In this year's US mid-term elections ...
Displaying poll results.19313 total votes.
In this year's US mid-term elections ...
This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...
Missing Option (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Missing Option (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That's the default option in every poll. Just don't click it. Done.
Stupidity is really spreading. Aweful.
Re:Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's none of your business how I vote.
That option was covered by the "don't click on anything" option... :-p
On a related note, follow the link in my sig... or actually Slashdot doesn't make it click-able so here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
California Top-Two Primary (Score:5, Interesting)
California recently imposed a hopelessly annoying new voting system - instead of per-party primaries, and a general election in the fall, all the candidates for a partisan seat get thrown into one ballot, and the top two candidates move on to the general election. This means that in a heavily Democrat district, you might end up with two Democrats in the general election (but the Republican voters get to pick the one they object to least instead of voting for a Republican who's guaranteed to lose.) That happened in a few Congressional and assembly districts this year, and I think there's one Republican-vs-Republican race in southern California.
For third parties, this is terrible - it means that third-party candidates are almost never going to get into the general election, which means they won't be able to get enough general-election votes to keep ballot status after a few years. You might have an exception like a Democrat and a Green in a liberal district (though that didn't happen this time), but most of us kept ballot status by getting a moderate percentage of votes for governor or minor offices like Secretary of State. And for the major parties, it's also possible to game the system, e.g. helping a couple of minor Democrats split their parties ballot to get your Republicans in, or Democrats voting for the craziest Tea Party candidate so the Democrat can easily beat them in the fall.
So while I'm a Libertarian, I had to split my ticket between mostly Democrats and one or two Republicans. On the other hand, in the primary, there were several offices for which we didn't have a Libertarian candidate, and I voted for one or two Greens and at least one Occupy person; Silicon Valley is strongly enough Democrat I saw no reason to give thm
Re:California Top-Two Primary (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the two the end up on ther ballot might be the same party is irrelevant.
The fact is, the top two most popular get on the ticket, regardless of party. And that's better for the voters.
"it means that third-party candidates are almost never going to get into the general election,"
No, it does not. They have the same chance. The fact that most third party candidate the voters don't want is why.
Stop blaming the system because what you want can't get enough votes. People just don't want it if it doesn't make it.
Why is it libertarians never understand the issue they talk about? It's always 'how can I twist this into an attack on me?"
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the 2 people that agree with popular opinion the most get on the ballot. We need to hear new and interesting ideas, not the echo chamber of popular opinion. Why can't everyone that's running be on the final ballot at once? This nonsense is why I don't vote. The entire system is rigged from the get-go. The only people on that ballot are the people with enough money to get there. Which rich liar are you voting for this year?
Re: (Score:3)
You have a duty to not vote on anything you haven't researched or don't understand.
Re: (Score:3)
That would seem to be biased against the intelligent because the ignorant voter who lives in a sea of propaganda really thinks that they understand the issues
It takes about five minutes to read the ballot, and maybe another 30 on google to research most voting issues
Voting is to be encouraged as are non-partisan sources of information on those issues that are being voted on
Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:2)
You didn't really think this poll would have an outcome anywhere near the result of the real elections?
Don't forget the rest of the world (Score:3)
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
You didn't really think this poll would have an outcome anywhere near the result of the real elections?
And therein lies a major problem with internet discussion sites like this one. Birds of an ideological feather often flock together in one happy internet roost, and very easily lose complete sight of any world view other than their own. Much as I enjoy reading the debate here and on sites that appear to reflect a similar demographic like arstechnica, I definitely feel the need to temper the libertarian bias I see here by also going to places that are more likely to articulate the importance of business, finance, politicians, the establishment and religion to national life.
It's not healthy to only read things that you agree with. If you're from the USA and you're not one of the tiny minority who hit the Republican button, I hope that you broaden your mind by also looking elsewhere for comment and debate from a right wing perspective.
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:4, Informative)
I definitely feel the need to temper the libertarian bias I see here by also going to places that are more likely to articulate the importance of business, finance, politicians, the establishment and religion to national life.
