American 2008 Election

[hym 358]

To use Texas as an example, a citizen doesn't have to "register for every election." Upon hitting 18, or in the months leading up to an election, the individual fills out a card with some information about name, age, residence, etc. That information is sent to the county voting office, who then mails a voter registration card to the individual. (All that card is is proof of eligibility to vote and some information like voting precinct and the like.) The card is valid for two years, after which, the county will mail you a new card valid for another two years.

I'll use myself as an illustration of how this works in real life: I turned 18 and wanted to vote in the local elections. I applied for my voter registration card, got the card and took it to the voting center. Because I registered to vote when I was 18, I won't have to register again for the upcoming election.

In summary, anyone in Texas who wants to vote and has never done so has to register (and do so quickly as the deadline is approaching). Anyone in Texas who is already registered simply has to show up and vote.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Here, have another:

[IDS2 3,368]

Lol, Barack' won't let those votes escape...he's gonna catch 'em all!

Meanwhile, I'm able to sleep again as Obama gains a 4 point lead in the Gallup Poll. However inaccurate it may be, it offers relief knowing that most who voted knew what they were doing.

If McCain wins, oh well, but if Sarah Palin takes control I will seriously be scared. That's what Canada is for, if things there are normal there will be no line! Lol just taking a cheap shot at Canada...

So, I'm fine with either, but I think I'd like to see Barack making the changes this time around. McCain says he's not like Bush, and that "90% agreement" was mainly non political voting, but what if he turns out to provide  us with another 4 years of Republicification. We'll see the debates.

[screamingman12 30]

The best thing for the Republicans would actaully be for Obama to win, and possibly get re-elected. Then, the Republican candidates will have to work to win votes rather than ride the incumbent-express into office.

[Gridlock 9]

I would make a realy good president for the US , but then again i would probably just be assassinated , when the establishment realised there offers of wealth , could not corrupt me .

Does it realy matter who gets the White House and the job that goes with it , nothing will realy change ,only the face that breaks the bad news .

[TV-VCR 15]

<img src="http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.cgi/opinion/content/large.html@Top" border="0" alt="" />

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/18/lies/index.html

---

The lying game

Like George W. Bush, McCain and Palin have to lie. Because if they told the truth about their policies, they'd lose the election.

By Alan Wolfe

Sep. 18, 2008 | Eight years after the travesty of the 2000 election, in which the media were prone to emphasize Al Gore's exaggerations while letting George W. Bush off the hook, Republican politicians finally are being called out on their dishonesty. "The biggest liar in modern political history," writes Michael Tomasky, the editor of the Guardian America, about John McCain. There are indeed so many lies associated with the Republican campaign that one can pick and choose at random. My favorites are the efforts by the McCain campaign to portray Obama as being in favor of teaching sex education to 5-year-olds and the Spanish language ad accusing him of opposing immigration reform. Your favorites might include McCain's claim that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class or his statement to the women of "The View" that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMN_PP2qhNQ.

McCain's propensity to lie has become what political junkies call a meme, an idea or behavior that runs, seemingly unstoppably, from one media outlet to another. Some bloggers offer daily counts of how many falsehoods McCain tells while others wonder why the Democrats do not respond in turn. Even the mainstream press has gotten into the act. One of the pleasures of the 2008 campaign -- I admit they have been few and far between -- is watching all those who once admired John McCain for his truthfulness realize the true depths of his moral depravity. When McCain is linked to Palin, moreover, as he so frequently wants to be, lying experiences something of a multiplier effect. These candidates

that they have taken to lying about their own lies.

Before we get carried away with enthusiasm about all this, though, we should keep two things in mind. One is that we are so quick to label McCain a liar that we tend to forget how much, and with what horrendous consequences, George W. Bush possessed the same character flaw. The other is that Republicans lie so frequently, not because the party just happened to settle upon one serial liar after another to run for high office, but because the form of conservatism to which they all adhere demands that if they are to win they have no choice but to lie.

