Are you going to vote?

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Well, CNN has started posting results for today. All I can say is: wow. I did not see this one coming. I was sure we'd have 2 more years of complaining about the House ahead of us. Although, we probably still will do that, just about different things.

Actually, there was a London Bookmaking agency that placed good odds on this exact scenario. They did huge odds in favor of Dems taking House, and small odds on Republicans retaining Senate. My preference, for as long as we are in the current system of two parties I don't like running the place, is for them to have one body each... Therefore, they can block each others stuff and squabble a lot and not actually do anything effectual... Thus I retain more freedom and more of my tax money than I would if they could just take either as is their wont. ^^ I'll be quite pleased if the Reps retain the Senate, but it won't really matter with a Rep veto.

[Kitalrez]

Re: Are you going to vote?

My preference, for as long as we are in the current system of two parties I don't like running the place, is for them to have one body each... Therefore, they can block each others stuff and squabble a lot and not actually do anything effectual... Thus I retain more freedom and more of my tax money than I would if they could just take either as is their wont. ^^ I'll be quite pleased if the Reps retain the Senate, but it won't really matter with a Rep veto.

Yeah, I used to feel that way too. However, in the current atmosphere, I tend to prefer a strong Legislative Branch, merely because it keeps the Executive in check. I mean, here we have a President arguing that we need unrestricted wiretap access, and he's from the same party that screwed up royally and got that access taken away from the President several decades earlier. I don't care if Nixon was a good role-model, he was a paranoid, crazy motherf$#%er. Rolling back our power structure for a guy that idolizes him doesn't make any sense. Although, at least with the new makeup from this election, no one can really screw up the Judicial any more, which offers us all some hope.

I dunno though, I see a lot of hope in this result. At least outside of California, if you say you're a Western Democrat, it basically means you're a Libertarian in all but name. Same ideals, just with better national funding, and you get a relatively normal candidate instead of whatever nut-job they trot out to run every two years. Yeah, there's a blue state victory, but it's really spread out enough that the rest of us should balance out whatever New York and California do. There's a chance we'll start to see some moderate reforms in the future, instead of anything shifting hard to one side.

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

As for the Libertarians, I do like the Small Federal Government portion of their platform as I am, technically, an Anti-Federalist to go back to early US Constitutional discussion and debate. I do not, however, like the laissez-faire economics. I think that publicly owned corporations need a significant amount of oversight from the government as they are essentially immortal entities that feed on the populace. This is especially true of necessity services such as banks and energy companies.

One thing I like about the Democrats is that they're all huggled up with the Enviro-utopians rather than Big Oil, but they've still got their honey pots (Real Estate comes to mind), and they have so many social programs in their proposals. I'm not in favor of socialization--the larger the scale of the social program, the less effectively it is managed and when you're not spending your own money, you tend to waste it. I favor a bottom-up (Local power) governmental system that achieves a diversity of state law that can be tolerated better by different personalities than an all-inclusive federalized government.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Are you going to vote?

[QUOTE=Hantz;648515]Well, just got back from voting. Most of the positions on the ballot were judges (we elect them in Texas...) and most of them didn't have an opponent to run against.
QUOTE]

Yeah... I'm in Texas aswell. I was disappointed with how most of the positions only had one person running.

[Hantz]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Well, just got back from voting. Most of the positions on the ballot were judges (we elect them in Texas...) and most of them didn't have an opponent to run against.

Yeah... I'm in Texas aswell. I was disappointed with how most of the positions only had one person running.

The weird thing was, ther was only one spot for a write-in on my whole ballot. I ended up giving a lot of those incumbent judges one of Sabaron's patented "no confidence" votes. And even though I didn't really write in "Mog" on the one space for a write-in, I sure as hell did write in "John Frusciante." It was better than the choices available.

John Frusciante is not a politician.

He's the guitar player for the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.

Let me just say, without bashing anybody's party or vote, that for me personally, voting in Texas is like trying to fight my way out of the world's largest bedsheet underwater. I can vote until my head explodes and it won't sway the way things go. (I'm thinking mainly of the governer's race, but the house and senate seats come to mind as well.) Oh well, I did my best.

