It's really easy actually. He has not represented my views sufficiently to have earned my vote. If the Forvm faithful recall, I believe he should be impeached for failing to prosecute credible allegations of torture that occurred in the Bush administration. Our treaty obligations require this, and he has chosen to ignore them.
For the record, I have been eligible to vote in 2 Presidential elections. In 2004, I voted for Michael Badnarik (L), and in 2008 I voted for Ralph Nader (I). I am currently undecided for 2012.
My friends here (and a good deal of the people I know) tell me, essentially, that a vote for anyone but Obama is a vote for Romney. I also get "but you live in OHIO! Maybe if you lived in New York, sure, but OHIO!". I've heard it for years. Here's my defense of my minorpartyphilia.
1) Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Is Obama better than Romney? Yes. Will Romney or Obama win the election? Yes. Do either of these matter? No. Voting is quite possibly the most useless thing someone can do to change government policy (more on that later). Voting is properly understood as a declaration of principles and preferences. I'm a principled person and if someone doesn't earn my vote, they don't get it. It's as simple as that. If it came down to me and my vote determined if Obama won the election, I still wouldn't vote for Obama. The consequences of my vote are not important. If Romney wins and thousands of people die because of the PPACA repeal that is sure to ensue, that is still not my fault. That's Romney's fault for signing the bill, Congress's fault for passing it, and the fault of all the people who voted for Romney.
2) A single vote doesn't (usually) matter
A person's vote is only useful for changing the outcome of an election if the winning candidate wins by exactly one vote. I don't believe this has ever happened in a federal election (the closest I can find is the 1974 US Senate election for New Hampshire). If you're worried about changing the outcome of an election, you should be dealing with GOTV operations, phone banking, etc. in states that are in play. Doing that can help swing an election. My vote doesn't affect anyone else's vote. If I vote for Ralph Nader, that adds exactly one vote to Ralph Nader's totals. It does not swing multiple votes to his column.
Why usually? In local races, it could come down to one vote. I've seen Sunday Sales here*** go down to a single vote or tie in several cases. Pragmatism might be advisable at such a low level.
This is also why I don't mind to "waste" my vote by voting for someone who "can't win". My vote isn't that valuable to begin with, so it isn't much of a waste. I wonder what the adherents to this belief that voting for a minor party/independent candidate is a waste counsel Utah Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) to do. Obama can't win Utah. It won't happen. Romney can't lose and will probably set a record for largest margin of victory in a particular state. In the 2008 primaries he received 90% of the vote in Utah. Why would anyone hold their nose and vote for either over someone like Virgil Goode, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein if those people better represent their views? Based on the fact that Obama can't win, the only logical conclusion to draw is that one must vote for Romney. The reverse is true in Vermont.
***In Ohio, if a business wants to sell alcohol on a Sunday, the precinct in which the business is located votes whether or not to allow it. Precincts are usually around 300-700 people, and with turnout rates in the 10% range for off-year primaries, one vote can really make a difference.
3) The major parties are downright hostile to the idea of free and fair elections.
Ballot access laws among the several states are largely arbitrary and discriminatory. The laws, even when followed, are unequally applied. In 2008, all parties in Ohio had to provide their nominees for President on the same date in August. In 2012, the legislature passed a bill explicitly giving parties with over 20% of the vote in the last election a few extra weeks. Why? The last convention this year isn't until then. Why not give everyone extra time? Because screw them, that's why. They're the competition by God! Were you aware that in Texas, both John McCain and Barack Obama missed the deadline to be placed on the ballot? They did, but the SoS put them on the ballot anyway and when Bob Barr filed suit, the state supreme court denied their petition.
What does this have to do with Obama? He's a member of a major party, and I haven't heard him say word one on equal ballot access.
As I said, at the moment I'm undecided. It'll probably be Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein, but Gary Johnson might make his way in there. And of course, it depends who is on my ballot (although that'd be because of inept campaigns as Ohio's ballot access law is quite easy at the moment -- namely we don't have a constitutional way to qualify a new party and the state legislature hasn't repaired this defect in four years).
If anyone wants to convince me to vote for Obama on his merits, I'm listening.
Very impressive CV for Mr Rocky Anderson
(#287019)via The Guardian.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I already posted my response in another diary
(#287020)There are already too many that don't vote who should.
It's one of the top reasons why the crazy Republicans still have a shot. Many potential voters are faced with significant hurdles to overcome in exercising the franchise, and too often face additional hurdles imposed by vested interests who don't want them to vote. Guess what? OH is one of those places, just as it was in 2004. 'My one measly vote won't count' is just about the worst excuse imaginable in that context, especially coming from someone who would not appear to face the same obstacles to voting.
My 2c
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
And again
(#287021)I'm confused as to why this would apply to me. I will probably vote for someone for President.
People should vote, assuming they understand why they are voting. Frankly people who don't know why they're voting for a candidate or don't know his policies shouldn't be voting at all.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
I Take this as a Personal Failure on My Part...
(#287025)...if I have failed to convince you that the Supreme Court's direction for the next 30 years was not a thing of honest value and sufficient reason unto itself to vote for Obama...then I have failed.
This is not to say that your position and feelings on this are wrong...but I have sincerely tried to move you and other people...if I have failed, I failed, it's not your fault.
Back to the hustlings.
10,000 people feeling and behaving like you can change 300 million lives here in America and around the world.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Two thoughts
(#287026)1) Actually 537 people feeling and behaving like I did gave us...nothing. Bush didn't appoint any SCOTUS justices in his first term.
2) I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to the court. I quote Scalia in my signature and have repeatedly made favorable references to Clarence Thomas.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
In an election where the choices are
(#287027)"imperfect" (or even flawed) and batsh!t crazy, I know which I'm going to choose.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
You have another choice
(#287032)I promise you do.
Lets put it this way, if you knew with 100% certainty that Obama was going to win the election, who would you vote for?
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
I'd vote for Obama...
(#287045)... if for no other reason than the fact that it would infuriate the loonies that have taken over the GOP.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
I have to say of all the candidates i have heard of...
(#287223)The president represents the closest to my views on fiscal and foreign policy... I mean no one is supporting great progressively in taxation or overhaul that is progressive like a progressive VAT and a phase out of income tax after the debt is paid off. Its funny but Scalia lost all credibility on the AHA. Breaking many of his own presidents in regard to the commerce clause and severability. only the greens are close on climate policy and their energy and foreign policy are unacceptable. The libertarians are screwed up on the Fed/monetary policy etc. and an over emphasis on individualism and not enough on community. The GOP wants us to default on the debt but there answers flatten taxes and don't balance the debt let alone if you are not making it easier to vote then I have no time for you ever. I'm hard pressed to find anyone close to the President and he in many ways sucks. I have also heard that they did not prosecute War crimes for fear of fracturing the country to the point of armed conflict.
I guess the question I have is do you vote on policy? If not how do you judge who to vote for?
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Not only do I vote on policy
(#287339)That's actually the only thing that anyone should be considering. A simple dispassionate analysis of policy. Put yourself on an n-dimensional coordinate system and figure out who is closest to you, then vote for them.
Ok, I lied. You might want to vote for someone farther away if you want to move policy in a particular direction. These are the reasons why I'd consider voting for Ron Paul and other libertarians.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
It's as if millions of Nader 2000 voters suddenly cried out
(#287029)in terror, and were suddenly silenced. If you only knew how your arguments bring me back to October 1999 or so. I'm not going to convince you to vote Obama on the merits, so I won't try. But some rebuttals to your reasoning:
1) "The consequences of my vote are unimportant." - Fallacy. You're focusing on the denominator, when you should be focusing on the numerator. Yes, you're just one out of 4.5 million Ohio voters, and 1/4,500,000 is a very small number. But what is the categorical imperative? You say you are a person of principle. Act only according to that principle whereby you can, at the same time, desire that it should be a universal law. What happens if large numbers of people make the same calculus, and decide that voting is, essentially, a waste of their time? Obviously then our government will soon belong to those who are motivated to vote. It is a positive duty to vote. Not a duty in that the government should punish you or that you should be shunned by your peers. Rather, it is the duty that is incumbent on every citizen of a democracy, in that taking upon themselves the responsibility to vote is itself the one thing that makes democracy possible, that enables the continuation of our republic. The more people shirk that responsibility, the less "democratic" we are. Your responsibility as a citizen is to focus on the numerator...you are only one vote, but that vote must be valued, and it must be exercised, or else you are damaging this thing we have going here. You are the only one who can do anything about the "value" of the number on top of the bar.
I don't, however, view third party votes as "wasted" votes in all cases (though in this case I do), so the above isn't really directed at your entire argument. Just rebutting your 2) in general terms. I'm glad you're voting for someone, but I wish you'd vote as if it mattered. In fact, you must vote as if you are responsible for the consequences of your vote.