The poll results doesn't really demonstrate a libertarian bias, (22% Democrat, 11% Republican, 6% Libertarian). True, Libertarians are probably more strongly represented on Slashdot, but the Slashdot crowd leans left more than anything else.
Re: Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:4, Informative)
I think the terms might have different resonances on the two sides of the Atlantic. When I mentioned a libertarian bias, I'd assumed the term would broadly also include the Democrats. I guess I misunderstood something!
From my understanding, what Europeans refer to as libertarian is basically socialist. [wikipedia.org] This is the kind of libertarian that Noam Chomsky describes himself as. The Libertarian Party in the U.S. is a little hard to describe. It wants minimal government (but not anarchy as some would like to mischaracterize), and maximum individual liberty. It's based on a non-aggression principle, somewhat akin to the Golden Rule. Basically, the idea is that virtually every human interaction should be voluntary. Consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want, but they should also bear the responsibility of their actions.
My point about reading and engaging widely outside your own group still stands, though.
I agree, but that's why I come here. Slashdot mostly leans left and atheist, but also has divisions between Mac/Linux/Windows, Emacs/Vi, Star Wars/Star Trek, C#/C++/Java, etc. There could possibly even be some debate about my list, and what I've forgotten. :-D
Re: (Score:3)
The Libertarian Party in the U.S. is a little hard to describe.
To understand it you also have to distinguish the party from the much broader movement. (As with small-i internet for any interconnection of diverse network types versus the capital-I Internet for the particular, big, TCP/IP-based, Connected Internet, some libertarians make the distinction between the small-l libertarian movement and the large-L Libertarian Party.)
Though the libertarian movement has broader roots, the party started as a splinte
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:5, Funny)
Lucky for you, being in office badly is what Republicans do best.
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Great Odin I surely hope not.....we need Republicans in office badly!
What, like 2001-2008? Yes, we really need to send us plummeting into another Great Depression, more wars in the Middle East and all of thoser responsible get to walk away like nothing was their fault. Sounds like a fantastic idea if you really want to ruin the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever last fucking democratic party apologist for the last couple years speaks to this fictional "centrist" that they appeal to, when Obama virtually walked away from most of his canidacy claims on those platforms, and even openly spoke in favor of things he opposed as a canidate.
Watch "President Obama vs Canidate Obama"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygl_F7c_jX8
and if anyone asks, that is why a Free net neutral internet is so fucking important. Not just because
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:5, Informative)
"when Obama virtually walked away from most of his candidacy claims on those platforms,"
blatantly false, and that videos is a huge representation. That being kind.
Why does everyone forget everything he fought for, and the pubs shut down through filibusters, misrepresentation, and FUD?
There isn't anything in his platform he didn't fight for.
You are falling into the pub trap. They have tried to stop everything the president does, including things the pubs had agreed with, and then blame Obama.
Pay attention, read the rolls and vote done in congress, look at what they say compared to their actions.
You need to stop watching things the confirm you bias and read in context facts.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole thread is a hilarious display of partisan politics. "BLAH DUHRR REPUBLERKINS!" "I AM DEMOCRAP BUT EVEN I THINK OBAMMER IS TERRIBAD!" etc.
What possesses people to vote for Greens is beyond me. In general, the Greens seem to be an idealist party: nothing they want lines up with reality, and it's often fanciful stuff they visibly haven't thought through. Libertarians I can understand; at least they sound good when they talk. I favor Gary Johnson in that camp, as his fiscal sense is much bett
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to get behind a third party canidate and threaten to ruin every last fucking election until we are listened to, catered to, bargined with, reasoned against, debated, heard.
We don't consent to this government. We are threatened and tricked every 2/4 years into accepting the current batch of assholes with a vauge "or else". Thats why nothing fucking changes.
We need our own people-pacs, bring back unions, kick the mob out of the unions, restore the unions to their original democratic and socialist roots, put men like bernie sanders out front, confront the stigma behind socialism, and we need a real left that isn't full of fucking weenies and cry babies.
Yes, I'll say it, I'm a Socialist. Not the most serious or hardcore or socialists(market socialism), but Fuck capitalism. Fuck Cronyism, Fuck Liberalism,Fuck the Government. No, I'm not a communist, and I have no relation to any oppressive socialist state of yesteryear. I will not accept that strawman.
