Dances with taxes

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't have time to watch all of yesterday's debate, but here we go:

Romney: Perish under my torrent of words! This is pretty (b)romantic, man. (Note: Romney spoke for less time than Obama, but spoke more overall.)
Obama: Man, I don't wan' be here, I just wanna be with my wife. Hey - the surface of my lectern is really interesting, people carved all kinds of shit in here.
Jim Lehrer: Gentlemen, this is the debate room, you can't debate in here
Romney: I totally did not change what I'm sayin', man. $5T? You can't say that because I didn't tell you what I'm doing, lol
Obama: ENOUGH COMPULSIVE NODDING TO GIVE THE NEXT CHILD OF EVERY WOMAN IN THE FRONT ROW SIDS even if they'll never be pregnant, that baby is going to die. Steady off the mark, Mr. President!

CNN was running their little Cheer-O-Meter, as usual, with two little lines showing female and male responses (a small group of undecided Colorado voters, I think) and Obama seemed to be doing better among the women than the men, often, and vice versa. Some pretty strange moments. When Romney was tripping over himself trying to get all the words out it seemed like guys loved it. A TRUE LEADER isn't afraid of being wrong, and apparently the men weren't afraid of not knowing what the hell he was talking about (I got most of it but some of it was just your standard boilerplate FREEDOM FREEDOM Social Security and Medicare must be FREEDOM FREEDOM) No real cheer lines here, and lots of missed opportunities for Obama especially. Looks like the President needs to have a big debriefing and get his team to yell at him repeatedly to keep going after things.

Still, it seemed more like a debate and less like a "joint stump speech" for the candiates, but unfortunately this resulted in too much detail for some people to grasp, and that didn't help the President (judging at least by the flat responses to his pounding away - some analysts said he didn't keep at it enough - on the $5T tax issue and Romney's sliding away from his previous plan promises and the obvious consequences of his "tax plan"). freedom freedom freedom! Finally, both candidates took up the moderator on his invitation to define the other guy, which is pretty ridiculous when the other guy is merely going to just say "I didn't say that," and the President's (repeated) line that "if you believe that, you should vote for the other guy" was not wise - it would have been better to keep going after stuff that was wrong and letting people make up their own minds.

[brokenhalo]

No real cheer lines here, and lots of missed opportunities for Obama especially. Looks like the President needs to have a big debriefing and get his team to yell at him repeatedly to keep going after things.

there were a few times during the debate where obama got a big smile on his face about something romney was saying, and each time i thought to myself "here we go. he's going to rip him apart on that." and for some reason it never really happened. as much as i hate to say it, romney came across looking more confident than obama. he had his shit together and put it out a mile a minute. obama made some good points and counterpoints, but his slower cadence and frequent pauses to gather his words made him seem a bit awkward. not that any of it really matters. i don't think very many people are undecided at this point, and these debates aren't going to change much.

[Friendly]

What's the point of these debates?

A president needs to be a good thinker. How does this determine who is the wiser, more intelligent man with better ideas/agenda?

Why don't they have a fistfight instead? That would make just as much sense and provide more entertainment value for the unwashed masses.

[undamned]

What's the point of these debates?

My guess is to sway the fence riders, but ones ability to debate does not change their core values and past decisions (for good or bad).
-ud

[Ed Oscuro]

What's the point of these debates?

A president needs to be a good thinker. How does this determine who is the wiser, more intelligent man with better ideas/agenda?

Why don't they have a fistfight instead? That would make just as much sense and provide more entertainment value for the unwashed masses.

Well, and the funny thing is that these debates were more substantive than the previous ones, by a good deal, because of the new format in large part.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing a lot of the audience (particularly the male side, I'm ashamed to say) was more interested in watching how smart and cocksure Romney looked, without really pausing to think about whether they could understand much either candidate was saying, or whether it was actually true.

But we got Big Bird out of all of this...we'll see how it goes, but so far my nightmare that the Democrats would be complacent and not do their best is starting to look like it was very realistic.

[BulletMagnet]

...we'll see how it goes, but so far my nightmare that the Democrats would be complacent and not do their best is starting to look like it was very realistic.