2) "Voting is properly understood as a declaration of principles and preferences." No. Declaring your principles and preferences is properly understood as a declaration of principles and preferences. Voting is about participating in a contest which has consequences. Politics itself is the art of managing consequences. Just like hockey is the art of smashing a puck into a net...through your opponent's teeth if necessary...politics too is a game. Game of Clowns. But the thing about the game of clowns is that the "score" at the end causes people to get killed, people get rich or go broke, your taxes go up, your taxes go down, a bunch of morons compile a list of transparent lies in order to invade Iraq. You reject consequentialism? You're rejecting politics itself. Which is an option! You're free to do that! But don't imagine you can avoid consequences thereby...and don't imagine you can avoid responsibility either (see #1).
You see, the current state of play in this country is that one of two parties are going to win the election and run the WH. One of two parties will control each house of Congress and, increasingly, one of two parties will control the Supreme Court as well. (Couple vacancies are coming up here pretty soon too, in case you forgot.) These are the only possible outcomes, for now.
Now here's a logical confluence. The game has only two outcomes, and those outcomes will affect everything you care about, and yet you say you're not responsible for the outcome. It's no time to stand on principle! But of course, your response is...
3) "Whatever the greater of two evils does, it's not my fault!" In other words, Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos! Even if your vote decided the election for Romney, you say, even if he repeals PPACA and thousands die, even if he starts an idiotic & unwinnable war with Iran, you're not responsible for Romney's actions. Because you made your wishes plain! You stood on principle! You didn't vote for the bastidd. You exercised your vote in the way it was meant to be exercised! Well, not really. Again, you can reject consequentialism, but you can't avoid consequences.
You know the game has only two outcomes. You know thanks to #1 that you are the only person who can cast your own vote, and you know that your vote will have an effect (however negligible...negligibility is unimportant here) on the outcome. The inescapable conclusion is that you are responsible for that outcome. Uniquely responsible? Yes! You are indeed uniquely responsible for casting your own ballot.
4) "Obama's no different than Romney!" You didn't say this exactly, and thank God because it's become an infuriating cliche at this point, but it's similar to the argument you are making. To wit, for you, Obama isn't different *enough* from Romney to get your vote.
US electoral politics isn't about picking your ideal candidate. The time for picking your ideal candidate is, like, years ago. You're contacting Rocky Anderson, you're throwing money his way, you're talking him up to your friends. You're grooming your guy. Maybe you're getting him ready for 2016, or 2020. But *this* election can only have one of two outcomes, and Rocky Anderson ain't it.
In this country you don't vote for your ideal candidate unless you a) have built one from scratch as above or b) you get very, very lucky. Most voters don't vote for their ideal, they vote for "better" and against "worse." Sometimes that means, like you're saying here, picking the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it means picking the better of two goods, or the slightly less sucky of two mediocres.
In US politics you vote directionally. You vote for the Republican, and everything to his or her right. You vote for the Democrat, and everything to his or her left. Often the two candidates are so close to either as to be indistinguishable, but your vote is not an endorsement of the candidate, the platform, the party and the entire system. It is merely an attempt to gain a more agreeable outcome rather than a less agreeable outcome.
Principles, principles have no business in elections. If you want to stand on principle you either needed to start a long time ago, or you need to be willing to wait a long time from now. *This* election is beyond the reach of your principles. The game is afoot. And your timing is all wrong here.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Thanks for the considered reply
(#287044)1) Voting is not a waste of one's time. It is simply not useful in determining the winner a national election. In fact voting is extremely important. I'm trying to figure out where I said it wasn't important or that people shouldn't do it. People should be engaged and vote for whom they think will best represent their views.
2) Voting only has consequences in the aggregate, and I don't control the aggregate. I control one vote. Yes, if a critical mass of people believe and act as I do, Obama will lose. That's actually not a problem with us, that's a problem with our voting system, which is objectively the second worst voting method ever devised (thank you, Jean-Charles de Borda). I'll talk about that later.
3) I am only responsible for Obama losing Ohio. I can live with Obama losing. I can live with Romney winning. Hell, I can live with Sarah Palin winning. With all the talk around here you'd think we're all going to die if Romney wins. No, it'll suck and we'll probably be in another war, but we'll live. Living is fine with me. I actually have a morbid curiosity as to how things will go if the Republicans sweep all 3 elections. I'd like to see them refuse to raise the debt limit and watch unemployment hit 15%.
4) Obama's differences between Romney have no bearing on me voting for him. Obama is actually quite different on many issues than Romney is. Unfortunately that's because Romney has become a right-wing caricature, not because Obama is some sort of liberal extraordinaire. From where I stand Obama is a moderate Republican by the standards of the 90s and he'd have been a fire-breathing conservative in the 60s/70s. There was a great metaphor for how our political system works...a ratchet. And lucky for you I found it:
Just a decade ago, an individual mandate to purchase health insurance was respectable conservative healthcare plan. Today it is a tyrannical threat to liberty, second only to the Communist Manifesto. No one seems to understand this, and if they do, they mutter something about the Overton Window and go about their day. To quote a great character by a really crappy actor, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills." No one seems to care that in 20 years, the mere idea of having taxes on capital gains would be some sort of Marxist plot. You and the rest of the "at least we're better than North Korea" cheerleaders are the ones leading us down this path. One thing the Tea Party folks have right is that they aren't afraid to throw a few elections to the Democrats in order to scare the bejeebus out of the Republicans and whip them into shape for the next primary. If you want to work within the Democratic Party to move them left, I can respect that, but you can't blindly support whichever yahoo has a D next to his name because he's "better than the Republican". The Democrat is always going to be better than the Republican. It's a friggin tautology.
5) If Obama goes on TV tomorrow and says he's going to make approval, instant runoff, or (saints be praised) Schulze method voting a priority, I am an Obama voter. If the Democrats make this a prominent part of their platform, I am a straight ticket Democrat voter. Oddly enough if you switch Obama with Romney and change the parties around, the proposition still holds. For all this complaining about spoiling elections or wasting votes, it wouldn't take much for stubborn folks like myself to become much more amenable to voting for Democrats. If there really are that many disaffected members of the left that are sitting at home, the Democrats could be the head of a majority coalition for decades. Instead they choose to work against like-minded folks and support laws to make it harder for them to get on the ballot. Here's an idea, instead of berating people like me, how's about you make it such that we'll want to put Democrats down as their 2nd choice, which will win a lot more elections for a liberal coalition. Unfortunately, we get "this is the system we have, so live with it", conveniently forgetting that those in power have the ability to change the system for the better.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
"I'd like to see ... unemployment hit 15%"
(#287050)I guess that's the big difference between us. I'm not so sanguine about that level of suffering, nor am I completely insulated from that kind of damage to the economy - and whether you realize it or not, neither are you.
I blame it all on the Internet
Yep. Ignoring consequences isn't the same as avoiding them. -nt-
(#287053).
M Aurelius was probably right.
The consequence of my vote
(#287090)Is simply that one candidate has one more than he would have otherwise had. The consequences of that are slim to none.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
I used to think
(#287088)that Gore or Bush would not have made a difference after Sept 2011. After my visit through the US this year, I've changed my opinion. The outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, bin Laden's elimination timeline etc might have been very different.
An overt climate change denier and conspiracy theorist in the VP's position would probably make an actual difference from today's position of vacillation.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
"I can live with Obama losing. I can live with Romney winning."
(#287056)Well there's your entire decision in a nutshell. You do vote based on consequences after all, you just have a different view of the consequences of this election than a lot of other people. Well I'm with Hank, I think a future of more Citizens United, Kelo, Bush v. Gore, etc. is a bad future. I think letting Republicans roll back Obamacare and defund Medicare will be bad for the country. I think the massive and rapidly expanding wealth gap will make democracy untenable within a couple of decades.
You say you'd like to see 15% unemployment, just to see what happens. Well you're looking at it! The U6 unemployment measure stands at 14.5% nationwide. It's been that way since 2009. It probably doesn't matter much to you, but that's a lot of people who'll never get some of their best working years back. The people who are wrecking public education may not bother you that much, but kids don't get their prime learning years back either. If this election comes down to nothing more than either holding those numbers steady, or seeing them get much worse, I'd pick the tread water option.
Democrats just passed universal health care! It's the biggest single piece of health reform legislation since 1965. They aren't (always) the pawl.
M Aurelius was probably right.
In other news
(#287061)The rulers of Yorubistan passed a law
finingtaxing anyone who can't read $800, therefore, they now have "universal literacy".What eeyn said
(#287091)The ACA is not universal health care. Universal health care is what they have in France, Canada, the UK, etc. Universal health care is described as:
1) Are you a US Citizen?
