people perished. That is from simple neglect. Saddam's government filled Iraq with large numbers of mass graves [spiegel.de]. Had Saddam's regime not been overthrown, the killing would have continued.
You may recall that Saddam had to restrain his sons, they were crueler than he was.
How Bad Was Saddam’s Son? [meritummedia.com]
. . . Latif’s first lesson was to learn how to not react in disgust or become sick at Hussein regime cruelty. He was taken to a viewing room holding thousands of videos of torture sessions.
Saddam’s son had learned the same way. “Uday told me whenever he seemed weak or squeamish as a child his father would beat him with an iron bar and then force him to watch videos of prisoners being tortured.”
It worked. “Just wait until I become president,” Uday promised, “I’ll be crueler than my father ever was. You mark my words. You’ll yearn for the days of Saddam
Hussein.”
Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq. That movement generated intelligence and provided opport
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Informative)
And ran the country into a ditch.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand how so many slashdotters fail to grasp that the two party system doesn't just happen by chance. It's not just that voters consider only two parties before their brains explode. It's first-past-the-post voting. Get a parlimentary system in place if you want a third party. Otherwise, just vote in the primaries and realize that the same people who are getting elected now are the same people who would get elected under a multiparty system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.. Third party votes do count. When the Republicans and Democrats are working together to divide the people in half as evenly as possible, and only winning by small margins, a small-margin of third-party votes has a huge effect.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
No.. Third party votes do count. When the Republicans and Democrats are working together to divide the people in half as evenly as possible, and only winning by small margins, a small-margin of third-party votes has a huge effect.
The only problem is that "huge effect" is, usually, negative for the interests they represent. They "steal" votes from the candidate that is near to their interests making the other win. So, you have a real disincentive to promote a third party.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:4, Insightful)
They "steal" votes from the candidate that is near to their interests making the other win. So, you have a real disincentive to promote a third party.
You can't call a person not being given something that doesn't belong to them "stealing". Even the quotes you added to suggest you were already dubious of the use of the term. I may as well tell people that Gore "stole" the election from Nader. If Gore hadn't been running, Nader would have gotten all of the non-Bush votes!
Nothing will ever change if people continue to think in terms of the lesser of two evils since evil always "has a real disincentive to promote a third party."
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
But Nader wouldn't have received all the non-Bush votes, just as Perot wouldn't have received all the non Bush Sr./Dole votes. But the inverse is true. Gore would have received nearly all (I would guess 99% with the remaining 1% just not voting) of the Nader votes and Bush Sr./Dole would have received those Perot votes.
There's historical precedent for this conclusion: The elections of 1912 is a particularly good example, where the Republican vote was split between Theodore Roosevelt running independently and Howard Taft the defending Republican incumbent.
The biggest problem is that our system of government is outdated, inefficient, and ineffective. But to criticize the U.S. Constitution is taboo (funny how the most staunch defenders of this antiquated document know the least about it). Voting for a third party candidate is just voting against one's interests and will continue to be the case as long as our government is run by this ridiculous bicameral legislative system and selects the head of state through an electoral college. The only hope for this to happen is for the average citizen to become better educated and thus better able to see through the nationalistic bullshit of worshipping the U.S. Constitution and the men who founded this country. That's why I'm voting for Obama - I don't think he'll enact the specific changes I would like to see, nor do I think he'd have the power to do so if he wanted to - but he does prioritize education, which sets America on the path to overcoming the chains of our federalist system. In an era when technology is steadily making manual labor less necessary, this country cannot afford to have as many uneducated, unskilled people running amok as it currently does.
It doesn't matter if people think in the terms of the 'lesser of two evils' or not. The average voter is a moron. It doesn't matter what they think. Statement votes to third party candidates will do nothing to better this country. Voting for Obama does.
Re: (Score:3)
You guys have a system where third (and fourth, etc.) parties get low single digit percentages in presidential elections and rarely elect any representatives to either of the two legislative houses. And it wasn't always that way.
Your problems won't be fixed by getting rid of the electoral college or some sort of proportional representation in the legislative houses. The entire country is brainwashed into voting for "their" party. That's what has to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Better educated, yes. Less nationalism, yes. More American, yes. Before you say that is a contradiction, let me explain that our American ancestry, how brief it may be, is written upon empathy, and embodies faith in ourselves, our sisters and brothers, and even our enemies.