Why Socialism? Becuase there is no other way to end the concept of "money is speech", as long as there is capitalism, and a government, the government will be dominated by capitalists. either by force, or by "democracy", as they will find some way to use their money to buy votes. Lets not kid ourselves. The system is rotten. They even admit this.
Fuck liberalism. Its an unworkable concept, that depends on the consent of the rich.
I stand for public space, public accountability, and the end of this parraih society full of crooks, liars, in a socialist, democratic, and freedom for all.
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
So I can't spend a dollar on paper and a marker to write a sign for a candidate?2 dollars? 100 dollars?
How do you explain the losses of candidate that out spent their opponents that won?
I am a democratic socialist, but I assure you society doesn't have nearly as many crooks and liars that you seem to think it has. Your bias comes form the media and ignorance. We have problems, but the US is far less corrupt than almost every other nation in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
and capitalism? thats been tried too, and look how that worked out, far worse than all but the worse examples of socialism.
Socialism is not a single ideaology, but a group of ideaologies with nothing in common except the premise. But don't let me get in the way of your strawman that all socialist ideals are the same. I could easily reverse that to all capitalist ideals are the same, an
Re: (Score:2)
It's the nature of American politics that, almost by definition, it wouldn't.
Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
It might not be (that much) better with democrats in control, but that's largely due to obstructionism and the hideous effects on our democracy of the "Money is Speech" and "Corporations are People" rulings of "originalist" idiots like Scalia and Alito - courtesy of Republican appointments. It seems to me that people that say 'both sides are equally corrupt" tend use it as a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they favor the side that's really the more corrupt one (see Brooks, David).
Rather than lament that corruption, how about joining (or starting) a movement to make votes for the restoration of democracy (campaign finance, lobbying, revolving door reforms) a litmus test for candidates. The Occupy movement got part of the equation right - they got the attention of the media. But they did absolutely nothing concrete with that attention. The 99 percent still has the power of the vote, it's just that actual voting has been marginalized by the lousy options we're offered, and by the horse-race media that wouldn't know a real issue if it bit them on the ass. I work in the TV sales industry, and in recent years election season has become for TV stations and networks what Christmas season has always been for retailers. They use that burst of ad revenue to shore up their otherwise failing businesses, so there's a big disincentive to cover the fact that political money affects what issues get discussed at all. But they wouldn't be able to do it if nobody would watch their trivializations.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's largely due to the fact that both parties are full of evil scumbags who don't care about the constitution or our fundamental liberties. Anyone voting for either of them is part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
what idiots like
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
no dimocrats (Score:3, Interesting)
If for no other reason than I want the government to do as little as possible. Gridlock, when the drivers are bumbling idiots, is the safest course by far.
There are plenty of other reasons though.
- I'm not politically correct.
- The U.S. is not Europe and we should be thankful, not embarrassed, for that fact.
- I don't believe in hateful divisions along lines of gender, race, heritage, education level,
- My life has not been so miserable as to make me long for "fundamental transformation" of the country I was born & raised in.
My philosophy boils down to "maximum freedom with maximum responsibility." Nothing to do with party affiliation. While there are a handful of Republicans I could support, not a single democrat that I'm aware of even comes close. The current White House occupant is the antithesis of my beliefs.
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Informative)
But next time, you can just say "I'm a libertarian."
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Interesting)
But the Libertarians want some ass-backward policies. Go back to the gold standard, for instance, which would completely wreck the economy. I've also disagreed with the Libertarian party on taxes such as supporting flat taxes (which usually shift most of the tax burden to the middle class due to subsidies for the poor and without those, the poor pay significantly more taxes).