2) If yes, you can receive necessary care without regard to your abilty to pay
We have overlapping plans and subsidies that kinda, sorta gets us part of the way there. If I am a US citizen, I do not have health care. In fact I'm taxed for not having it.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Incorrect, and missing the point.
(#287098)Under Obamacare, if you are a US citizen, or legal alien, then you are required to either purchase insurance or pay the tax penalty (if you pay taxes), and are eligible for subsidies if you cannot pay. Whether you carry insurance or pay the fine, you can receive "necessary" care through a variety of methods (public clinics, ERs, etc.). It's a weird hodgepodge, but it does in fact reach nearly everyone, hence universal. No sense doing the true Scotsman thing just because it isn't single payer.
Missing the point because whether it meets your rigorous definition of universal coverage or not, the law for the first time makes it the federal government's business to guarantee minimum health care for everyone, not just the elderly, indigent and disabled.
This is an enormous legal change, even if the pragmatic changes are fitful and messy for a decade or two.
Social Security & Medicare weren't "universal" for the first several years of their existence.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Protip
(#287178)"nearly everyone" is not actually "everyone".
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
As a legal precedent, regarding Congress' powers
(#287187)to promote the general welfare, it's more than close enough.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Obama & the Democrats in Congress blew healthcare reform.
(#289031)Obama campaigned for Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/Medicare for all Americans while he was a POTUS Candidate, and then took that, along with public option, off the table and passed a 20 year old, warmed-over GOP-written healthcare "reform" bill that had been written while Bill Clinton was POTUS. The fact that people with pre-existing conditions won't have protection until 2014 is a serious flaw in this bill, and the fact that many people are still uninsured despite its having passed is also disgraceful. Equally, if not more disgracefully, the Obama Administration allowed abortion rights to be taken off the table for this body of legislature to be enacted, which is totally disgusting.
Had Obama and the Democrats in Congress gone back to the drawing board, really put their heads together, concocted and enacted a general healthcare reform bill that entailed Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/Medicare for all Americans, things would've been better. Instead, Obama and the Democrats in Congress took the easy way out and passed a lousy healthcare reform bill that leaves lots of people unprotected, and unaffordable for many.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Sorry for the late reply, MaPol. I think you're incorrect
(#289152)about Obama's health care positions. What Obama campaigned for was a "universal" health care plan made up of exchanges offering guaranteed coverage, defined-benefit plans from a number of private providers, plus a Medicare-like "public option." This was never a single-payer health care plan...Obama never campaigned for single-payer health care, mostly because he knew it would never find votes in Congress.
Obama's big evolution on health care was that his original plan (during the primaries) did not include the so-called individual mandate, i.e. a government requirement to purchase private health insurance. That was Hillary's position, and he was against it until after he won the nomination. Then he said he was dragged "kicking and screaming" to the conclusion that the mandate was necessary to make the exchange system work financially. It was one of his biggest flip-flops on policy.
I might agree with you that a Single Payer health reform bill would have been a better way to go than what we got, but if you go and look at the votes in Congress, and not only the votes but the constituencies, the voters behind those votes, and there's no way you will find a path through Congress that would result in passing anything like Medicare For All. Single Payer is a political impossibility at this point in US history.
As for waiting until 2014 before kicking in the full provisions of Obamacare, I believe that was done for simple business reasons. It takes time to expand the entire insurance & health system to the point where the money & resources are in place to even make universal coverage possible. (And Obamacare coverage is truly universal: everyone in the country will be covered either by private care, employer-based plans, Medicaid or Medicare.)
M Aurelius was probably right.
I disagree, Jordan.
(#289660)Obama may have campaigned for a Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/Medicare for all Americans, but that's sure not what we got when he enacted that warmed-over 20 year old GOP-written body of legislature that passes for a healthcare "reform" bill.
I stand by my position that Obama and the Democrats in Congress when they took the easy way out and enacted that shoddy healthcare "reform" bill, instead of going back to the drawing board, really putting their heads together, and concocting and enacting a genuine healthcare reform bill that entailed Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/Medicare for all Americans. As a matter of fact, one of the first things that Obama did pretty much the minute he took office was to take Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/medicare off of the table, and, like the GOP, he, too, is planning on cutting medicare and social security. Obama, I'm sorry to say, is not somebody to be romanticized. He, too, is fatally flawed.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
They took the easy way out
(#289665)by barely passing the bill with plenty of compromises. Not sure how you see single payer as a viable alternative that would pass in the senate.
I blame it all on the Internet
No
(#287196)You may be able to get treatment, but you'll have a hard time digging out from the bill - which will be far larger than insurance companies pay. An astonishing number of people go bankrupt because of health-care bills. Like this guy.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/uninsured-aurora-shooting-v...
They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864
Nit...
(#287282)In France you don't need to be a citizen. Just a permanent legal resident. I suspect Canada is the same.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Sure
(#287340)That's over and above what I consider universal health care. Universal to me means anyone who is a citizen. If a country wants to go above and beyond, I'm ok with that, although I wouldn't support it.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The healthcare bill that was enacted into law 2 years ago
(#289661)is not Universal Healthcare, Jordan. It's really a bill that's modeled after the healthcare 'reform" bill that Mitt Romney passed here in the Bay State while he was governor here, which absolutely required people to buy health insurance, pay a heavy fine, or worse, possibly be jailed for a period of time. Moreover, there are still people here in the Bay State without health insurance, so that, right then and there, says something of what it's about.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Not sure what you are counting on...
(#287895)...as a guarantee that you will live if there is a war. War has been shown to be very unpredictable, and you are certainly young enough to be forced into service against your will. My perception of you is of someone whose mood might not be affected too much either way by the economy, but who might not like to be given a gun and told to go shoot people, or else.
Yup, the "detached observer" bit is over done nt
(#287903).
I blame it all on the Internet
I'd sit in prison before I was drafted
(#287915)I'd also consider fleeing to a friendly jurisdiction. I hear Sweden is the new place to go if one was drafted.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The chances
(#287916)that either Obama or Romney would start a war resulting in actual fighting in Ohio, or a draft, are very low.
I'd defend Ohio
(#287926)I'm a state nationalist through and through. Although I'd prefer to be in the Ohio Military Reserve or an irregular militia, I'd definitely do all I could to defend Ohio in case of invasion.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
If you're talking to me, skymutt,
(#289773)there's no way I'd be called to serve in a war against my will, because I'm old enough so that I wouldn't be called.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"Voting for the lesser of two evils"
(#287033)I'm amazed that you believe Badnarik and Nader are completely evil-free. Because otherwise your entire argument falls apart. I hate to tell you, but no human being is completely evil-free.
You're trading the admittedly small (but nonetheless existing) influence you do have in a swing state for some sort of faux moral purity that doesn't even exist. The idea that you will allow all to fall rather than sully the purity of your choice is imagining a purity that doesn't exist in the real world.
I blame it all on the Internet
I'd argue that
(#287057)an "evil" candidate, is someone who taken on the whole will make things worse. A lesser evil is one that will do it more slowly, but still in the wrong direction. There's no point considering which one has the more realistic chance of winning. Romney and Obama both propose to move us in the wrong direction.
OTOH, if a candidate would move things in the right direction -even slowly and with lots of spots and backsliding and bits of evil here and there - then I'm willing to consider their electoral chances in making a decision.
Basically, I'm going to pick the least unrealistic of the acceptable candidates that make the ballot. Too bad the Rs and Ds haven't nominated anyone I considered acceptable in my entire adult life.
That's trying to redefine your way out of it
(#287063)"lesser of two evils" is a pretty simple concept, and the fact is that since there are no perfect candidates you will always be picking the lesser of X evils. Which is basically what you're saying in your penultimate sentence.
The other key point is that the House is 100% R or D and the Senate is 98% R or D. Seeing how the Republicans stonewalled Obama every time he was trying to compromise with them, a President elected with a 7 point margin of victory, a President who has a major party behind him, what makes you think either of the major parties would sign on to what an independent or third party President would propose? President != dictator, without legislative support there is precious little that a President can accomplish.
I blame it all on the Internet
Evil means less than perfect?
(#287064)What a country.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Libertarians have rigorous standards
(#287183)few can ever hope to match up to. The chosen leader of a major party? Fugedabowdit.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Don't be silly
(#287210)In the context of the phrase that's exactly what it means.
I blame it all on the Internet
Less than perfect
(#287221)Intentionally ramping up deportations of thousands of people brought here as children for two years, so that he could make a big show of granting a reprieve right before the election. Just a tiny peccadillo.
Life imprisonment without trial by executive order. A slight, slight flaw.
Giving aid and protection to torturers. Well, no one's perfect.