Said nightmare has only been an all-too-concrete reality for, oh, thirty or forty years now, at least: the fact that such a huge percentage of Americans believe that cutting taxes for rich people magically increases revenue and that our health care system is superior to all others in terms of both costs and outcomes (to say nothing of "Saddam attacked us on 9/11" or "Obama wasn't born in this country") is a pretty grim testament to that fact. Being a liberal in contemporary America is like being a Mets fan - everything always seems to be in place, but you always know it's coming, and that the rich kids will be bragging about how awesome they are all over again.

[Domino]

This year I'm with Gary Johnson. The debate is meh.

[Moniker]

I agree with Ed. The debate was better than usual, but fucking god awful in absolute terms. Pretty feeble on both sides, IMO. Romney (still!) won't say exactly what he plans, and Obama refuses to come up with good reasons why he didn't make good on his promises. It really feels like 2004 all over again - Bush/Romney has vague secret plans to fix everything, but won't tell you what they are, and Kerry/Obama looks like a DNC puppet with no real realistically achievable agenda.

I actually had the privilege of seeing Bill Clinton speak tonight at a local venue. He was asked whether he thought the debates aided the democratic process and said something to this effect: both sides got out their predetermined message. The rest has been an episode of "American Gladiators" (his words), with the media and populace more interested in "who won" than "what they said."

Clinton has the dubious honor of being simultaneously the greatest policy-maker and equivocator of the contemporary era, but good lord, he knows his mind and isn't afraid to say it. This of course is almost entirely due to the fact that he's no longer running for office. We Americans have no one to blame but ourselves for the reality-show horror that is the current political landscape. We reward bullshit with votes, and have dug a hole so deep that it'll probably be my lifetime before we see daylight.

I plan to vote libertarian in an almost pointless protest vote. I figure that since elections are chiefly about out-pandering the opposition, then if libertarians get enough votes, we'll get some small portion of that pandering.

[Friendly]

How is it that an obvious crook and liar like Romney is even up for vote? Only in America. If he gets elected, he's going to be the most crooked president since Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. Awesomesauce.

[GaijinPunch]

not that any of it really matters. i don't think very many people are undecided at this point, and these debates aren't going to change much.

I don't think they ever do. If debates meant shit, Bush would never have gotten into politics.

How is it that an obvious crook and liar like Romney is even up for vote? Only in America.

America's red-headed cousin Japan plays that game. Ozawa ran against whichever PM it was (#4 in 5 years I think) while being tried for abuse of funds. He literally could have been the PM and then be sentenced to jail. He lost, and was eventually aquitted. Very boring.

[Friendly]

Prediction: If Romeny is elected, there'll be at least one war in the next four years, because Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Bechtel, etc. could really use another one after the end of the occupation of Iraq.

[Moniker]

Prediction: If Romeny is elected, there'll be at least one war in the next four years, because Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Bechtel, etc. could really use another one after the end of the occupation of Iraq.

Spouting canned bullshit like this is even worse than living the reality.

[njiska]

Prediction: If Romeny is elected, there'll be at least one war in the next four years, because Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Bechtel, etc. could really use another one after the end of the occupation of Iraq.

Spouting canned bullshit like this is even worse than living the reality.

This is exactly why I hate talking to Americans (bulk of, but not all) about politics. So much sensationalist rhetoric, very little calm discussion, presentation of actual facts or openness to differing ideas. Where clarification of opinion is seen as bullshitting and revising one's opinion based on new information is seen as a lack of resolve.

not that any of it really matters. i don't think very many people are undecided at this point, and these debates aren't going to change much.

I don't think they ever do. If debates meant shit, Bush would never have gotten into politics.

Debates do mean something, but only to the undecided who have an active interest in politics; which I gather is the minority of the American electorate. Feels like most people are either Registered Democrats, Registered Republicans, or apathetic to the whole matter..