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

...Sabaron's patented "no confidence" votes.

To tell the truth, I picked up this term from the unfortunately abysmal Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace, so the term may very well be a trademark of George Lucas. Of course, it's not the same as the SWI usage, I simply feel that the term seems to describe the action of basically "voting against" a candidate.

To elaborate further with respect to the "no confidence" vote and "automatic runoff" we get this procedure:

1. A voter may leave a box blank, a blank box vote is not counted.
2. The voter may also rank the candidates in the box according to preference, leaving a box blank indicates that if all candidates the voter selected by preference are removed from the ballot via automatic runoff, then the voter chooses not to make a selection between the remaining candidates (i.e. he has no preference wrt the blanked candidates).

3. The voter may mark one or more of the candidates with a zero (0) rather than ranking them or leaving them blank. This means that in the event that the voter's ranked candidates are eliminated via automatic runoff that the voter's vote still counts in the total vote tally, but does not count for any candidate. This increases the total number of voters in the election and thus the majority required for election so that by voting "no confidence", the voter is, in essence, voting against the candidate even if all of his preferred candidates have been eliminated.

[Mhurron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

To tell the truth, I picked up this term from the unfortunately abysmal Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace, so the term may very well be a trademark of George Lucas.

Very little of Star Wars is of Lucas' creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

I might have known from the fake English accents that Lucas stole this from Parliamentary Procedure.

[Vyuru]

Re: Are you going to vote?

I have to agree with Skoal's post the other day. There are some things that I like about rebulicans, and some things I like about democrats, I honestly don't care if the candidates are rebulican or democratic (unless the senate is completely controlled by one or the other) I just want someone, and a senate, who will try their best to run this country in a good manner, and not try to get their party in sole control of everything.

It's probably never going to happen, but hey, still nice to hope for.

[Caspian]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Let me just say, without bashing anybody's party or vote, that for me personally, voting in Texas is like trying to fight my way out of the world's largest bedsheet underwater. I can vote until my head explodes and it won't sway the way things go. (I'm thinking mainly of the governer's race, but the house and senate seats come to mind as well.) Oh well, I did my best.

Yup. I was tired as crap yesterday and forgot to go vote after work, but not that it would have made a difference. Hutchison won by a landslide.
I don't usually vote if I haven't done a good job of keeping up on the local issues and such. I feel if I don't know all the aspects of a vote then I really don't have a lot of business voting.
Actually surprised Perry won by as much as he did. I figured Sheehan and Kinky would have pulled a lot more votes from his corner and given the Dems the governor's seat.
Sabaron, hell freaking yes on the small federal government idea. Its the way it was intentionally supposed to be and has been completely pervereted in the last 100+ years. (Thank you FDR -.-) Federal government was never meant to have the power they now hold.
As for whether or not anything is actually going to change? Not much.
Most intelligent Americans realize we can't just up and leave Iraq. That would be like leaving an infant with a pack of wolves. I'm sure there will be some big defense budget cutbacks.
Sorry, but I have to say one of the biggest problems I have with Dems is the attitude of "we have a better plan, but its a secret." Countless times they say there are better ways of doing things, but when they're asked what they are, they either refuse to give any specifics (or even general ideas for that matter) or just reword what we've been doing for the last 6 years. Oh well, looks like Americans finally bought the "We're better than them." campaign tactic. Though you could argue thats all either side has used much in the last 30 years.

Oh yeah, I'm guessing everyone heard about Rumsfeld today?

Kitalrez, what did you mean by "screwing up the Judicial branch even more."? Both Supreme Court Justices are considered to be two the of top 5 most brilliant law minds in the country. John Roberts considered by many in both parties to possibly be THE most brilliant law mind living today. I'm not sure how that could be "screwing up the Justice branch".

Finally, I'm curious if the Dems will hold to their promise of increasing the national minimum wage to 8 bucks an hour. Sounds great, right? It'll be great for all of a day, until the cost of living rises so that companies can afford to pay all their employees 8/hr to ask if you want fries with that. So those making minimum wage will see no benefit at all, while everyone making over minimum will probably take a hit in the wallet since they're highly unlikely to get as much of a raise, if they even get a raise at all.