Jeez, you guys are at both extremes
(#287278)brutus complains because I equate "less than perfect" with evil, and you complain because "less than perfect" isn't calling him evil enough. It's an expression, not a mathematical formula. Strangely, most people don't seem to have any problem understanding it.
I blame it all on the Internet
Precious little?
(#287177)"there is precious little that a President can accomplish."
That's a big problem only if your belief is that the government does too little. What a third party president can accomplish is use the veto power to prevent the government from expanding unless there is a 2/3 majority behind it in both houses. By judiciously playing off the two sides against each other he can effectively raise that to 3/4 or even 4/5.
There are some things government has to do
(#287285)like pay it's debts. Remember that the Republicans threatened to block that. There was also a bit of economic problems a few years ago, most people are somewhat relieved that the government kept the entire banking system from freezing up. Your plan would guarantee gridlock, when a true crisis came along (as happened only 4 years ago) nothing would get done. I think the chances of a third party president playing Ds an Rs off against each other is approximately 0.
I blame it all on the Internet
Oh, come on!
(#289033)Obama brought all the crap down on his own head by surrounding himself with people who helped get this country into the mess that it's presently in, to begin with.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'm not sure what purpose is served here.
(#287041)It seems to me that you went to some effort to explain what you will/will not do with something that in your opinion "isn't that valuable to begin with". I mean if you really don't think it's valuable and that the consequences of your vote "are not important", why tell us anything at all about it?
This will be my 11th.
sending a message to the Man
(#287043)I'm no expert on US elections, but isn't registering as a Green voter or registering as a Peace and Freedom voter etc, arguably an individual's best bet at influencing the electoral process? Isn't whether or not a candidate's name is included on the ballot determined by the number of registered party members? (Needless to say, the required number is a lot less than that needed to win the presidency.)
I am wrong in claiming that your purpose, sending a message to the Man, is even better served by registering for a third party regardless of who you actually vote for, if anyone. I understand that in Ohio large numbers of special absentee ballots were not counted, or even examined in the Bush vs. Kerry election of 2004. There has to be a better way of making your voice heard.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Not even close
(#287046)There are 51 different sets of laws regarding how someone's name may be placed on the ballot -- one for each state + DC.
You guys have your 10 signatures and the deposit. Here there are some states where a non-Democrat or Republican hasn't been on the ballot for several election cycles (Oklahoma is particularly bad...I believe it's something like 73,000 signatures to put a name on the ballot there). Some states have never had an independent qualify to appear on a ballot...ever. Machine-printed ballots go back nearly 100 years.
Some states don't even have registration by party. Some states determine if a party is still officially a party based on the last popular vote for the office of Secretary of State (Indiana), some based on the last vote for Governor or President.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
BTW Stine
(#287060)You're in Ohio, right? Are you still in the situation of having no ballot access law after the old one was ruled unconstitutional, with everything being run by court order?
Yes
(#287092)That is the case right now. Basically, if you want access to the ballot as a party, you have to sue the Secretary of State and show that you have a modicum of support. The laws to put an independent on the ballot are still constitutional.
This actually creates some odd problems in the down-ticket races. I'll get to that when I have a free moment.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
I don't think this is true
(#287055)It is just as accurate to say that 2004 was decided by 100,000 people in Ohio who didn't vote for Kerry, as it is to say that it was decided by the 62 million people in the whole US who voted for Bush. Absence of action is an action... if you're drowning, I have a life-saver, and I don't throw it to you, my lack of action is responsible for your fate. Trying to evade my responsibility by saying I committed no affirmative action to drown you is useless.
So even if you concentrate on the denominator as Jordan says, think of the consequences using a denominator like 100,000. If the next President is responsible for killing 100,000 people, and you got 1/100,000 of the blame, is that the equivalent of taking a life yourself?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
I'd change the quote slightly
(#287067)to
I think that makes it a little clearer.
I blame it all on the Internet
"fault of...the people didn't vote against Romney"
(#287070)ya, and if we teach evolution in schools, the kids will act like a bunch of great apes.
your qualms lie with too many people realizing their vote won't matter in all likelihood.
I understand the urge to tell everyone that they shouldn't pay attention to the man behind the green curtain of single votes not mattering, but that doesn't mean there isn't a man behind the green curtain of single votes not mattering.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
If you don't want to vote, don't vote
(#287288)but it is the only workable system yet devised to allow the public to have feedback into the political system. Perhaps monarchy suits your disposition better?
I blame it all on the Internet
keep in mind
(#287300)I was talking about what one person does on election day while voting.
I still get that pretending that a single vote really matters is an convenient lie to get people moving, but joining a Single-vote-doesn't-matter-99.999999999999999%-of-the-time Denial Cult doesn't make that vote really matters.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Nothing you do matters
(#287305)heck, you could go on a killing spree and you'd probably only kill 10 - 20 people max before you were killed or captured, right? Yeah, you'd make the news for a week or two but then you'd be forgotten. And 20 people, really in the grand scheme of things that's nothing.
So if I were you I'd just completely give up on life because nothing you do matters.
I blame it all on the Internet
That would have an actual impact dude, get more pedantic
(#287318)Informing people that their vote very very likely won't matter is different than actually realizing your vote probably won't matter.
I could could only add a tiny bit of heat to an ice cube in a freezer, it doesn't mean the whole thing will turn to water, single votes don't matter, informing people of this matters a lot more.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Like I said
(#287364)maybe a monarchy or a dictatorship would suit you better.
I blame it all on the Internet
These aren't the droids I'm looking for? why wave your hand?
(#287474)it's really not that difficult of a concept to accept
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Sooo...
(#287491)a vote doesn't matter but voting in aggregate matters? That seems like trying to square a circle to me. I don't see how you can have one without the other.
I blame it all on the Internet
A couple rocks in a pick-up, truck is fine
(#287506)At a certain point, too many rocks in a pick-up, truck not able to move.
that just goes for the results of whether the truck can handle the weight or not.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Hmm...
(#287320)McVeigh and 19 AQ hijackers would disagree. Each one offed over 100 people, and the impact of their actions is still felt (though it has been the reverse of what they all intended).
Not to mention, there are far more constructive ways of making a difference in this world. On the whole though, voting is not one of them, but the effort involved is not high either, so the cost / benefit isn't terrible.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I was talking about the "usual" crazy person
(#287363)or at least what's become usual over the past few decades. Did Starkweather, or the zodiac killer, or the green river killer actually make a big difference in our society? I'd say no.
But no one has explained to me how a system with no feedback from the public would work better.
I blame it all on the Internet
Elections don't work that way
(#287093)You cannot vote against a candidate in a FPTP election. You can only vote for one.
If you mean to say those that didn't vote for Romney, well that's me, too. I will not be voting for Romney. If you mean to say those that didn't vote for the opposite major party candidate than Romney, then you should say that.
Yes, I'm being a bit obtuse. My point is that because of the way our elections are run and the false dichotomy we have fallen into, I'd say a majority of Romney votes are a way of trying to unseat Obama and a majority of Obama votes are a way of trying to block Romney. That's the most shameful part: our elections have devolved into "vote for the guy most likely to block the election of the guy you don't want to win". Once again, this can be changed by the folks in power. Congress can make time, place, and manner regulations for federal elections. They simply choose not to, because the current system suits them fine.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
That's changing the subject
(#287095)You can't change the methods we use vote, other than proselitizing. You can change how you vote.
When there is a foreseeable consequence to your actions, or inactions, then you have to accept responsibility for them.
We can discuss your voting system preferences too, and probably find some disagreement there too, but one topic at a time.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
And failure to donate all ones worldly goods to
(#287099)and work for the rest of your life for free for Oxfam is directly leading to the starvation of probably thousands of people. I hope you're accepting responsibility for that.
Really?
(#287104)You're comparing the personal cost of giving away all you own with the cost of getting your ass to a voting booth one day every four years? Because personal cost is surely part of the moral equation.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Why is that shameful?
(#287286)if you think a candidate's plans would damage one or more aspects of the country, and especially if you think their plans would severely damage the country, why wouldn't you work against their election? I don't think there's anything wrong with someone saying that they dislike both candidates but find one far more unacceptable than the other. That's how a lot of choices in life wind up being structured.
I blame it all on the Internet
Why Not Sharon Osbourne?
(#287066)She's a courageous lady, knows talent when she sees it, and what the heck, if you're going to turn your vote into a vanity project, you might as well have some fun with it.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
I Dunno, Harley
(#287068)Are there any local birds living in or around the White House that might be subject to sudden decapitation via Ozzy? Don't want to traumatize the school kids taking tours of the White House, after all.*
*--Plus she's English, of course--and our friend Stinerman believes in following the rules, even ones mildly tainted by association with crazy people such as the "native born citizen" provision.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
She's not on the ballot
(#287094)Seriously, though. If I were to write her in, if she is not a declared write-in candidate my vote would be treated as invalid and would show up in the returns as an undervote. That's essentially the same thing as not voting.