Shall I remind y
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem is that "huge effect" is, usually, negative for the interests they represent.
This is true in the short run. But in the long run, voting for a third party causes the major parties to move in that direction to win these voters back. The popularity of the Socialist Party [wikipedia.org] in the early 20th Century caused the Democrats under FDR to move significantly to the left.
Since neither the Libertarians nor the Greens get many votes, the major parties are under little pressure to champion personal liberty and/or stronger environmentalism. By supporting one of these parties, you can change that. Unless you live in a swing state, your vote is meaningless anyway, so voting third party is the only way to make a difference.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the Libertarians are having a strong effect on the Republican party. You'll notice that Ron Paul debated on the stage with the other Republican candidates, and got a strong response. The effect is usually sneered at as "The Tea Party". But if you look at any candidate labeled as a Tea Party candidate, you'll see a strong libertarian streak.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that, just before the Civil War, the Republicans WERE the 3rd party. The bad thing about a 2-party system is that, no matter who the 3rd-party is, if they get strong they eventually become one of the 2. The good thing about a 2-party system is that some fringe group (like the Greens or Austria's Freedom Party) can't hold the coalition government model hostage in order to advance their narrowly-supported agenda.
The Smart Way to Vote Third Party (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true in the short run. But in the long run, voting for a third party causes the major parties to move in that direction to win these voters back.
Very true, and voting third party can also have other benefits. You just have to do it smartly.
You only risk letting "the greater evil" win if you live in a swing state. If your state is solidly for one of the major parties, you can safely vote third party without risking the vote affecting the major parties. So for example, living in California, I can assume that Obama will win my state not matter how I vote, and so I can vote for whatever third party I feel like without worrying about "spoiling" anything (depending on which I would otherwise support, either victory is assured or it is impossible, either way there's no point wasting effort fighting about it).
So if you live in a swing state, yes, vote the lesser of the two evils who are most likely to win. If you don't, however, voting for your preferred third party will get you several other benefits, besides the one quoted above (major party platforms shift to try to recapture the third party vote):
- It increases the size of the third party supporter bloc (both for that party, and for the concept of third parties), which helps promote the third party (and the concept of third parties) even if they didn't win. Since they weren't going to win anyway, and your non-swing state was going the way it did anyway, this is pure win at no risk here.
But besides that obvious benefit:
- If people in your non-swing state start doing this who would otherwise vote for your state's shoe-in candidate (e.g. if California liberals start voting Green instead of Democrat), then that eventually makes your state a swing state, and suddenly your vote matters a whole lot more! This combined with parent poster's point about major parties courting the third party vote, but even better: since you're not a swing state, they care a lot about capturing your vote, giving your preferred third party's platform a major influence on them.
- That second point can however go the other way, e.g. if California conservatives start voting Libertarian, that just entrenches California more firmly as a Democrat state, with a large Democrat bloc vs smaller Republican and Libertarian blocs. However, since (for example) California is already a firmly Democrat state, you can feel free to take this all the way and eat up all the Republican votes you want, go right ahead and kill the Republican party in California, you won't be making any difference in who wins there so still no harm in letting the "greater evil" win since (for a conservative who ranks Libertarians > Republicans > Democrats) they would have anyway. So you can feel free to "spoil" the "lesser evil" all you want, and if you can manage it, go on to supplant them, e.g. turn the California election into Democrats vs Libertarians instead of Democrats vs Republicans.
Combining all these effects, voting third party in a non-swing state can have major influences. To use my own state for an example again, if we assume (perhaps questionably) that a large bloc of liberals generally prefer Greens > Democrats > Republicans, and a large bloc of conservatives generally prefer Libertarians > Republicans > Democrats, then if those people all follow this strategy instead of abstaining or voting for "the lesser evil", California could end up with a more notable Green party, Democrats eagerly adopting a lot of Green policies to try to keep the liberal vote, and at least a much larger Libertarian party if not one wholly supplanting the Republican party, and Republicans eagerly adopting a lot of Libertarian policies.
Suddenly you've got something almost resembling a healthy multi-party system, all without anyone ever risking "the greater evil" getting into office. And all this in what's now quite possibly a swing state, so very influential on national politics, and either way having an inevitable run-on effect o
Re: (Score:3)
Most people who run around trying to claim they will vote third party or that everyone should because of benefit X, are generally either pouting because their "cause" wasn't championed by one of the major party candidates and trying to "teach them a lesson" or they are plants pretending to be for third parties in an attempt to weaken their guy's opponent's chances.