In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush, then something of a political unknown, claimed to be a compassionate conservative and promised the country a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc. Lies both. Compassionate conservatism was a brilliant campaign slogan, an attempt by Bush to persuade independent voters that he was not a raving madman like Newt Gingrich, who had urged, in true Dickensian fashion, the building of orphanages to solve the welfare problem. Long before the public had ever heard of Rick Warren, Karl Rove understood that the evangelical base of the Republican Party wanted language more uplifting than traditional Republican red meat, and the idea that conservatives were in fact more compassionate than bureaucratic liberals provided it. In actuality, as we now know, Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, the most compassionate program ever adopted in this country, and was simply waiting for the right opportunity to do so.

Bush spoke in 2000 of a humble foreign policy for much the same reason. We now also know that the Bush-Cheney administration was intent on adopting the most aggressive American foreign stance possible, and that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, offered them the public justification for actions they had been secretly planning since taking office. We tend to forget that before Sept. 11, aggressive foreign policy moves were not all that popular. Americans wanted a peace dividend in the aftermath of communism's collapse and seemed hell-bent on turning inward to their private pursuits. In that context, offering them a humble approach while planning a militant one constituted as dramatic a lie as one can imagine.

I would never challenge the argument that John McCain's lies in 2008 are over the top. But if McCain is more serial a liar than George W. Bush, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. Bush's lies, after all, led to thousands of needless deaths, and none of John McCain's lies, at least to this point, have done that. Were he to find himself elected, McCain would no doubt lie about many things, such as whether the United States has engaged in torture or whether Iran is a genuine military threat to the United States. But the bar has been set way too high; given the mendacity of the Bush administration, I am at something of a loss to imagine that a McCain administration could lie more.

Why do Republicans lie so much? Why is McCain following the Bush script? Why, at the very moment when he wanted a "maverick" by his side, did McCain pick a congenital liar to be his running mate? Republicans engage in what I can only call "structural lies." To understand what this means consider this: Just about every significant lie uttered by Republican politicians is designed to make them seem less conservative than they really are.

The current lie du jour of the McCain campaign is that their man will aggressively take on the greed that is causing the collapse on Wall Street. Given McCain's lack of interest in the economy, wealthy campaign contributors, and ideological hostility toward government regulation, this stance is laughable. But McCain's lie unconsciously reveals an important truth, which is that when the economy goes into a tailspin, the public prefers a solution long identified with liberalism. McCain could tell the truth, which is that he is all for the free market and can barely wait until the crisis passes so the rich can go about the business of becoming ever richer. But if he does that, he will lose. McCain wants to win. Therefore he lies.

It is not just the economy that features this structural dynamic. If you were just tuning into the election now -- no doubt there are many Americans who have not quite tuned in yet -- you would think that the Republican Party loves workers, hopes to redistribute income to the lower middle class, embraces immigrants, favors environmental protection, and hates war. Some of the Republican lies, to be sure have nothing to do with policy, such as false estimates of the size of the crowds attending Republican rallies or Sarah Palin's announcement that she had sold the Alaska governor's plane on eBay, but of those that do, the overwhelming majority are designed to make the Republican ticket more humane and moderate than it actually is. Only on foreign policy, where McCain shows no interest in hiding his hawkish instincts, can the ticket claim to be taking an honest position even if the face of public skepticism.

Conservatism is an honorable political philosophy whose most eloquent spokesmen, such as John Adams and Edmund Burke, proclaimed the truth as they saw it. This is a tradition that continues among all those contemporary conservatives who have been appalled at the direction the McCain camp has taken and have been willing to say so publicly. In contrast, the conservative populism that has swallowed up the contemporary Republican Party lies because conservative populism is itself a lie. It claims to be guided by faith when it is run by corruption. It speaks of diversity but remains overwhelmingly white. It uses women to push an agenda that would expose women to harm. It speaks of reform tomorrow to slash the reforms of today. It seeks popular support to enact policies that, if revealed for what they were, would be wildly unpopular.