Some states don't allow write-in voting at all (Oklahoma comes to mind).
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Well I applaud your courage in your conviction.
(#287085)1) and 3) are well explained and your ratchet analogy is exactly right. The fearful are herded ever rightwards. If enough of them had the same principled stand you do something might actually change. For one thing, the quality of discourse would improve a lot if, instead of scaring you away from their opponent they had to actually gather you to themselves with positive propositions.
I argued
(#287096)here (convincingly to my lights) that sitting out elections just drives candidates AWAY from your positions, not towards it.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
He's not proposing sitting out an election
(#287100)he's proposing voting for a third party. Telling that the two are equivalent to some.
That's covered in the comments
(#287101)Voting for a third party may still drive away the major party candidates from your position, because they need to make up the votes in the middle. Anyone who thinks that Ralph Nader running in 2000 and 2004 did anything to push the Dems to the left has got to be smoking something better than what I can get, and I'd appreciate it if they shared their source.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
I'll bet both major party campaigns
(#287102)sat down and asked themselves
1. How many of these guys are there?
2. What do they want?
3. Can we give it to them for a net gain in votes?
4. Can we do something else to pull them to us or split off a section of them?
And the more people who vote their convictions rather than the grim parade of the evil of two lessers the more those calculations will matter.
But that's not even the point. The point would be to break the duopoly on power held by the two quasi identical political parties in the US. It's a multi generational project that would need to start at the bottom, but people like Stiner who have the courage to reject the guilt tripping ooga booga scare tactics of the aparachiks and Funktionshäftlingen deserve credit for providing a base from which others might conceivably build something more democratic.
"Funktionshäftlingen"
(#287105)Is that the Wesen with the rubber stamp and the desk blotter?
It's a Kappo
(#287111)but that term gets confused with Mafia boss.
Lot's of folks convinced themselves the same in Nader's heyday
(#287107)How'd that work out?
Essentially the situation has deteriorated to the point that now one of the duopoly is filled with and effectively controlled by objectively crazy people who shouldn't be allowed near the levers of power under any circumstances. Forgive me, but I don't see what's so courageous about constructing an intellectual haven designed to shield the individual from acknowledging this simple fact, while simultaneously sheltering them from any collective responsibility for what might result from their contribution to the elevation of the crazies.
There will always be a base of people with the 'courage' to use national elections to act out their own personal vanities by opting out and voting 3rd party as Stinerman advocates. The trick, for those folks who truly want to effect change and bring about alternatives to the current duopoly, is that you start at the bottom and work your way up or from within, not the top. And it takes years of concerted effort and application, as opposed to digging out your soapbox and shining up one's rhetoric every 4 years.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I don't see much light between the parties.
(#287113)Mostly packaging and flim flam. Would you prefer to walk or run rightwards? You might get further if you walk. I also don't buy the "Obama must win or teh world will endez" schtick. I mean, Romney isn't the antichrist or anything. It's not Hitler vrs Ghandi here.
Sure Nader didn't change the world. If more people had voted for him perhaps he might have. Perhaps its a ball that might get rolling if only you would play a part instead of sitting on the sidelines and choosing which flavour of vanilla you'd prefer. Anyway, the tea partiers have had pretty good success applying an analagous strategy. Mostly I think, because they put principle before short term electoral gain.
But you are right on the ground up effort. That's what's needed (forget working from within, the parties are already bought). Luckily it looks like some people have already started that work. Now all you need to do is vote for them.
By the way, did you see that Obama's Justice dept have just announced there will be no charges coming from the Levin report. So Top Campaign Contributor Goldman Sachs will walk away whistling from selling known crap to their clients dressed up as A grade meat and then betting against the outcome, all while deceiving their clients as to their own positions on the securities. Their CEO will also not face any charges for perjury and as a kicker Corzine will get away with his "the dog ate it" excuse for vanishing about a billion of his clients money by running it on the ponies or whatever the HFT equivalent for that is. We are told he's planning on starting a hedge fund.
"Nader didn't change the world"
(#287135)Nader helped put GW Bush in the WH. I'd argue that changed the world in very significant ways, YVMV.
The teabaggers might just hasten the 3rd party alternative you crave by splintering the GOP, but I'd just as soon not bank on that happening soon enough to make a material difference in most folks lives and certainly not before now & November.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I disagree, Spartacvs.
(#289037)Gore lost because he was too wooden, and he didn't fight back enough. Don't blame Ralph Nader for Gore's failings, or for the fact that G. W. Bush got into the White House.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Acting out personal vanities
(#287130)First off, I'm voting for both Obama and Romney this fall. It's easy. Someone told me that if I vote for Gary Johnson, I am voting for Obama. Someone else told that if I vote for Gary Johnson, I am voting for Romney. They can't be lying because that would make them, you know, douchebags, and I wouldn't want to think that.
So I get to cast three votes at one time, which is 200% leverage according to my calculator. Can't pass up such a deal.
But seriously, if Obama wants my vote, it's not that hard. There isn't any "intellectual haven" with an ideological purity test, and perfection isn't required. Any *two* of the following would be enough, if they appeared to be real with no hidden gotchas:
- Shut down Gitmo and either release the inmates, or give them full up trials satisfying Amendments IV, V, and VI ending either in a sentence or a release instantly after the verdict. Since he's broken promises on this already, there's no credit for announcements, only for the actual trials and releases.
- Announce (credibly) that we will not conduct a military attack on any country except in response to an actual physical attack on us or an ally with whom we have a treaty. To be credible he would have to specifically say that this is a new policy and that the military option has been taken "off the table" with respect to Syria and Iran, using the exact phrase "off the table".
- Take some concrete steps toward rolling back the War on Drugs, for example, an executive order disallowing any agency other than the DEA from spending funds on drug enforcement, and ordering US attorneys to make such cases their lowest priority. Since he's lied about this issue already, credibility would require some additional evidence, e.g. firing a few dozen attorneys or high level officers for disobeying the order.
- Nominate hardcore one civil libertarian to the SC, or four of them to appellate level courts. What's "hardcore"? I'd be satisfied with any high-level executive from the ACLU or the Institute for Justice. I'm a reasonable guy and realize the Senate can filibuster, but he at least needs to make them actually filibuster, not back down at the mere threat. If the nominees are voted down, nominate another hardcore replacement.
All of the above are things I believe you'd agree with, so I can't see that there's a lot of vanity involved.
What would persuade you to vote Romney?
(#287137)Any 2 of the same?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Hypothetically yes
(#287144)If Romney were the incumbent and he did two of those things I'd be satisfied. But since words count for nothing when dealing with major party politicians (except for speeches announcing official policy made by officials with current authority over the policy) Romney isn't in a position to take the concrete actions that would get me his vote, even in theory.
The things I listed are things that Obama "should" have been good on, as a Democrat. What kind of things would get me to vote for a Republican incumbent? Items (a) and (b) below plus any one selected from (c) and (d).
(a) Refrain from any new military actions, except in self-defense after an actual attack. I don't realistically expect a Republican to proactively denounce military action, but I do expect them refrain from it.
(b) Refrain from supporting any downward interpretations of the Bill of Rights, either in speeches or through the actions of US attorneys.
(c) Dismantle one entire executive department (e.g. Education or Homeland Security). A few essential responsibilities can be reassigned but the overall effect needs to be elimination of function rather than reassignment.
(d) Veto a major crime bill approved by congressional Republicans on the grounds that it exceeds federal authority.
Eeyn, decent list. I'd add a few
(#287146)(e) a 10% reduction on military spending from current levels by the end of his term.
(f) restructure the military back to two de facto and de jure branches, which might get constructive credit for (c).
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Re-absorb the Air Farce back into the Army?
(#287149)Probably going to happen by itself anyway once they complete the transition to a land based force operating out of air conditioned trailers like the ones in Vegas. Eventually the only things left will be ass & trash missions which don't require a separate branch.
I assume you aren't going to be voting Republican any time soon, given requirement (e).
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
On that note
(#287179)He won't be voting 'D' either.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
What it would take for me to vote libertarian
(#287150)http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=full+frontal+lobotomy
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I'd never suggest
(#287152)that you vote for something you fundamentally disagree with. What I don't get is the people here suggesting that others do exactly that.
Taking the military option "off the table"
(#287155)would be a fairly unwise thing to do, diplomatically & politically speaking. The minute a military option becomes necessary (and I mean, really & actually necessary), you've painted yourself into a corner both in foreign policy terms (the US reversed its own policy) and more importantly in domestic terms.