[sven666]

since im a foreigner i dont give a shit who wins but i find it hilarious how easily the vote sways..

romney has been the bad guy in the press (atleast over here) for forever, then he "wins" a debate and now hes gonna win the election all of a sudden? lol... the actual politics are thin as a bottlecap, its all about popularity.

another hilarious quote i heard was that "yeah bush was an idiot but atleast he was fun, al gore sucks, hes so boring!" , like theyre talking about dinner guests..

[Acid King]

This is exactly why I hate talking to Americans (bulk of, but not all) about politics.

Nowadays I just tune out when I hear people talking about politics. I would have watched the debates if I thought either of them would say something interesting, but at this point I don't care. The whole campaign has been about minutiae of speech, not of policy or ideas. The major party candidates don't differ in any way when it comes to the issues I care about and Gary Johnson's lawsuit against the CPD won't have any impact on this election cycle, so meh. I'll just keep nerding it up, studying and writing on the issues I care about and leave the bickering over fuckin' Big Bird to the red and blue "GO TEAM!" twats.

[Domino]

I plan to vote libertarian in an almost pointless protest vote. I figure that since elections are chiefly about out-pandering the opposition, then if libertarians get enough votes, we'll get some small portion of that pandering.

You see I disagree with the pointless vote. You got your voice heard and it isn't one of the regulars you are voting for. My opinion is that if you didn't vote you shouldn't be talking about politics period.

[DragonInstall]

Who cares who wins. Both will do nothing for the middle class.

If you're poor and want free stuff you vote Democrat and if you want lower taxes for more money you vote Republican.

For those who actually work in the middle will be the one who are ignored.

So many tools on these forums that believe only one side is right on anything.

[Acid King]

You see I disagree with the pointless vote. You got your voice heard and it isn't one of the regulars you are voting for. My opinion is that if you didn't vote you shouldn't be talking about politics period.

Voting for third parties is worth it solely for the fact reaching certain thresholds can make ballot access easier for them. On the other hand, voting to "make your voice heard" is like trying to show off your vocal talents in a chorus of 120 million people: fucking pointless. If you don't like any of the candidates then you shouldn't vote at all. Given how shitty our electoral process is, not voting shouldn't stop a person from having an opinion.

[Drum]

It is outright retarded to vote for a third party under the US's first past the post system. Change that and then you might be on to something.

[Domino]

Voting for third parties is worth it solely for the fact reaching certain thresholds can make ballot access easier for them. On the other hand, voting to "make your voice heard" is like trying to show off your vocal talents in a chorus of 120 million people: fucking pointless. If you don't like any of the candidates then you shouldn't vote at all. Given how shitty our electoral process is, not voting shouldn't stop a person from having an opinion.

I'm going to have disagree with you on this.

[Ed Oscuro]

Big Bird is about PBS, and PBS is about NPR ultimately too...I don't feel like a twat for caring about that.

The Democrats obviously don't follow every last policy wish I might have, but they are on the right side of more than enough issues for me - for example, they are pushing back against the voter suppression drive the Republicans have been conducting in various states. A lot of people are going to go to the polls this year and be asked for an ID, and if Republicans had their way you would need one to vote, which would be a last-minute change a lot of folks weren't expecting.

[Acid King]

It is outright retarded to vote for a third party under the US's first past the post system.

...unelss you live in a state with threshold values for ballot access, in which case increasing the vote by a small amount can save the party you vote for hundreds of hours of work and tens of thousands of dollars. If you want to get down to it, voting for president itself is retarded because the statistical impact of any one person's vote is insignificant. You're better off just voting for local offices and being done with it.

Big Bird is about PBS, and PBS is about NPR ultimately too...I don't feel like a twat for caring about that.

NPR receives such a small portion of their funding through the feds that they could cut themselves off from public funding and be done with it. I don't know why they don't just do that, considering the outpouring of support they would likely receive from donors would probably outmatch what they get from the government anyway.

[BulletMagnet]

A lot of people are going to go to the polls this year and be asked for an ID, and if Republicans had their way you would need one to vote, which would be a last-minute change a lot of folks weren't expecting.

The best part is that the only plausible incidents of voter fraud so far this election season have occurred on the GOP side.