Like so many of John McCain's critics, I find myself astonished at the sheer brazenness of the lies he tells. But this is not because McCain is more dishonorable than Bush. It is because the conditions under which a truthful Republican could be elected in 2008 are much more difficult than they were in 2000. Through sheer incompetence and cronyism, George W. Bush showed Americans just how dangerous conservatism can be. Because he did, those conservatives who would succeed him face even more difficult obstacles placed in their path to power. In the past, they might have gotten away with lying occasionally. This will no longer do. Expect, therefore, as the country turns to the debates ahead, that John McCain, when addressing issues of foreign policy around which he has been remarkably honest, will begin to lie in that area as well.

-- By Alan Wolfquote>

[JanYpe 17]

So how is it playing in the US media that neither candidate is going to be able to even go near his proposed economic strategy if they're going to be at all responsible, considering the government is taking on anywhere between 500 Billion and 1 Trillion dollars in debt to support the financial system?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: JanYpe So how is it playing in the US media that neither candidate is going to be able to even go near his proposed economic strategy if they're going to be at all responsible, considering the government is taking on anywhere between 500 Billion and 1 Trillion dollars in debt to support the financial system?quote>

 

Thier not. who ever wins will make a big splash and do one semi-radical thing that may get approved by congress.Then it will be back to agendas.

Also  more info about the voter registration and why you register at a specific  precincts.

Its all based on were you live( especialy school districts) and effects local elections for city specific bonds for schools and for Judges, Sheriffs, school boards and city councils. 

For example I live in a suburb of dallas so that means i cant vote in an election for the dallas mayor/city council  even though they can effect things region wide.

[Boggy1 45]

The whole McCain has suspended his campaign to focus on the economy thing I find rather bizzare. Is this a delaying tactic for the Friday debates? And didn't it put Obama in a rather awkward position? Suspend his campaign and risk looking like he is following everything McCain asks, or refusing to stop and risk looking like he doesn't care about the economy? Either way, sneaky move by McCain.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hummer0328 6]

Exactly, Barbarossa is right

McCain's jump in the polls from the RNC are now over. Obama is beating him in the polls and still rising. The majority of Americans have started to see that McCain knows nothing about economics (as he has made clear himself) and that the Bush Tax Cuts have done nothing good for the economy. People want change, and they are starting to look more and more at Obama as the candidate to do this, and McCain knows this.

So what does McCain do? He tries to make himself look good. He is trying to make it look like he has what it takes to stabilize this economy and making it look like he is leading this effort. He says he is "suspending" his campaign, but really the suspension is really just another campaign tactic. The only thing I see McCain is doing in this election is trying to mislead his supporters about his true policies. I guess I don't exactly blame McCain for doing this, because if he really did talk openly about his true policies he would with out question loose this election. So he tries cheap political ploys to hide that fact.

McCain spends very little time speaking about policy and spends most of his time smearing Obama, talking about his time in the military, or talking about (without any specifics) how he is going to "change" Washington. Both my parents are very republican. After speaking to them I realized that they eat up every word that McCain says. I feel they and many other republican voters are pretty blind of this. He also employs cheap tactics to try to distract: such as suspending his campaign, suspending the RNC for a day, and giving his VP seat to Sarah Palin. But like I said, if McCain wasn't using these tactics and was spending his time talking about his policies he wouldn't have a chance.

[confused04 14]

To back up what the previous two people have said, McCain's call to suspend the campaign only hurt him... and pretty badly at that. He has put himself in the awkward position. What many political analysts are picking up on is that in the past two weeks, amongst the worst in McCain's campaign history since he clinched the nomination, he has appeared to panic. Not pulling his hair out panicking, but often he'll say one thing at a rally in the morning, and change his tune rapidly and then back by dinner. His bold comments on firing the SEC chairman was one example that many people say he's "panicking". The rather closed door nature of Palin has now turned off the majority of voters (Biden is now far more popular than Palin, at least he has a net positive popularity rating) and the fact that she has been utterly underutilized points to a rather disorganized McCain campaign. Polls have already been released reacting to McCain's call to postpone the debates and that showed the American public greatly disapproved of McCain. The overwhelming result was that some 50% of the American public wanted the debates to go on as scheduled and an additional 36% wanted the debates to continue but to focus on the economy. Only 1 out of 10 polled agreed with McCain's postponement.