It's much, much harder to convince the public that action is necessary when you've told them it's off the table, and of course your political enemies will hang it around your neck.
There's a reason diplomats & politicians are cagey about making ironclad operational commitments, and this is it.
Just some thoughts on one of your bullets.
M Aurelius was probably right.
"Really and actually necessary"
(#287158)My definition of necessary is when they've launched a war against us, or some country we have a treaty obligation to protect, and I excluded that case.
"It's much, much harder to convince the public that action is necessary when you've told them it's off the table, and of course your political enemies will hang it around your neck."
If the public needs convincing, that's a sign that the war is definitely not necessary. We're a violent people and our threshold for starting stuff is very low.
Charles Lindbergh On Line One -nt-
(#287159).
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Yeah, and Hugo Chavez likes baseball.
(#287162)I can't help it if some prominent antiwar types 70 years ago happened to also be outrageous anti-Semites. I also can't help it that many strict constitutionalists from the same time period also happened to be racists.
Anti Semitism Isn't The Issue
(#287164)Waiting until your porch is on fire before dealing with your neighbors' house being on fire is not a winning strategy. Also, announcing that you aren't willing to fight now tends to lead to fighting more later. That was the lesson of the 1930s.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Then feel free to put
(#287165)Neville Chamberlain on the line, I'll accept that label. Lindbergh was an a$$hole, Chamberlain made a tough judgment call and turned out to be wrong. It's possible that like him I'm making an error, but I don't see Iran (or any other country) as analogous to 1939 Germany.
Exactly
(#287166)Germany in 1939 had one of the largest and most technologically advanced economies in the world, the strongest military in the world and an aggressive expansionist policy. Iran's economy and technology are backwards and limited, their military is pathetically weak and they have not demonstrated any expansionist tendencies. Sure they are paranoid but considering that they have a history of being attacked and/or manipulated by foreign powers that should not be a surprise to anyone.
Which Is Why. . .
(#287167). . .attacking them in 1936 when the Allies had a legitimate reason to do so (German re-occupation of the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) would have been a very good idea. And Iran *has* been sponsoring terrorism and insurgents against their neighbors for decades now, aside from the whole "passive aggressively threatening to annihilate Israel" thing.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
No MSE
(#287172)You still can't compare 1936 Germany and Iran in any meaningful sense. While Germany had not yet fully rearmed in 1936 they had the economy and the technology to do rapidly. Iran does not. As for Iranian terrorism and support of insurgencies why yes they do that. So does Israel and for that matter the US. Hell Al Queda even received US support when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Israel had it's proxies in Lebanon and while Hamas is now Israels enemy it's immediate predecessor received encouragement and support from Israel since they thought it's struggle against Fatah would be to Israels benefit. I realize that you probably view Israeli actions as being in some sense "different" from Irans. And perhaps they are. But ultimately my concern is what is best for the US not what Israel thinks is in it's best interests. The two are not the same. The US getting involved in another mideast war is not a good idea.
Why wait till 1936?
(#287174)Why wait till 1936? Hitler came to power in 1933. His platform was expansionist and militarist. And one of his first acts was to stop paying the war reparations demanded of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. The fact is that the Allies supported Hitler and admired him. Western business and bankers even more so. These people seizing on a legitimate reason to attack Germany is idlest speculation. Using this example to bolster an attack on a country like Iran is to reveal oneself as a summer fool.
Credit goes to Winston Churchill as the only leader to see Hitler for what he was. I suspect 'takes one to know one' applies here. Churchill was a war monger of the first order. Did anyone happen to read the column by Charles Krauthammer a couple weeks back? Always good for some inane and wrong-headed bloviating. What offended him was that when Obama was elected president, Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British embassy who had given it to Bush in the first place. Anyone here have any idea why Obama might do such a thing?
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Nothing much to it really
(#287182)Typical winger nothingburger.
The bust was on loan from the embassy for the duration of the Bush Presidency as a gesture of solidarity following the events of 9/11. It was returned at the end of the Bush presidency. The WH has another similar bust of Winston on permanent display, but not in the Oval office.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
that is the official story
(#287204)After what the British (under Churchill) did to Obama's grandfather, I suppose the bust is on permanent display on the bottom of the pit in the Whitehouse outhouse.
My wife's Korean family has lived through some tough times. An uncle disappeared during the civil war. Her father was tortured by the Japanese during the occupation. About the North Koreans, she doesn't really care much one way or the other. The Japanese, though, she has never forgiven. You don't torture someone without incurring some pretty heavy karma.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
They have not threatenned to annihilate anybody.
(#288182)They (actually the regime) advocates the destruction of the state of Israel, i.e. regime change, which is not the same thing.
The difference is more than a little relevant in the context of atomic weapons.
Also, the regime has not shown itself to be suicidal, and it knows full well that Israel has plenty of nukes.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
And By What Means Do They Propose To Do That?
(#288183)Political--not likely;
Conventional military--not a chance in Hades;
Non-nuclear terrorism--yeah, that's worked so well for everyone else.
They're busily trying to build nuclear weapons in spite of tremendous pressure on them not to do so. Connecting the dots here is not unreasonable, and it *is* unreasonable to expect Israel to be constrained by our conclusions about what a society run by *real* religious fanatics (as opposed to what liberals think pass for them here) really means to do.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
For the last point
(#288184)Iran's leadership is probably concerned or pretending to be concerned that Israel is run by real religious fanatics and gets constant backing by real religious fanatics in the US that really need Israel and Russia to be around and at odds.
The US has a few bases surrounding Iran and 1 to 2 aircraft carriers near there.
Ahmadinejad might also want to cure cancer too, probably doesn't mean he'll sell the farm towards cancer research.
Ahmadinejad talks about how he doesn't like the current regime in Israel and wants them gone, similarly to how the USSR is "gone," and somehow western media and even Romney still pretends that Ahmadinejad was saying he wanted Israelis utterly destroyed.
If Iran is looking at what the US is doing, they'll see how the FBI, DOJ, etc are allowing Howard Dean and company to lobby for a terrorist organization that murders civilians, just so long as that group continues to kill the "right kind" of Iranian civilian.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
No
(#288187)they're likely trying to build nuclear weapons because of the incredible pressure on them to do so, specifically the US allying with an even more heinous nuclear power (Afghanistan) while invading plenty of non-nuclear powers in the area. They can see what we do and react accordingly.
I blame it all on the Internet
?
(#288223)Nuclear Afghanistan?
Pakistan maybe?
Yup, mistyped nt
(#288227).
I blame it all on the Internet
They have good reasons...
(#288193)...for building nuclear weapons that have nothing to do with nuking Israel.
To begin with, they happened to observe how the US invaded, without justification, their neighbor. Given that, why even bother not having a program, since you get invaded anyway? What's the upside?
On the other hand, North Korea, the planet's most insignificant economy with the possible exception of Haiti, has shown repeatedly that it has negotiating leverage (though not the skill to use it well), thanks to a second-rate nuclear weapons program.
Iran is a Persian country in a sea of Arabs, and the only country with nukes in the region is Israel.
So, trick question, when you are in a bad neighborhood and you've seen how the guy without a gun got his head bashed in, and you notice a guy with a big gun the next neighborhood is doing just fine, which example do you follow?
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
What I Wouldn't Do. . .
(#288195). . .is build the gun piece by piece on my front lawn while musing out loud about how great it would be if one of my already armed neighbors got killed. If I did, and the neighbor acted predictably in pre-emptive self-defense, it would really, really be my fault for provoking the situation. Particularly if I had been one of the bigger thugs in the neighborhood and seen the bigger thug next door get curb-stomped.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Different dynamic, but...
(#288198)...Pakistan has nukes, and we still executed a military strike in the Pakistani geographic equivalent of Kansas City, not to mention the drone strikes in Las Cruces, Nogales, and Yuma.
Well, yes, but in the post-WWII era people generally accept
(#287189)the idea that it takes years for a country to gear up to a war footing, and that we can shoot that process in the leg before it gets up on its triumphalist horse. Granted, that makes it much harder to tell where the "necessary" line is, and the gray area has been exploited way too many times. However, pointing at Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq I & II doesn't refute the basic principle.
War is something that accretes over time, like coral. We can stop it when it's still barely out of the polyp stage, or, we can do what you're suggesting and wait until it's Guadalcanal-sized before admitting it's even there.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Are minor parties more democratic?
(#287112)Is it more democratic that in Israel extremist religious party are holding the balance of power and wielding far more clout than their numbers justify?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Since you brought it up
(#287168)If by some miracle the US House of Representatives ever ends up 214 R, 214 D, and 7 L or G, I hope the third party will be absolutely merciless in exploiting the situation. But then I happen to agree with a lot of what they want.