I'm all for getting rid of the Fed, but I'd rather the US have a gold backed co-currency than just shifting to the gold standard. Fixing the IRS would be huge, but flat taxes aren't the answer. Fortunately for me, there is an Independent party that differs from the Libertarians on these issues and tends to be in lock step as far as personal freedoms go. Ending the 1 trillion dollar drug war that catches 3% of drug traffic (pretty sure that was Eric Holder's number) is a pathetic waste of money. I'm guessing spending 1 trillion on treatment, education, and maintenance plans would have a lot better results than 3%, and you could tax the shit out of the more dangerous stuff (and have reasonable dosages and such).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To you and the GP: you need to read more about real Libertarianism (so does everyone, including a lot of people who back the Libertarian Party). Some key illuminating points to look into:
1) Not that it necessarily makes it wrong to vote Libertarian (well... depending on your view of things), but real philosophical Libertarians that have researched the subject well tend to be completely anti-statist, or in other words they espouse a form of anarchy (Anarcho-Capitalism). When looked at from that point of vi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Excellent post. I disagree with this one conclusion,
"It follows from this that because all forms of "government", and all specific examples of those forms up through the present, operate by coercing the populace, and therefore all known forms of government are unethical and should be stopped."
A form of government that merely enforces NAP could be 100% libertarian in nature. I think most libertarians of any mixture are suspicious of the possibilities of a government that would enforce NAP and not grow. Th
Re: (Score:2)
And when your money just pays for a higher share of, I dunno, the military instead. And a pacificst pays more for your share of this program you don't like?
Taxpayers don't get a lineitem veto. It wouldn't work pr
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not line item veto but I support the idea that taxpayers can select which pile their money goes into.
Yes, someone else would probably still fund the other programs but that's the point so that you personally
can fund what you personally care about. That would also give the politicians something to do. They could
lobby individuals to support this war or that war or this charity because it is way underfunded but if noone
was willing to give any of their money to that program then that program dies like i
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read more than that one sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
It's sort of like having a guy in the Senate who has "Anarchy" listed as his affiliation; if he was really an Anarchist, he wouldn't believe in being anyone's Senator.
come on, in European parliament we have bunch of people who contest the reasons for EU existence. Does not stop them from taking their salaries from EU.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For those unfamiliar with the whys and hows of this: the core philosophical underpinning of Libertarianism comes from the study of secular ethics. The idea here is that if you're going to define a secular standard for human ethics, a rational choice for a basic ethical principle (there are others, but choosing this one defines you as a Libertarian) is the Non-Aggression Principle. Simply stated, the NAP says that any time a human coerces (or directly harms) another human (through physical or other forces) to do things against their will, they're being unethical.
Out of curiosity, if I'm on my own property and you're my neighbor, which of these can I do without violating the NAP:
- have my own sewage treatment "system" in my back yard (a foul smell is not aggressive now is it?)
- burn all my waste (in my opinion the smoke from burning plastic dissipates fast enough not to bother you - you may disagree all you want)
- cause noise 24/7 (I have a really important construction project, you see)
- have a dangerous animal collection with minimal concern for safety (unless one
Re: (Score:2)
FUD! (Score:3)
FUD, plain and simple FUD. For example, Ron Paul (a Libertarian) does not believe in disbanding the government or military. He believes that both are necessary, but have overstepped their bounds without Constitutional provisions. Libertarians believe that having a military to protect our borders is essential for maintaining our way of life. Having between 662 and 900 bases (depending on who counts) around the globe is not something most tax payers know, nor would they agree to pay money for this (South
Re: (Score:2)
But the Libertarians want some ass-backward policies. Go back to the gold standard, for instance, which would completely wreck the economy.
Some libertarians support a gold standard. Others support competing currencies and letting the market decide. Phones & computer ubiquity make conversions pretty easy to manage. Most people would settle on 1 or 2 currencies.
I've also disagreed with the Libertarian party on taxes such as supporting flat taxes (which usually shift most of the tax burden to the middle class due to subsidies for the poor and without those, the poor pay significantly more taxes).
Some, but not most Libertarians support a flat tax, others support no tax, relying on tariffs instead. Of course, you would need to radically reduce the size of the federal government in order to run it just from that.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the fair tax. A lot of libertarians support a lot of different tax schemes. However, no rational person can defend the clusterfuck we have now.
The official platform of the Libertarian Party is just to get rid of the income tax. It doesn't say what should replace it as there are lots of competing ideas. It also mentions reducing the size of government by eliminating programs not laid out in the Constitution and supporting a balanced budget.