[DragonInstall]

I don't really pay attention to politics, but what's so bad about showing ID before you vote?

I can think of a shit ton of things where I have to show ID before I can do something, so why is this such an issue?

[njiska]

I don't really pay attention to politics, but what's so bad about showing ID before you vote?

I can think of a shit ton of things where I have to show ID before I can do something, so why is this such an issue?

The issue is a bit misstated. The problem isn't having identification be required, but having Photo ID specifically, which not everyone has.

[Ex-Cyber]

Prediction: If Romeny is elected, there'll be at least one war in the next four years, because Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Bechtel, etc. could really use another one after the end of the occupation of Iraq.

They don't need an actual war to make money. As long as there's a hypothetical future war with Iran or China or Ubekibekibekibekistanstan, we have to be ready. Also, those companies are involved in tons of highly expensive non-military stuff (Big Dig, anyone?).

I don't really pay attention to politics, but what's so bad about showing ID before you vote?

I can think of a shit ton of things where I have to show ID before I can do something, so why is this such an issue?

There's a small-but-not-trivial number of people whose lives simply do not include those things. Some people are unable to drive for medical/financial/legal reasons, some people don't have enough money to have any real use for a bank account (and/or don't trust banks to hold on to their money; gee, they must be crazy), and so on.

Furthermore, in many cases where you would use a government photo ID, it's technically not required and is just the most straightforward way for most people to meet the actual underlying ID requirement.

There's another (arguably peripheral) issue: unless acceptable IDs are available at no charge, a requirement to have one to vote could be construed as being in violation of the 24th Amendment.

[BryanM]

"Both sides are equal." - sure they are. Sure they are.

Still waging a war over whether employers should have to pay their employees anything. Fuck's sake.

I don't really pay attention to politics, but what's so bad about showing ID before you vote?

What's wrong with a poll tax? What's wrong with Jim Crow?

Our constitution suggests those things aren't kosher.

Let's leave the rampant hypocrisy of "conservatives" attempting to change and corrupt an institution that's been working well since Flash Gordan was racing dinosaurs back on Pluto as an aside.

This is the same species of rot that brought us the "let's look at people's wieners when they pee into a cup if they want welfare" plague. Solve a problem that doesn't exist so we can pat ourselves on the back for how awesome we are for wasting shitloads of the public's time and money so we can feel morally superior about ourselves.

[Ed Oscuro]

If you want to get down to it, voting for president itself is retarded because the statistical impact of any one person's vote is insignificant. You're better off just voting for local offices and being done with it.

Except in those cases where a relative handful of votes sway the election. Florida, 2000, ring any bells?

I don't really pay attention to politics, but what's so bad about showing ID before you vote?

Aside from the fact that it's outright hypocrisy from "get guv'mint outta my life" style conservatives, many people actually do not have IDs - they don't drive or otherwise have a use for photo ID. Many people are still alive who lived at a time when you didn't need a photo ID for everything, too.

Additionally, this push really got underway about a year and a half before the election. Pure attempt to catch people unawares who don't have a photo ID or have problems with their current one.

If you want to think about it in terms of rights:

Your right to vote
vs.
Your right not to have your vote watered down by illegitimate votes

...Guess which one I picked? It's the more important one by far. Besides, the parties have and exercise the option to scour the rolls of voters for bad entries.

A lot of people are going to go to the polls this year and be asked for an ID, and if Republicans had their way you would need one to vote, which would be a last-minute change a lot of folks weren't expecting.

The best part is that the only plausible incidents of voter fraud so far this election season have occurred on the GOP side.

Yup. Almost all the academics agree that - over the years - it's not been a problem. I've only heard one (obviously right-wing sympathetic at that) who claimed otherwise.

[Domino]

I really don't see how hard it is to show an ID when voting. You need an ID for anything nowadays, which to be honest it is fine with me.

[Ed Oscuro]

You don't need a voter ID for everything (lots of people don't drive), and it costs money. There is a constitutional amendment against poll taxes in the U.S., and people shouldn't be getting photo IDs just to vote. Again, though, the latest round of voter ID debate should have started after an election, not in the leadup to one.