The reason small extremist parties in Israel, or any other country with a similar situation, holds so much influence is that the larger parties are unprincipled and so polarized that they view hanging onto power, and keeping their major party rivals out of power, as more important than resisting extremism or even implementing their own ideas.
Assuming the minority party doesn't itself sucumb
(#287170)to the lure of sharing power with one of the major parties in an exclusive deal, selling short all their ideals and principles in the process.
See UK LibDems as an example.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Yes, And I Was, (Past Tense), A Big Fan of Nick Clegg...
(#287175)...on the other hand, on August 6, he did hold the Conservative's feet to the fire on the reform of the House of Lords...
So maybe we will see on Nick Clegg
Traveller
Shoulda coalitioned with Labour
(#287180)There was room to do it, but they thought they'd pay an electoral price for that. Clegg miscalculated big time. Now he owns Cameron's crappy economy and has doomed the Lib Dems to lose just about all their seats.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Wow...
(#287184)You agree with what they want before even knowing what it is!
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Well
(#287301)we're talking about a presidential election with one single winner, so that doesn't really apply. The only role 3rd parties can realiticaly play is to move the larger parties in a direction to capture their votes - ie they can change the conversation somewhat.
But in parliamentary elections with a proportional system like single transferable vote the parties get elected in proportion to their support. If people vote for a large party that likes to cave to small parties to get into power then their caving reflects the will of the people who voted for them. Representative democracy. The alternative is to hold referendums on more things.
Also, your parties often seem to be in the same position to individual members who get big slices of pork shovelled into their states in order to support a bill. No real difference that I can see.
More accurately
(#287308)..the role 3rd parties have played in recent US elections is to exploit fractures within the coalition of one major party or the other, usually the incumbent party. Thus helping to hand victory to the opposing major party candidate. Perot did it with Clinton and Nader with Bush. So again realisticaly, voting 3rd party in 2012 will help facilitate either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama becoming President, most likely Mitt Romney. Something all those intending to vote 3rd party on principle and damn the consequences, should bear in mind. It would be great if each major party had their own parasite party keeping them honest by drawing off potential votes, or there were one 3rd party drawing votes more or less equally from both major parties. But that isn't the case, never has been or is ever likely to be.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
That's the role third parties
(#287309)have traditionally played in the US system. They usually get absorbed or co-opted by the bigger parties, if their vote is significant enough.
To propose an unlikely scenario though, it would be possible for a third party to hold the balance of power in the electoral college. Unless the electors lost faith, they could then bargain for cabinet positions or whatever other goodies they wanted.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
"Major parties are hostile to free & fair elections."
(#287116)The voter ID movement, and recent "emergency" laws on the books in states like TX and PA have been championed exclusively by Republican legislators, they have been convincingly demonstrated to reduce turnout among low-income voters (and to reduce turnout in elections overall).
Democrats allege, very credibly IMO, that Republican statehouses are deliberately trying to suppress turnout among Democratic voters.
Here's the point: at this moment in history, one party has a vested interest in extending the voting franchise as much as possible, to get as many young, poor, marginal, recently naturalized voters to the polls as they can. The other party has a vested interest in restricting the franchise, in making it as difficult, time-consuming and expensive as possible for "new" categories of voters to join the electoral process.
It's a stark difference.
M Aurelius was probably right.
The mistake here
(#287134)is thinking that letting people show up at the polls is a sufficient condition for a free and fair election. There also has to be a free and fair process for deciding what issues and candidates get put on the ballot.
The Democrats have worked very hard to get their opponents kicked off the ballot in order to take away choice from the voters. There is a long record on this, browse at www.ballot-access.org if you want well documented examples.
Jordan, I'll state up front that I'm undecided
(#287203)on the voter ID law in PA. On the one hand the problem of voter fraud is not that big, OTOH it certainly is bigger in PA then you've let on in a few of your recent comments. I do believe it is not out of bounds to say he voter ID law will likely suppress more voters than prevent cases of voter fraud. The question for me at that point is how difficult is it to get a voter ID. If it's something I'd consider easy but presents an insurmountable obstacle to the ACORN Army, then tough tata's. If it becomes an issue where folks are put through a goat rope then I'm for a few heads rolling. Al Schmidt has made the case that voter fraud is alive and well in Philly, I have not seen the case made that getting a picture ID is especially difficult.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
In person voter fraud seems to be nonexistent.
(#287217)My main reason for thinking it is nonexistent is that Republicans have been waging war against vote fraud for 15-20 years now, and in all of that time in all of the precincts around the country they've never managed to find large numbers of people showing up to vote by impersonating someone else on the rolls. Absentee ballot fraud seems to be a bit more common, though it too is vanishingly rare (even if you multiply the number of indicted cases by a big number).
Al Schmidt's report, unless there's more to it than I've been able to find online, seems extremely sketchy and, assuming the handful of cases he detailed are accurate, scanty as well. About as scanty as you'd expect from a city as large as Philly. In other words, vanishingly rare occurrences of irregularity in a huge voter population. Do a handful of cases justify putting additional roadblocks in the way of 715,000 PA voters? Forcing 715,000 people to stand in line at the DMV, slowing down crowded precinct voting stations for ID checks, giving poll watchers yet another way to challenge & harass (and delay) voters who generally don't have 2-3 hours to stand in line?
I'd say just mathematically, the cons outweigh the pros.
I think ballot box stuffing & monkeying with tabulation & certification are far more common than actual vote fraud. Vote fraud would entail organizing large groups of people, all of whom are willing to risk federal prison, just to get a small-ish advantage in a close election. Payoff doesn't seem worth the risk.
M Aurelius was probably right.
War against Iran has just become much more likely
(#287118)as there is increasing talk in Israel of just such a war. And there is support in the US for unilateral Israeli action.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
In or Out of Power
(#287119)Revered or reviled, the Neocons are getting just what they've been agitating for; a democratizing ME and another move toward claiming the ultimate prize -- Iran.
I'd sooner vote for Satan
(#287124)By far the least engaged and least competent president of my lifetime, and that includes a psychotically deranged Richard Nixon. He at least showed up at the Oval Office. This clown erased Eisenhower's total time on the golf course in his first six months in office; since then, he's done nothing but campaign for reelection. And outsource the Middle East to the Muslim Brothrehood. Four more years, and we'll have that Second Great Depression I was warning you all about.
But hey, gay marriage and hating millionaires is way more important than having a job, right?
Wow, it's funny how I see eye to eye with you
(#287128)on so many things...Kelsey Grammer, for example...and then you talk politics and it's like you put on a different pair of glasses.
The comment makes it sound as if The Great Recession never happened, as if the largest asset bubble leverage crisis and the largest single destruction of capital ever recorded didn't happen on the GOP's watch.
It's also as if the inertia of the federal government since 2010 has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans in Congress.
The "least engaged, least competent president" of your lifetime presided over the largest entitlement reform since 1965, saved the auto industry, killed bin Laden...
Do we even live in the same US of A? I'm having serious doubts.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Obama Derangement Syndrome
(#287133)is a terrible thing to behold Jordan. One recent example was Speaker Boehner saying that Obama needs to step up and take responsibility for the Midwestern drought. As ridiculous at that sounds I have no doubt that there are many of the OBS afflicted he really believe it.
AFAIK, the natural gas industry is hiring
(#287185)a good opportunity for the unemployed.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
You've been voting Satanic for decades now
(#287136)I don't think Obama's is doing anything different in the Middle East. Similar to MB in Egypt, Hezbollah and Hamas both gained power through the ballot box, but under President Bush, with President Carter smilingly proclaiming their electoral process as clean and fair. You've been voting Satanic for decades now.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
You haven't....
(#287325)....really gotten a chance to vote Satanic until I manage to get on a ballot, but that doesn't appear feasible at the moment so I suppose y'all will have to pick one of the available lesser evils...
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Where
(#287193)did you get the golf statistic from? It doesn't appear to be remotely true. Ike had 800 golf outiings.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/golfer-in-chief-obama-hits-...
They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864
The source? From the book of
(#287197)The Apparent Hyperbole That Appears To Be Double Secret Truthiness At First Glance Is Soothing
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Eight Times The Rate Of GWB
(#287201)And the same rate as Bubba--though Bubba was mostly famous for using mulligans enough to offend real golfers.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Bird Dog gets to do a write in!
(#287156)It appears that the Republicans have failed to make the ballot in Washington state for November 2012:
Court filing here, plain English explanation here.
It won't really stick - even if the facts are as alleged, when confronted with a major party breaking the rules put in to keep minor parties off the ballot, judges tend to avoid ruling on the merits, as in the Texas case mentioned by Stinerman. Can't really blame them either, we can't cancel democracy on a technicality.