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
I appreciate you not labeling yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem I have with the party system is that it encourages following an ideal or a doctrine rather than critical thinking about what will best help deal with the problem. Once people start to self-identify as a party, that's when the laziness starts. Party line idealism is just an excuse not to think hard about a problem and the possible solutions, weighing their benefits and downsides.
I'm like you in favor of reduction of government, fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. However, my views on limited government don't get in the way of seeing how stupid the US last mile internet oligopoly is in its current state, nor does it make me want to remove all the safety nets that exist at a local and national level.
A tangent, but I see political idealism and party hard-liners the same way I see biblical literalists. Damned the results, the process has to be the One True Way! Its a cop-out, avoiding intelligent thought and effort.
Re: (Score:3)
Flat taxes are a tricky thing. I like flat taxes for specific targeted taxes (Citizen's Dividend), but in general... not so much.
A tax on the poor has almost no effect. Raising taxes on the poor hardly takes away any of their money, as you are trying to take a bigger proportion of so little; and yet a flat tax hardly helps, because you take so little from the poor. Our top tax bracket is 39.6%; as a flat tax, it would be 39.56%. This is not effective.
Further, we must consider the burden a flat tax
Which party is against personal responsibility? (Score:2)
Answer: None
Are you also in favor of any other divisive things, like apple pie?
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Insightful)
> Gridlock, when the drivers are bumbling idiots, is the safest course by far.
That is an argument against government in general because there is always an excuse to call politicians "bumbling idiots."
And it is a bullshit argument.
Gridlock is not how the system was designed. The old canard that "the government which governs least governs best" is a made up quote. [politifact.com] And the first person who did say it (Thoreau in 1849) did not mean it in the way it is commonly used today.
The tea party types all want to "starve the beast" but they don't give a thought to good governance. And that is what we need more than anything else because starving the beast just renders ineffective a couple of hundred years of reasonably good governance, making the situation worse than simply running on auto-pilot.
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no dimocrats (Score:4, Insightful)
And then comes a guy like Obama and really proves that government doesn't work. If you are not appalled by Obama, it's only because he came right after Bush. Try comparing him with ol'Bill or anyone else who is not a complete moron.
Remember back in 2008, when Obama got elected with a safe majority in both houses? Did it work? The answer, if you happen to be wondering is no. He pushed forward the worst health care reform imaginable. A system so bad it makes me wonder how he got it! I actually believe in universal health care for most stuff (just not for chronic diseases). But instead of that you get this stupid half-private-half-public 100% screwed up stuff. It makes me wonder how anyone could design it without harmful intent.
Also, the fact that you cannot understand that in the OP, the writer discusses his reasons for not voting Demoncrat shows that the education system must be broken beyond imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amazing that anyone would object to universal health care for chronic diseases. If you want universal health care for anything, and you don't want chronic diseases to be either untreated of brankrupting, there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.
And Obama bended because he wanted cross party appeal, and he modified it so Nebraska's D senator would vote for it as opposed to weilding any clout to get what he wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Informative)
"He pushed forward the worst health care reform imaginable"
He made a terrible mistake, in that he took Republicans at their word, and thought that if he adopted the Republicans' positions, then they'd work with him to get things done. It turns out that they didn't actually support their own positions so much as invent them as excuses to oppose the Democrat's positions, and that they weren't going to work with Obama no matter what he said or did.
The shame is that a few unethical Democrats were in the pocket of the insurance companies (Lieberman, ...) so with united Republican opposition, Obama's only way to get anything done at all was to only fix the most obvious abuses, and to do it in a way that wasted $trillions on insurance companies. Remember, insurance companies supported ACA, which is how anything got passed at all.
Single payer, which is supported by a majority of Americans ("Medicare for everyone" is extremely popular - even a majority of Republican voters support it!), simple, cheap, low-risk to implement and has higher patient satisfaction rates than private insurance, was never even seriously considered by our political class. So, as absurd is ACA is, it's better than what went before - lower costs, more people covered, better benefits for everyone, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gridlock is totally appropriate when there's no consensus. It's a terrible system of government when 51% want X, so we go all-in for X, then 2 years later only 49% still like X, so we go fully anti-X. There's been a bit too much "forcing X through the system for the ignorant voters' own good" in recent years. How about we take a few deep breaths, slow down, and move forward slowly on things there's actually a consensus for.