Another fall out, and a particularly brutal one... is McCain canceling his appearance on Letterman. Although these sort of late night talk shows SHOULDN'T have any bearing on the political race, they do as they have some of the broadest audiences on television. You work hard to NOT piss of Leno or Letterman. Letterman spent a good chunk of his show blasting McCain for his seemingly unorthodox move that he viewed as panicking. Additionally, Letterman showed McCain's campaigning lying to him as they had claimed McCain was flying to DC to get to work despite the fact that he was still in NY interviewing with Katie Couric.... NOW you've pissed of Letterman.

The Reaction to McCain isn't going to be pretty as well as Sarah Palin's firewall against the media. Again, even though the media is considered left leaning, you STILL don't piss them off. Palin's protection and her continued refusal to cooperate with Alaskan officials in Troopergate have also hurt the McCain campaign.

BUT then again, this could all be done on purpose as the underdog usually gets more votes in the election than polls suggest (see Al Gore in 2000, See Bush in 2004, see Clinton in 1992). If you can look like you are the underdog coming into the final stretch, you do receive a boost. This year might be different as the economy is at its worst and the ground campaign that Obama has run has registered MILLIONS of Democrats in swing states (Republicans have done the same, but at numbers that are a few zeros behind Obama's in many states). Additionally, there are grand "change" elections that throw things out of the water and invalidate any predictiveness. Additionally, with race AND gender being a part of this election... we'll just have to wait til November 4th.

[TimeMaster 4]

Umm I just found this article on Comcast. It says that republicans in the midwest have been printing 3 dollar bills with Obama in a headress in the picture... I mean it's just dumb! Who would do that? Come on, McCain really does lie too much.

[Zelgadis 638]

Oh, McCain tried to pull a Carter. And it didn't work so well for President Carter either.

Way back in 1980 Jimmy Carter campaigned minimally for reelection because he said that the United States had urgent problems that needed his attention. Guess what? Ronald Reagan crushed him. Doesn't seem to be working out too well for McCain either.

But the absolute dumbest thing he did was piss off David Letterman. You DO NOT piss off David Letterman! McCain told Letterman that he was suspending his campaign and racing off to the airport to be in Washington. Fine. But Letterman gets a video clip of McCain having his stage makeup done for an interview with Katie Couric! And Letterman absolutely nailed him to the wall for it! Quothe Letterman:

"And let's say there is a time of crisis, and the poor guy because he's a little older--he's about my age--and then Sarah Palin takes over as president. Well, she ought to be ready because she's handled a crisis like this in the past. Oh, wait a minute, she really hasn't handled a crisis like this in the past," Dave said, continuing, "Let me just go through this one more time to make my point absolutely clear: He can't run the campaign because the economy's about to crater? Fine, you put in your second-string quarterback. Where is our second string quarterback?"quote>

And it gets better!

"Are we suspending [the campaign] because there is an economic crisis, or are we suspending it because the poll numbers are sliding?"quote>

And in other news, Sarah Palin was also on Katie Couric! Oh, and she nailed her to the wall too. Read all about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26watch.html

McCain/Palin are going to have a really hard time pulling themselves out of this mess...

ISF

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Aontan 0]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the debate yet.

US rivals hold TV debate

Saturday, 27 September 2008 09:01

The two candidates in this year's US presidential election have taken part in the first of three televised debates.

The theme of last night's debate in Oxford, Mississippi, was foreign policy and both candidates clashed over policy differences on Iraq and Iran.

However, in a week which saw the current incumbent of the White House warn of the possibility of a deep recession in the US, it was inevitable the economy would form a major part of the debate.