They have heard all the reasoning to why it is rubbish to vote third party. They know it lets the guy most unlike them win. They know that a thir
Re: (Score:2)
same way England did: civil war.
Re: (Score:3)
With a track record like that, who wouldn't be in favor?*
You do realize that "violent revolution" involves killing people and not music [nbc.com] or flowers [mostbeautifulflower.com], right?
*Eye roll
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only an American would be so Fucking stupid as to think Obama is a socialist. Americans don't have the foggiest clue what socialism is.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
I call you out on your demagogue word 'socialism' and you replace it with 'Marxist' like that is somehow a good argument. It's just name-calling. I'm not worried about socialism or communism.. Like I said earlier, I am worried about facism.
And, since I will be the one voting, I will decide whether or not I am losing by casting a losing vote. Perhaps my only goal is to influence the scope of discussion and open up both 'sides' to the ideas that only Gary Johnson is talking about. My choice is to expand the scope of discussion. My choice is for a better Republican candidate than the one the Establishment dictates to me. My choice is that it would be better for the Republicans in the long run to lose the election to a bad President than to win the election with a bad candidate.
My vote is for Gary Johnson. Obama is simply not better than Romney by enough of a margin for me to vote for him; and vice-versa. Gary Johnson is on the ballot and my choice is for him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter which wins.
Obama is brown lunch with grey sauce, and Romney is grey lunch with brown sauce. (And no. That is not a euphamism for their races. It's an animaniacs reference.)
It doesn't matter which one wins. Regardless, a deleterious agenda will be spearheaded. It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose which of those agendas to bend over for.
Personally, I'd vote for "assasinate both and start over", but in civilized countries this isn't an option. I'll grudgingly settle for "insane and u
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It absolutely matters who wins. You're just being lazy because it hurts to vote for a guy who loses, or to vote for a guy who then does stuff you don't like.
Let's say that the Democrats grow a spine and don't let Romney get whatever he wants. At the very least, he will be able to appoint new SCOTUS justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old. It is very likely that the winner of his election will name her replacement. If she is replaced by a conservative justice, Roe v Wade will be overturned within
Re: (Score:3)
Hello Left. I am Centrist. Right is over there.
Just so you know what my personal policies are regarding the issues you just lobbed at me blithely, again, despite two previous postings pointng out that "criticism of Obama != support of Romney" for you, As the saying goes, "third time's the charm."
I support people getting abortions, within reason. For instance, I am in favor of things like "plan B" which induces a chemical abortion during the first trimester. I think it should be OTC, with a free pharmicist c
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
You made the claim that the candidates are the same. I pointed out that they were different.
That's it. I never shoehorned you into either camp. I said I was disgusted by your apathy towards an election that will literally be life or death for many people. There are clear and important differences between the candidates, and to deny that is the height of recklessness.
Those differences include:
Abortion. Romney would outlaw it, Obama would preserve the status quo. From your post, you should prefer Obama.
Medicare. Romney would end it, Obama would make some minor tweaks to keep it solvent. From your post, you would prefer Romney. You're wrong, and don't seem to understand that sending seniors to the for-profit corporations for care would not improve outcomes, but you should at least acknowledge there's a difference.
Military spending. Obama is trying to cut it by $100Byr, Romney wants to increase it by $200B/yr. You gave no indication of which you prefer, but unless you're barely-sentient, you must have some sort of opinion on the matter.
Taxes. Romney would cut them 20% across the board, Obama would raise them by a few percent on people earning $250k+/yr, and by ~10% on capital gains. Again, surely you have some opinion on the matter.
Gay rights. Sounds like you ought to be in the Democrat's camp on this one, if you truly don't condone mistreatment of people based on their sexual orientation.
War. Romney wants to ramp military spending, has said a little while ago in the debate that we should be arming the Syrian rebels, has accused Obama of not sufficiently supporting Israel, etc. If he's elected, there's a better than even chance that we'll be at war in Iran in the next two years. Obama has resisted calls by Israel to support bombing strikes against Iran, pursuing every possible alternative, and wants to cut military spending. I can't guarantee that he wouldn't go to war, but it seems far less likely.