Rushing changes to production without testing is bad engineering and bad politics
US gridlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Gridlock is not how the system was designed.
Really? As an outsider it seems that the US system is perfectly designed for gridlock. Instead of a prime minister who has the support of the largest party in parliament with a less political upper house which can apply the brakes to any runaway legislative agenda you elect everything independently. This means that all levels of government are highly political and selected independently which sounds like a perfect recipe for gridlock...unless there is a strong, cross party political consensus in which case caution is thrown to the wind and there is nobody around to apply the brakes to give people time to think carefully about what they are doing.
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you object to anything specifically, or just what doesn't benefit you directly? Outside of something big like war, people who say this often object to social security or medical benefits for others (but not for themselves). Or they don't like funding schools in poorer districts (so long as their kids get a good education).
That phrase has little meaning outside of elderly people complaining they can't complain about black people, "the jews", "the gays", and women. Seriously, what do you even mean by that?
How specifically? Do you not like their universal healthcare? Are you one of those fox news Republicans who are "scared of those Muslims"?
Are you saying you don't believe those divisions exist? That's denying the painful reality. Or are you saying that Democrats somehow divide people by acknowledging how some groups of people take advantage of others? For example how wealthy Republicans con poor Republicans into voting away their power by using wedge issues like gun control, abortion, and gay rights.
You basically just said "I haven't suffered, so to hell with those who have". This is wrong on two levels. First, it's selfish as hell. Second, it's short sighted and blind. You probably have suffered and just don't realize what you could have had. Imagine an America not held back by religious political football hindering scientific advancement. Or both parties greedily allowing the financial system - still in power - that wrecked the larger economy. When the economy tanks we all take a hit. Not to mention the cuts to education that might have already turned potential Einsteins into office drones.
Basically your prehistoric beliefs are holding the rest of us back, and we rightfully look at them as something to evolve past.
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Informative)
Europe has a lot of those "scared of those Muslims" politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you object to anything specifically, or just what doesn't benefit you directly?
It's much like all the people that demand removing all government regulation. So what do you want to remove I ask, Food safety laws, or perhaps keeping lead out of paint, or protecting your money in your bank account?
Of course they don't want those removed, because when they say "remove all government regulation", they really mean "remove a particular piece of government regulation that pisses them off".
The middle/low classes have taken real harm (Score:5, Insightful)
If the workforce in this country (the lower and middle classes) got the same fraction of corporate income that they got BEFORE Reagan, everyone would be making DOUBLE in real income per hour than they do now (except perhaps the upper class.)
Imagine what it would DO to the world economy to have a middle/low class in the US that had double the purchasing power, or, maybe 5x the disposable income.
For one thing, affording health care would probably not be so much of an issue for many US people. However, by hogging all the productivity gains up to the upper class, the virtuous cycle has been broken and the economy is largely stagnating. Ironically, this limits the absolute wealth of the upper class.
--PM
Re: (Score:2)
If the workforce in this country (the lower and middle classes) got the same fraction of corporate income that they got BEFORE Reagan, everyone would be making DOUBLE in real income per hour than they do now (except perhaps the upper class.)
Imagine what it would DO to the world economy to have a middle/low class in the US that had double the purchasing power, or, maybe 5x the disposable income.
All that extra income would be moving even faster to the 1% than it is now.
What, you think "the middle class" isn't going to spend its newfound wealth as fast as it's been spending its hard earned wealth for the last 30 years?
Re:no dimocrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to put words in your opponent's mouth, make sure they are coherent. I don't believe suffering is limited by economic class. If you are going to claim liberals are elitist (nice parroting of a GOP talking point), say *why* you believe that. Seriously learn to read. I didn't say it's wrong to call someone black, or jewish, or anything at all as a description. Just that some people like to *complain* (how did you miss that word?) about others, and hide behind "you guys are too PC" as a cover. Though more likely they just use PC as either a dog whistle, or as an alarm to raise a panic about liberals.