Both candidates explained at length their economic policies, with Republican John McCain at one stage citing Ireland's low corporation tax rate to defend his intention to cut US corporate tax.

Barack Obama defended his tax cuts for lower and middle income earners.

Both candidates effectively dodged a question on what policies they might be forced to shelve as a result of the worsening economic crisis in the US.

Differences on the War in Iraq produced the sharpest exchanges of the night.

John McCain said Sen Obama had refused to recognise that the surge had worked.

Barack Obama said McCain 'liked to pretend the war started in 2007.'

Throughout the debate, Senator McCain attempted to portray his rival as inexperienced while Senator Obama repeatedly tied Senator McCain to the policies of George W Bush.

Story from RTÉ News:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0927/uselection.html 

quote>

I haven't watched it yet; but what's everyone's opinion on who "won" it - and why?

[JanYpe 17]

Both candidates explained at length their economic policies, with Republican John McCain at one stage citing Ireland's low corporation tax rate to defend his intention to cut US corporate tax.

Barack Obama defended his tax cuts for lower and middle income earners.

Both candidates effectively dodged a question on what policies they might be forced to shelve as a result of the worsening economic crisis in the US.quote>

It's like these guys are focusing on what colour paint to slap on the house, ignoring the fact that it's on fire.

[Micah 16]

I think it was a tie, though Obama did better than McCain on the economy while McCain did better on foreign issues than Obama. I think overall, Obama did a little better than McCain but there was no knock-out punch. Personally, though, I think both did horrible on the financial crisis issue.

I'll keep taxes low! I'll cut spending! Yeah? Well, I'll cut corperate loopholes! ... My response after both them kept saying that? Who cares! Just answer the blasted question on how you would deal with the financial crisis!

[IDS2 3,368]

I know, they dodged a bunch of questions but they always do that. John McCain seemed a bit tired to me...did anyone see Jon Stewart's reaction? Lol.

[Boggy1 45]

We watched the recaps on CNN International. We all thought that Obama was a far better speaker than McCain; though McCain seemed to have more overall experience. (whether or not he has good plans is rather debatable)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

 We all thought that Obama was a far better speaker than McCain; though McCain seemed to have more overall experience. (whether or not he has good plans is rather debatable)quote>

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

In all of the money talk, one point that wasn't mentioned is that Obama is the first candidate who has not accepted public financing since that campaign financing system was formed in the mid-70s.  [link]

When I first heard he was doing that (or not doing that, I should say), I figured his campaign was doomed since everyone has needed public money to get this far.   I obviously miscalculated that.

[confused04 14]

Well, I find the whole campaign finance institution broken, even after McCain-Feingold. Its a joke. Especially cause 527's can say whatever they want and can be used as proxy advertising that doesn't limit the candidates. And the whole "you can't fund the candidate more than x dollars, but you can fund the party as much as you want" seems a bit dumb. Personally, I didn't care if Obama took the money or not because regardless, I knew that both candidates had their ways around the spending limit. At least a good chunk of public funds are better spent.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Interesting Historical note.

This will be the first time since 1960 a sitting Senator will become president.

[Micah 16]

So does anyone really think we should raise taxes while were in a crisis right now? If so, I'd like to hear why.

[Duke87 1,070]

^^^of course not. What really ought to happen is the government ought to stop any and all unnecessary spending of money (quit funding pork and earmarks, reduce the number of troops oversees and cut the armed forces budget, end silly jokes like Medicare, etc.). Leave income taxes as is for now, and focus on trying to reverse at least some of that... how many trillion dollars is it now that we're in debt? In the long run, keep the unnecessary spending off and cut taxes once that debt goes away.

Also, remove some of the emphasis on income tax and instead place more emphasis on tariffs on foreign-made products, and taxes on gasoline.

Really long term overhaul: completely scrap the current tax structure and make it work like this:

- The individual person/business only pays taxes to the local governement (town/city/village, etc.), and absolutely no tax to the state or federal governments. This tax can be collected in whatever manner the locality sees fit. Property, income, sales, whatever.