Any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that Obama is the better choice here. An unreasonable one, who perhaps has their view of the world tainted by religion, might think Romney is the better choice. But only an absolute fool would say it doesn't matter either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd vote for "assasinate both and start over", but in civilized countries this isn't an option.
I can't see what that has to do with anything. You are in the U.S., aren't you?
There is a slight difference between them, of course. People who say all politicians are the same are akin to people who believe they are completely different. In this particular case, Obama represents a "humanization of the inevitable". The inevitable, as they seem to see, is the unsustainable profiteering march to the increasingly elusive economic growth - the whole of Romney's platform, succintly. Add a few programs to barely
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is brown lunch with grey sauce, and Romney is grey lunch with brown sauce. (And no. That is not a euphamism for their races. It's an animaniacs reference.)
Not to nitpick (ok, to nitpick), it was brown LUMPS with grey sauce or grey lumps with brown sauce. But I still think I'd rather go with the carrots in this case.
third party voters: (Score:5, Insightful)
you have a lot more power than you think
but your power is counterintuitive
in 1992, ross perot voters meant bill clinton won
in 2000, ralph nader voters meant gw bush won (well, al gore actually won, but he lost the bullshit filter we call the electoral college by a hair's sliver that nader voters greatly outnumbered)
in 2012, you guys may again decide who wins since the election is so close
third party voters come from a disillusioned left, or a disillusioned right. it seems to me that this election cycle has more disillusioned voters on the right. meaning: obama wins, as the right is fractionated to some extent by voters for someone other than romney
unfortunately, we live in a system where you have to vote strategically, not idealistically
1. for those of you who vote strategically (not the guy i like the best but the guy closest of the main parties), you get someone closer to your ideology in the white house
2. for those of you who vote idealistically (screw the guy who could win, i like THIS guy), you get someone further away from your ideology in the white house (see 1992 and 2000 above)
now, other systems where more than two parties dominate: is that really such a rosy world? ask someone in parliamentary systems where coalition governments form: you have people close to you ideologically, getting into bed with ideologies that are extremely odious to you, to stay in power. coalitions of perverse arrangement
in other words, other countries are not better than the usa if ideological purity is so important to you, they are just compromised in different ways than the american system
such that, an ugly truth for you: you will NEVER, as long as you ever live, have someone you love ideologically in power. you will ALWAYS have someone who is kinda sorta like you, as your best bet. this is true no matter what your ideology, right or left. why? because that's EXACTLY what politics is: compromise, in order to lead. that's what politics always was, what it is, and what it always will be. and only an ideologue is angrily allergic to compromise. and thank god, therefore, your man will never lead in a sane country. because the leader who champions rigid ideology over compromise is dangerous
politics is a game to appeal a lot of people weakly, than a few strongly. get used to it. the candidates who have the best chance to lead, always, FOREVER, will appeal to you ONLY weakly
you should accept this truth, and always vote strategically instead of ideologically
or help elect the guy further away from you ideologically by voting idealistically
your choice
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy is again false.
I refused to vote at all last election. Obama is a horrible president, and so was bush.
Even if it is a thrown away vote, I at least have a batshit crazy MFer that is contrary to all major agendas to vote for this time, which is more than I had 4 years ago.
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:4, Insightful)
Way to go! Instead of using your vote to keep out the worst possible outcome for everyone (Romney), you're throwing it away
What I find hilarious is that the Obama supporters I have spoken to, including people who are out canvassing for Obama's campaign, cannot come up with a better argument than this: "Well at least he's not Mitt Romney!" What kind of a reason is that to vote for a someone? Oh, and, newsflash: Obama is a terrible candidate. Here is what Obama's administration has done:
Yeah, that really sounds like someone we need in the white house. Sure, Romney is not going to do things differently -- so why even pretend there is a difference? Anything you can say Romney would do that is bad, there is something equally bad that Obama is doing right now.
Re: (Score:3)
... here is what I see.