[x1ang]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Well, it seems that the Democrats now have won over Congress (Virginia is left, but even with all the recounts I doubt Webb will be upset). Either way, I doubt the Democrats plan on withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon - as it is obvious we can't and shouldn't. However, what probably will change in the Iraq issue is the policies towards treating "non-combatants/terrorists," possibly a "re-planning" of what is being done in Iraq (e.g. concentrate more on reconstruction, etc etc?) as hard is it may be, and funding.

National-wise I can see a lot of changes. Gridlock to name one. We're back to the oh-so-wonderful divided government with the Legislative and Executive branch set against one another. However, I can bet the Democratic Party will be pushing to change stem-cell research, health-care, minimum wage, possibly the immigration policies, and possibly the gay-marriage issue (but I doubt they would want to tackle it). Nonetheless, it'll interesting to see what goes on from here.

Personally, I consider myself a Democrat, but that is because I share more views with those stated by the Democratic Party - but I prefer to choose and research issues myself rather than be directed mindlessly by the party's values.

As to raising the minimum wage, it is not the correct way to help the poor in the U.S. In fact, a majority of us won't even notice or won't be greatly affected by the raise in minimum wage. Those who will be affected are those with the lower-income jobs - simply because there is not enough low-paying, low-skilled jobs to go around. I doubt it'll make a significant impact to cause a greater surge of outsourcing - plus outsourcing isn't necessarily bad, as isolationism is even worse. Those who will benefit from a minimum wage increase? Behind the desk workers and older people who work minimum wages. Who will take the brunt? Mostly teenagers.

Btw, anyone notice the surge of bi-partisan candidates nowadays? :D

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

...

National-wise I can see a lot of changes. Gridlock to name one. We're back to the oh-so-wonderful divided government with the Legislative and Executive branch set against one another.

My favorite... Delicious.

...However, I can bet the Democratic Party will be pushing to change stem-cell research, health-care, minimum wage, possibly the immigration policies, and possibly the gay-marriage issue (but I doubt they would want to tackle it). Nonetheless, it'll interesting to see what goes on from here.

1. Stem cell research is good as long as no babies die in the process.

2. Socialized medicine is bad when attempted on a national level.

3. Minimum Wage Below.

4. Structured Immigration is good; Uncontrolled Immigration is bad.

5. Gay marriage is a foolish issue. Explanation of this below

...
Personally, I consider myself a Democrat, but that is because I share more views with those stated by the Democratic Party - but I prefer to choose and research issues myself rather than be directed mindlessly by the party's values.

I find a lot of people are like this, but there are also a lot of Gung-ho party-bots. The Gung-ho party-bots always vote; the people that are on the fence have a lower turn-out.

As to raising the minimum wage, it is not the correct way to help the poor in the U.S. In fact, a majority of us won't even notice or won't be greatly affected by the raise in minimum wage.

Minimum Wage:

The idea of minimum wage is that it is basically a standard that defines the minimum amount of money that a person can be paid and be able to survive (at bare minimum as a dual-income). A couple, paid minimum wage, will be hard pressed to survive themselves let alone support children. The minimum wage for teenagers is set lower and does not necessarily need to be adjusted--the two needn't be so intimately intertwined. This notion that "teenage workers" will be out of the job and unable to buy "cool phones" and "distressed denim" is typically used as a scare tactic by the Corporate Body Politik to engender support for their ability to continue to force low skill level workers to work 2-3 jobs (usually part-time no benefits) at upwards of 60-80 hours per week minimum so they can line their pockets with gold and sip Champagne in their hot tubs while stroking beautiful escorts [slightly facetious and definitely over-the-top, but you get the point]. The minimum wage should be increased.

Gay Marriage
This is just one of the "hot-button" populace division tools used by the political parties to carve up voters based on something that is relatively unimportant (a lot of people realize this especially after it was sooo big during the last election where it failed as a motivator as well, except among the gay community and its supporters and the Bible Bangers, which is where, I believe, it was intended to operate).