- Local governments pay tax to their state government

- State governments pay tax to the federal government

This effectively restores power to where it more properly belongs - tending towards the local level, not towards the federal level - by making the money take a completely bottom-up path rather than the largely top-down path it now takes.

...of course, none of that will ever happen, since Libertarian ideals are rather unpopular, unfortunately.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Micah So does anyone really think we should raise taxes while were in a crisis right now? If so, I'd like to hear why.quote>

Depends...
A person making $40,000 a year would be hit harder by the economy than a person making $250,000 a year. If you make that much money, than I think you can pay a couple thousand more in taxes and still have enough mony to gas up your hummer and drive it around the block.

I aggree that the gov't shouldn't be shelling out a million dollars a day or whatever it is to pay for the war, but "cutting unnecessary spending" shouldn't involve repealing gas taxes or shortchanging the healthcare and education systems. Here is how I think government should work:
Protect citizens from foreign forces
Do for the citizens what they cannot do for themselves (i.e. healthcare, education, police, fire protection, etc.)
Monitor and regulate corporate interests, so they do not infringe upon the well-being of the citizens (monopolies, crappy quality control) or of the gov't (lobbying)
Not become devoted to a certain group of special interests (i.e. oil companies)
Always, always, serve the interests of the people. (as in no behind-the-back crap like dinners w/ lobbyists, etc)
Government should make shure that people don't infringe on each other's rights (i.e. not saying things like "Religion/race X sucks, all the people in it are retarded")
Keeping itself in line (i.e. not become a carbon-belching, corporate wasteland)
Not supporting harsh dictatorships with money (i.e. importing oil)

Basically, I think that the corporate society will stop at nothing for profit, and thus screw people over. Government should prevent this. History has shown this to happen, which is why I don't support the republicans, because they are ignorant of this fact.

[IDS2 3,368]

I agree with screamingman. If you're making 200k a year and are sitting pretty, I think you can sacrifice your 3rd yacht for a raise in taxes while the lower class's rates stay the same or drop. Call it wealth redistribution, but it's a brilliant idea. Of course, don't tax them so much that there's no incentive to do business, but why not make the wealthy pay a bit more? They can afford it.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: IDS2 I agree with screamingman. If you're making 200k a year and are sitting pretty, I think you can sacrifice your 3rd yacht for a raise in taxes while the lower class's rates stay the same or drop. Call it wealth redistribution, but it's a brilliant idea. Of course, don't tax them so much that there's no incentive to do business, but why not make the wealthy pay a bit more? They can afford it.quote>

Just how much "wealth redistribution" do we need?  Are you aware that, according to the IRS, the top 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all the nation's income tax, the top 10% account for just over 70% of collected income tax, and the top 25% of Americans pay about 86.25% of the nation's income tax.  That leaves the other 75% shouldering a whopping roughly 14% of the nation's income tax revenue?  At what point do we finally agree that "the rich" are paying their fair share?

EDIT:  The link will download an Excel file from which the data was gathered.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

   At what point do we finally agree that "the rich" are paying their fair share?

quote>

When we stop seeing headlines like this:

        Feds seize WaMu, JP Morgan Chase buys bank

along with headlines like this:

        WaMu CEO could get $13.65 million for 18 days work

The obvious question is:  if WaMu was in such bad shape, why is the CEO getting millions of dollars?  Or, to put it another way, if the CEO wasn't getting millions of dollars, would WaMu be in such bad shape?

The average person, who is having trouble making ends meet, is not going to see why it makes sense for the CEO of a failed institution to get millions of dollars.  Especially if that average person is being asked to fork over tax dollars for the deal.

EDIT:

That's an interesting spreadsheet you found.  Based on what is says there, your percentages are accurate.

I believe this is one of those cases where perception trumps reality.  People believe that "the rich" are walking away with millions of dollars then asking for the average guy to pay for the damage.  They feel that on a visceral level.   With most people, statistics and percentages can't compete with that.