This lawsuit is really just payback for what the Republicans are doing to the Libertarians in PA.
Late to the party
(#287296)Let's recap. You're in a battleground state and our political environment is basically a two-party system. What this has to mean is that not voting for Obama means that you voted for Romney. All I can is, thank you very much. Thank you for helping Romney win Ohio. I hope all of your left-leaning friends are influenced by your words and follow suit. How soon we forget Florida 2000 when the ideologically pure stuck by their principles and voted for Nader, then watched GW Bush win by a few hundred votes. BTW, you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, you're voting for the least worst of two viable candidates.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
I'm surprised at you
(#287341)Your Tea Party Republican friends are actually doing quite well by being intransigent and primarying the moderates. Dick Lugar was primaried and a few other folks who aren't moderate but simply don't have a visceral hatred of Obama were also removed.
They may have been responsible for the keeping the Democrats in control of the Senate, but they've successfully moved the Overton Window. Every Republican is scrambling to prove that they think anything other than military spending is socialism. The moderates in the party have already lost control, but they're going along for the ride. You've decried the direction the party is taking, but you're still going to reward them with your vote.
It's not really about winning or losing the election. It's about moving the debate to where you want it to be, which allows you to win the next election.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The key is that the Tea Party...
(#287344)...picked a party instead of trying to go their own way. Had they gone the latter route, they would have marginalized themselves. But they didn't. They're winning primaries and putting candidates on the ballot and they have representatives in office. They didn't say, "I don't like this candidate or this, so I'm going with Party C." Say what you want about their politics, but they played it smart. They influenced a major political party and moved the issues in their direction. My goal is to move that debate away from the Tea Party movement to a more moderate stance. Right now, that goal is faltering, but if I step out then I have no say and no influence. Check out where the Occupy movement is today. They're pretty much nowhere.
Also, this isn't about moving the debate to win the following election. This is about winning right now. Positioning for a future win means you're losing now, which means you're not in power, which means you're on outside looking in, and which means there is no assurance you'll win the following election.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Friends? Well, I have actually met stinerman once...
(#287894)...and we had a cordial conversation and did not come to blows... AND we were both longtime frequent commenters on SwordsCrossed when there was only about a dozen active participants and you couldn't help but get to know where everybody was coming from... AND he is a facebook friend. Does that all add up to a friend? If so, then count me as not the slightest bit influenced by his view. I am far too conventional to be influence by stinerman's pretzel logic.
He claims that the issue of war crimes prosecutions for torturers is paramount for him, yet he proudly withheld his vote from a viable challenger to those same alleged war criminals in 2004. Now, he says he has a "morbid curiosity" about how bad things will get, and says that if Romney wins "it'll suck and we'll probably be in another war, but we'll live", with no acknowledgement that war means others won't live, and that with war comes atrocities like torture. Why be such a stickler about prosecuting torture if you are so cavalier about whether another war happens?
Seeing the lack of coherence in stinerman's expressed thought process behind his votes, I suspect that stinerman's ultimate decision to vote third party is more characteristic of a habitual third party voter, and this post is more about burnishing his own mavericky credentials than in trying to convince anybody to change their vote.
That's a lot of people not voting for Obama
(#287462)that i've read in this thread.
I think a pro-Obama diary is pretty clearly called for.
if 90+% of the voters in a state
(#287902)...were denied the right for the person they supported for president on a legal technicality like that, that would be tragic. If a judge denied to be a slave to that legal technicality in order to keep the peace, that would be the smart decision. The decision between screwing a third party candidate who has absolutely no chance and screwing half the population is easy. Ignoring the letter of the law is SOP in the courts anyway... both judges and juries do it all the time, it's nothing personal against third parties.
"When I apply a law"
(#288081)Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The question is, and you can not dismiss it so cavalierly, which is to be master, the law or the lawmakers, that is all.
Of course, brushing aside 3rd parties like that, since no one votes for them (and you accuse Stinerman of speaking in pretzels) ties in quite well with waving off a little bit of torture as being quite normal in war.
Atrocities ARE normal in wars.
(#288159)I wasn't "waving off" torture, but was merely reminding stinerman that torture is often attendant with war, really as a way of implying that maybe he ought to vote for the competitive candidate who is less likely to start one if his aim is preventing actual torture; his vote for a third party candidate will do little in that regard.
I actually agree with you: Texas not slavishly enforcing its ballot laws and Obama not prosecuting the Bush Administration for war crimes over torture do tie in quite well. In both cases, the wisdom in inaction revolves around keeping the peace. It is in the least stable nations where each regime prosecutes the crimes of its predecessor in full, and the most stable nations where regimes tend to show mercy on their predecessor. Given the financial crisis especially-- another potentially destabilizing situation-- we needed a smooth transition from Bush to Obama, and they both delivered one.
I Agree with Sky Mutt...This Doesn't Me Hot, but His Point is...
(#288173)...well taken.
Long term, stability has not only value, but utility.
Hurts me to say this, but the guy has it right.
Traveller
Less likely to start a war.
(#288201)Hilarious.
And apparently stable nations are ones with strong executives who are able to disregard the law and do as they please, up to running a global network of kidnap and torture, safe in the knowledge that who so ever follows them in power will protect and cover up for them.
Stable. Like Franco's Spain? Or Pinochet's Chile. Stability is one end of the dialectic an Aristotle teaches us to look for the mean not the extreme. Thing is, you're engaged in a great big global pie poking exercise almost without precedent. I'm not sure something like that ever can really be stable in the medium term. The closest match I can think of is The British Empire. That fell to pieces relatively peacefully.
Anyway, I'll put my faith in a multi party democracy, with an independent, unelected judiciary and prosecution/police. I'd prefer a parliamentarily elected executive since as long as the electorate is not too large, it responds more quickly to the wishes of the people. A written constitution and a way for motivated individuals to force a referendum is the final piece of the puzzle.
Perfect we are not.
(#288215)But I was discussing the wisdom of these choices in the context of the imperfect society we have, not some ideal that in any event would not magically appear if your preferred courses of action were taken in these instances.
The problem is
(#288216)your argument is useful to support any status quo or deterioration of such. Refusing to take any moral stand or redline any behaviour by the executive since the imperfect nature of the world means that dark deeds must be done by dark men and to question this is to be a naif.
Except the status quo has not deteriorated on torture.
(#288218)We've stopped torturing, at least to my knowledge and belief, so I do not feel that I am supporting a status quo of torture. There has been improvement, not deterioration.
The status quo
(#288224)is that the executive is free to torture globally on an industrial scale without fear or any prosecution. Perpetrators are free to destroy evidence and remain in their jobs. You'd have to ask yourself what the executive is not free to do under these rules.
At least we should expect some sort of token prosecution like North.
Here's what you do to test your theory.
(#288238)Next time you get caught speeding and get off with a warning, "feel free" to speed "without fear" of a ticket, and see how long it takes you to get a ticket. I'd lay my money on "not long" because the law didn't change just because you were treated with mercy once.
Just like speeding laws do not get wiped away just because a warning is given, the laws regarding torture were not wiped away when the Obama Administration declined to prosecute Bush Administration officials. They are still there, and every future President is going to be fully aware of that fact, and will not be "without fear".
Not without fear?
(#288240)I don't see any fear among the ex-torturers. I see smirking, high-fiving, self-congratulatory basking in absolute impunity.
There are no warnings over here
(#288242)which is as it should be.
Your analogy would work better if I was the ex police chief in a small town and everyone who could possibly pull be over were all ex colleagues from the same small police dept.
And the new and current police chief is
(#288257)setting off secondary explosions to kill people looking to provide medical assistance to the people set off in the primary explosions....kind of like what the US is doing in and around Afghanistan and other places.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Ignoring the law
(#288093)It wasn't really a technicality, it was a straight up failure to meet the deadline, a date that anyone in the business of filing ballot papers knows perfectly well. Despite that and my contempt for the Texas Supreme Court, I agree that realistically there was nothing for them to do except dismiss the case without explanation.
But it didn't have much to do with the chance of winning. Given the poll numbers, and the accuracy of modern polling, the fact was Obama had no chance at all (much less than 1%) to win Texas' electoral vote. And it didn't have much to do with how many people wanted to vote for Obama - someone like Ross Perot with strong support still would have been kicked off in an instant for missing the deadline. It's just that we've had the same two parties for so long that tossing one of them is considered unthinkable.
Not quite the same situation.
(#288161)I still say that popular support is the driving factor here, not the parties. I do agree that they would have thrown Perot off the ballot if he had missed the deadline and the others had not, despite Perot's support. But what happened last election was a little different situation, however-- what actually happened in Texas was that ALL of the candidates with significant support missed the deadline, not just one. And if that were the situation in 1992, I can't see how they would have discriminated against Perot.