" For example how wealthy Republicans con poor Republicans into voting away their power" Does that help with why I believe you're elitist? Seriously, learn to read. (Does that help too?).
Re: (Score:2)
The current President doesn't have the cajoles to be the antithesis of anyone's beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't believe in hateful divisions on the lines of gender, race, heritage, etc, so therefore I'm logically going to vote for a party whose official platform includes denying women the rights to their own bodies, homosexuals the rights to marry the people they love, and actively attempted to limit access to democracy to people of color."
Look, when you've got a shit sandwich and a crazy guy who wants to shoot you in the head, well...shit sandwiches aren't that bad.
No politicians! Anarchy for all! (Score:2)
Once we eliminate all the possibilities for parties to elect, we're left with Anarchy. As it should be. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word. Or at least, the pronunciation.
Re: (Score:3)
Why blame the democratic party for republican talking points?
Because if they really are the opposing party then they should at least try to oppose the talking points of the republicans.
If they can't even pretend to do something different on the major issues then it shows they don't even care anymore
if we know that they are one and the same.
Re: (Score:2)
AC, you are very dense.
My opinion is that as a whole, HIV is slightly better than Ebola, but that's not an endorsement.
Am I playing good virus, bad virus there? Or is it bad virus, horrible virus?
Re: (Score:2)
That all depends. Are you (figuratively) voting for either one? Because if you are, then you are endorsing it... If you vote for someone inside and representing the republican/democrat, or any other party, then you are endorsing the party itself. You are serving party interests(which in turn, are the interests of its financiers). It's supposed to be the other way around, but the demand is just not there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you vote for someone inside and representing the republican/democrat, or any other party, then you are endorsing the party itself.
That's isn't necessarily the case.
In 2012, I voted for Dr. Jill Stein, or the Green Party. I don't endorse the Green Party, since I disagree with most of their party planks. I endorsed the candidate, for reasons that had nothing to do with her party affiliation.
Theoretically, there could be a small handful of Democrats that Masked Coward could support. That doesn't automatically mean he endorses the national party.
"I'lll vote a mixed ticket / None of the Above" (Score:2)
Nice typo. :P
Already voted (Score:2)
Mail-in votes are wonderful. But probably too democratic for most.
Re: (Score:2)
I also mailed mine in. It was neither Democratic nor Republican.
I'll be voting (Score:3)
Bull Moose all the way down.
mailed my ballot a week ago (Score:2)
I live in Oregon where everybody votes because it is painless, since we vote by mail. So, I will not vote for any of the parties, because I already voted. All we have to do now is count the votes.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Oregon where everybody votes because it is painless, since we vote by mail. So, I will not vote for any of the parties, because I already voted. All we have to do now is count the votes.
Must be nice. The fall and the spring are my busy seasons, and I do a lot of traveling in both. I have traveled the past 6 or so election days. I tried to get a Texas absentee/vote by mail ballot and it is incredibly difficult. Unless you are in the military or can prove that you're handicapped, you can't have one. A suspicion that "I won't be in town" isn't good enough.
Sure enough, my boss called me an hour ago and I am on flying tomorrow and won't be in town to vote. Maybe I can get lucky and find
Libertarian? I wish... (Score:3)
There are no Libertarians on my ballot. I did vote mostly for them in the primary, but with the ballot changes in California none of them made it to the general election.
Mind you, I support the change. We just need to be more successful in the primary.
Re: (Score:2)
You could always move to Somalia. (Score:2)
Libertarian paradise.
I voted anti-incumbent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because who wants anyone with experience running the government?
What do you vote for? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What do you vote for? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every two years, we vote for our entire lower house of legislature (House of Representatives) and 1/3 of our upper house (Senate) so that each member there gets a six year term. The half of elections without a Presidental election are considered "mid-terms", because they are in the middle of the presidents term.
Each state also elects a governor, as well as a legislative body. The county (sub state divisions) and city level also have various elections. The states all vary when the elections occur, so that sometimes they line up other elections, sometimes not.