Basically, my thought on marriage is that... If you don't have any kids, you don't get squat. If you want to have contractual, legal, marriage or marriage like contract, this can be performed by a lawyer--you don't even need a justice of the peace. What this all boils down to is that gay couples wish to be able to use certain benefits of marriage that involve corporate money. For instance, coupled health care benefits, pensions, etc. Everything else can already be done. There are some tax issues as well, but they're relatively minor if there are no children involved. The Gay Rights movement wishes the Federal Government to force the companies that they work for to provide these benefits rather than having to voluntarily do so (which many businesses already do). It is also an attempt to be "included" in the word Marriage, even though Marriage is a religious ceremony and therefore not truly the business of the government in the first place.

My proposal vis-a-vis Gay "Marriage" is to do away with all mention of the word "Marriage" in law (as it is a religious element) and replace it with the term "Civil Union" which can be undertaken by any person or group of people who wish to combine their shared assets, possessions, and benefits into a single pile. However... One must remember than whenever one does something in law, one "breaks" some things that are good about the current state in order to "fix" some things that are not so good. In this case, Marriage loses more lustre. There is currently on the books a law that creates a "No Fault Divorce" and it has been the single greatest affront to the American Family since its inception, and I propose that it be done away with. There's no such thing as an NFD when there are children involved. "We've grown apart" doesn't give you license to go f_ing anything you want and screwing up your kids. If you've got kids and you're married, you don't get to have NFD, you give right up in exchange for services from the government that are to your benefit--which means you can get royally screwed if you actually have a "Fault", but that you can't just "go your separate ways" when you get bored if you've got kids...

I could go on for hours, but I think I'll stop there until prodded again.

Btw, anyone notice the surge of bi-partisan candidates nowadays? :D

What is a bi-partisan candidate? A Demopublican or a Republocrat? I prefer Fingerlickans and Tastycrats... Futurama Election episode ftw.

[x1ang]

Re: Are you going to vote?

I personally support gay marriage and I see no reason for them not to be able to.. it's even more outrageous that its constitutionally "banned." But as of recent, as you mentioned, the benefits between a gay/straight couple-marriage are pretty much the same. The problem with minimum wage is that you can't simply fix the problem by just raising the min. wage. There has to be the availability of jobs for low-wage workers, etc etc. Simply raising the min.wage and saying "that's all, we did enough to help you, you're on your own" isn't enough in my perspective. Additionally, I really can't say much about illegal immigration as it's obvious our economy is quite reliant on illegal workers, but I can understand the government's wanting for more "secure borders" - however, I believe the terrorist threat of the Mexican-US border is slightly exaggerated (Canadian-US border?), but then again that's just how I feel.

What is a bi-partisan candidate? A Demopublican or a Republocrat? I prefer Fingerlickans and Tastycrats... Futurama Election episode ftw.

XD

[711rocks]

Re: Are you going to vote?

lol @ the rumsmeister
Took him long enough. >.>

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Again, on gay marriage, it shouldn't be an election issue, because it shouldn't be an issue at all...

Marriage is a religious institution and the Federal Government cannot force a clergyman to perform a marriage unsanctioned by his church. Since the Government is not allowed to be discriminatory based on race or gender, we therefore come to the logical conclusion that it cannot also be discriminatory toward these things as a matter of law either. If a particular religion (e.g. Unitarian Universalists) marry gay couples, there's nothing the Fed. Gov. can do about it because preventing a marriage based on its racial/gender profile is technically discrimination and interference with the free exercise of religion--since they are essentially denying people religious rights based on their sex. This is why I seek the disentanglement of the State with the Rite of Marriage. A "Civil Union" (the "business end" of a marriage if you will) is merely a contract whereby two or more people (not dogs or toasters, they can legally enter into a contract) choose to combine their material assets into a single business entity, so instead of being Adam Smith and Steve Jones, they're now Adam & Steve Smith-Jones just like when Square and Enix combined they became Square-Enix. It's merely a boring business merger. Of course, it is right and appropriate for the government to foster the growth of the nation by encouraging child production, therefore governmetal benefits may be awarded to married people based on that (don't complain about your taxes going toward future generations, remember, they get your crushing, massive, government debts too).