Religious right: "we love Romney! He's a good christian(tm) like us, and 'hayts teh gayz!' And thinks abortion is evil like us! We don't like Obama, because he sided with Teh Gayz and the baby killers, and wants to give those evil sinners our tax money!" (Nevermind that almost none of us are actually true adherents of the beliefs we claim to aspire to, or we wouldn't 'hayte teh gayz' like we do, and wouldn't try to force our reigious beliefs down the rest of the nation as a whole, bec
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I said you belong in another group you didn't list. As I see it, you are a buffoon speaking about crap you have little to no understanding about. You are using logical fallacies and lies in order to do it too. If anyone has their head up their ass, it would in fact be you as reality doesn't match your viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, say you are a rich person. Would you rather a) live in a fancy house with slums all around where you need an armed guard whenever you have to travel outside of your closed complex, or b) live in a fancy house with decent houses all around you without there being any slums and without having to pay taxes to support people who don't work because the country is wealthy enough that everybody can make a decent living with a reasonable amount of effort?
To understand the mindset of the really wealthy, realize that if it meant that they had a fancier house, they'd choose option (a) above. The ability to be conspicuously much better than the people around you is exceptionally attractive due to the way that primate dominance hierarchies work; absolute wealth matters nowhere near as much as relative wealth.
This is, of course, stupid. True though.
Re: (Score:3)
Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.
His opponent has an agenda to redistribute wealth from the middle and working classes to the fat cats that already have more than their share.
the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms. [...] the bottom rungs of our society"
I'm guessing that you've never looked into the question of where most public aid actually goes.
His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives
Yea, God intended that big corporations should do that. Usurper! Infidel!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you think capitalism won with the fall of the Soviet Union? Think again. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.
Indeed. All this government control ("regulations" they call it) are mightly interfering with my business plan to sell rat poison in cans labeled Nutritious Food.
I can't believe how blatant this government control is, and how people can just sit back and let me be completely unable to sell them rat poison in cans labeled Nutritious Food.
It's un-American!
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Insightful)
Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.
Meanwhile the smart capable entrepreneurs have an agenda to redistribute all wealth to themselves. A healthy society needs that balance.
. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.
a) The republicans grab power just as aggressively at every opportunity.
b) The government absolutely has a role in healthcare. I do not want healthcare allocated according to who can pay the most for it; nor which insurance companies can model who is likely to get sick and exclude those people, or deny care to people who are already afflicted (pre-existing conditions). Capitalism is not the right model.
Whether or not it should be a federal program vs state is certainly a legitimate discussion, but healthcare is a government mandate that the majority wants in some form.
If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.
Only an idiot should fall that nonsense. Your odds of going from humble beginnings to success are increased if you are given a leg up while in the 'humble beginnings' stage; if you aren't deprived an education because you can't afford it, if you aren't financially wiped out because someone in your family tripped and broke a few ribs, it gets a lot easier to become a productive member of society, to save up a nest-egg, to strike out as an entrepreneur, to become a -gasp- "job creator".
How exactly does the argument that government wealth redistribution prevents people from succeeding work? Bearing in mind that all the evidence shows that the wealthy are doing just fine, and indeed are getting wealthier by the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Although being born with a platinum spoon in your mouth definitely helps. Where would Mittens be without daddy's connections and resources? Of course, the people who couldn't pull themselves up are part of that shiftless, mangy 47% who are just taking up space.
See the Daily Show / Leonard Nimoy [laughspin.com] take on that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an international reverse psychology gambit to fool the US population into electing Romney.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote third party (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an Australian then you will know that debates have been a big deal for Australian politics, including the infamous "worm" showing the performance of each speaker. The debate between Keating and Hewson probably won the election for Keating, one he was expected to lose. Debates are a way to get a feel for the speaker without (fully) prepared speeches and under a bit of pressure.
Re: (Score:3)
Say, do you like HOSTS files by any chance?
Proof is in the terrible pudding (Score:3, Insightful)
If Obama is so "knowledgeable" about foreign relations, how is it that our foreign relations are in such dire straights?
No improvement in the middle east, and in fact things are generally worse than when he entered office. No improvement in regards to ally or "non-allies" like Iran and Pakistan, and very soon things will be worse with Iran.
Lots of promises, no deliveries and even Libya is significantly tarnished as a victory. Woo-Hoo that we managed to assassinate a key leader of Al-Quieda, but they are a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
but rather I want to flush as much corruption out of Washington DC as possible.
[head asplodes]
mate, you are one confused dude. voting for the party of corruption in the hope that they'll clean up corruption?
do you wash your face with mud to get it clean?
the R's are the leaders in screwing the public out of what little services we have left after the R raid on the middle class and poor. there hasn't been an R in recent memory that has helped anyone but lobbiests and themselves!
fix corruption? voting R?
you