Some states also have judicial elections, which is as stupid an idea as it sounds like.
But, sad truth, due to the way that the lines for various districts are drawn, there are only like 4 elections in the country for the House that are actually close. And given how Senate seats are winner-take-all for the state, there are only a few that are really in play there as well.
Re:What do you vote for? (Score:4, Informative)
We (The Dutch) vote every four years for a lower house (second room; 150 people), who in turns elects the higher house (first room; about 15 people, including the president). And every four years we vote for municipal government, including the mayor. While the lower house elections has options of about 15 political parties, only about 7 have a serious chance of getting seats. They then form a (usually majority) coalition and an opposition.
Municipal elections are similar. However, candidate mayors are sometimes all from the political party. Sow whichever you vote, they may all be in agreement or disagreement with your own views.
Municipal and state elections alternate.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity; what do you Americans vote for? As a European, I am only familiar with the US presidential elections...
Every two years, we vote for our entire lower house of legislature (House of Representatives) and 1/3 of our upper house (Senate) so that each member there gets a six year term. The half of elections without a Presidental election are considered "mid-terms", because they are in the middle of the presidents term.
Each state also elects a governor, as well as a legislative body. The county (sub state divisions) and city level also have various elections. The states all vary when the elections occur, so that sometimes they line up other elections, sometimes not.
Some states also have judicial elections, which is as stupid an idea as it sounds like.
But, sad truth, due to the way that the lines for various districts are drawn, there are only like 4 elections in the country for the House that are actually close. And given how Senate seats are winner-take-all for the state, there are only a few that are really in play there as well.
Don't you guys also vote for local officials from mayors and town councillors and county officials down to judges, sheriffs, district attorneys, garbage collection department chiefs, etc.... ?? Or is it just in hollywood movies where district attorneys, sheriffs and judges are constantly worrying about being re-elected? Here in the old world the only ones elected in local elections are mayors and town/city councillors, and provincial/county level people. Lower officials than that are either appointed by w
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't you guys also vote for local officials from mayors and town councillors and county officials down to judges, sheriffs, district attorneys, garbage collection department chiefs, etc.... ?? Or is it just in hollywood movies where district attorneys, sheriffs and judges are constantly worrying about being re-elected?"
It's true overall -- a lot of elected positions of the kind you name -- but varies a lot from place to place. Judges, sheriffs, district attorneys can all be either elected or appointed; I'
Not Eligible -- Yes, I am a US Citizen (Score:5, Interesting)
No taxation without representation? (Score:3)
As a US citizen living abroad, I am not allowed to vote, and yet I still have to pay taxes. Wasn't that a large part of why the US rebelled against England?
Missing option (Score:3)
I already voted.
Cascadia^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Washington State, 100% vote by mail
.
I'm voting for... (Score:3)
...unelected wealthy people who pay unelected lobbyists to bribe unelected bureaucrats and newly elected congressmen to change laws to favor the wealthy, and do so year after year, regardless of which party is in power.
Why not? It's going to happen anyway until the extremely wealthy worldwide are reigned in or eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Kodos kill a lot of people, m'ok? Might want to be more careful with those statements...
to get third parties matching funds (Score:2)
If enough people vote third party, then they have a chance to get matching funds. It's also a reminder to the two in charge that maybe they should actually do something for the country, not just to prop up their party.
If you're not sure who the third-party candidates are in yourarea, or what their platforms are, go to I Side With [isidewith.org], fill out their little survey (how you feel about various issues + how important you think those issues are), and they'll tell you the candidates whos positions closest match your
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but only DDs are eligible to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that voting for a candidate is voting for a bundle of issues. And you and a bunch of other people are in fact negotiating over what that bundle will be. You/re unlikely, even with 100% perfect knowledge, to be represented accurately 60% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you have access to a computer and the internet. At least you have your priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Watcha gonna do? He's a French Windows admin.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you vote against an incumbent who spent decades running a private business, and vote for the opposing candidate who has spent decades getting elected to one political office after another?
Re: (Score:2)
You're either two years early, or two years late.
I'll let the people vote for which it is.