Campaign 2012: Presidential and other election news

[Grand Concourse]

Any plan that makes the EC split in each state vs the current 'winner takes all' set up would be fine by me. 54, 32, etc, that's way too many going to just one or the other candidate.

[Shortline Bus]

Any plan that makes the EC split in each state vs the current 'winner takes all' set up would be fine by me. 54, 32, etc, that's way too many going to just one or the other candidate.

 

 

Too bad the corrupt party bosses from both camps will reject this fair and reasonable way to modernize the ec college. If did not happen after the Gore/Bush 2000 post election fisaco it probably wont happen in my lifetime.

[Tokkemon]

Why mess with tradition when there's billions of dollars on the line?

[Q10 Airport]

Why mess with tradition when there's billions of dollars on the line?

 

 

Because changing to a national popular vote system will make every vote count equally.

 

My problem with the EC is that not all votes are created equal. A vote for Obama in New York, for example, means absolutely nothing while a vote for Obama in Florida means everything. This is because of the electoral college set-up.

[Tokkemon]

That was sarcasm. Perhaps a little too subtle.

[Shortline Bus]

Wow! What a shock. Mitt Romney is now the 2012 GOP nomiee lol

.

[Shortline Bus]

Rush being Rush. Now the talk show host is saying Pres. Obama 'tampered' with weather forecast with Issac.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/rush-limbaugh-isaac-obama-convention_n_1835674.html

[CenSin]

Republicans call for reduced regulation online, more data protection

by Cyrus Farivar - Aug 29 2012, 8:00pm EDT

 

Republicans have adopted multiple technology-related planks in their party platform (PDF), underscoring unprecedented support for Internet freedom and data protection, as well as protections from "unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance."

 

The GOP also vehemently argues against international regulation of the Internet, and lambasts the concept of the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rule. The party says the agency is "trying to micromanage telecom as if it were a railroad network." They also call for the use of "offensive capabilities" in cybersecurity, presumably, à la Stuxnet and more recent malware that likely originated from classified American programs. Further, the party also calls for a prohibition on online gambling as well as a "vigorous enforcement" of "all forms of pornography and obscenity."

 

Four years ago, Republicans did not mention the word "data" at all in the 2008 party platform, and only used the word "Internet" in context of calling for more government transparency online. Back then, the party argued for a permanent ban on "Internet access taxes" as well as a halt to "all new cell phone taxes."

We all love Internet Freedom, right?

 

Specifically, under the header of "Protecting Internet Freedom," Republicans lavish the Internet with praise, saying that it has "unleashed innovation, enabled growth, and inspired freedom more rapidly and extensively than any other technological advance in human history. Its independence is its power." The definition of Internet freedom, of course, is not something that everyone agrees on—generally Democrats argue for net neutrality, while Republicans say it impedes business interests.

 

In the same section, the platform also essentially calls for a reining in on government surveillance power.

 

"We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties; the only way to safeguard or improve these systems is through the private sector," the platform states.

 

Advocacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have called for similar protection for the use of personal data, which currently is available, often warrantlessly, to law enforcement agents under the 1986-era Electronic Communications Privacy Act. EPIC and others have called for reforms to this law, and said that Congress needs to step in where private industry has failed.

 

"We believe that the private sector approach to protect personal data has failed," said Amie Stepanovich, an associate litigation counsel at EPIC.

Ambiguities abound

 

However, other groups don’t see it that way, and are a bit disappointed at the language outlined in the platform.

 

"In context, I think it's pretty clear the ‘right of control’ they're talking about is a right against government access," wrote Berin Szoka, the president of tech policy think tank TechFreedom, in an e-mail sent to Ars.

 

"But it's bound to be misinterpreted by privacy regulatory advocates as a general right to control information held by third parties about us—which is essentially the approach of groups like EPIC. In particular, what exactly does the term ‘their data’ mean, anyway? The authors probably meant data that users upload or create to services—e.g., tweets, e-mails, Google Docs. But this term will likely be interpreted to mean much more than that: data merely about them—which is more properly referred to as ‘personally identifiable information.’ At best, this is poor draftsmanship."

 

Other legal scholars concur, saying this plank leaves more questions than answers.

 

"Additionally, while the right for individuals to control the use of their data by third parties could be an important part of protecting online privacy, it’s unclear exactly what this statement in the platform is referring to," wrote Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University, in an e-mail to Ars.

 

"Individuals do not own their personal information in the traditional sense. The First Amendment also protects against many attempts to restrict the publication of personal information. Instead, a loose patchwork of laws, regulations, and contracts provide limited rights to control one’s personal information in the United States. These rights certainly protect individuals in some contexts but often leave them vulnerable to harm in many others."

 

Lee Tien, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred, saying that this section on data protection "has lots of implications."

 

"You can't tell what they mean by full constitutional protection given flux in current Fourth Amendment law on business records in third-party hands," he wrote in an e-mail to Ars.

Remember what we did to Megaupload?

 

Christopher Dodd, the former Democratic senator from Connecticut, and current head of the Motion Picture Association of America, released a statement on Wednesday, calling the GOP’s platform "a very smart balance."

 

In the statement, Dodd re-iterated his group’s call that there was an "importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting Internet freedom."

 

In a section that specifically addresses intellectual property violations in China, the GOP's platform states: "Punitive measures will be imposed on foreign firms that misappropriate American technology and intellectual property."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/republicans-call-for-reduced-regulation-online-more-data-protection/?comments=1

 

Summary:

Republicans say they will fight for corporate freedoms (to nickel and dime you on their fibers and cables), deregulate everything that's important, and regulate the stupid things like obscenity and gambling.

[MHV9218]

It always amazes me just how far I fall from Republican views on almost every issue.

[MHV9218]

The attention-grabbing idiot himself gets more press, joy!

[Phantom909]

 

Republicans say they will fight for corporate freedoms (to nickel and dime you on their fibers and cables), deregulate everything that's important, and regulate the stupid things like obscenity and gambling.

 

 

Can I ask you which corporation that supplies you with your internet\phone\tv is holding a gun to your head to force you to buy their product? For the time being, this is still america, you are free not to have those services.but if you need it then why dont you build your own internet system then you dont have to worry about being nickel and dimed to death.

 

speaking of being nickel and dimed to death, are you upset at your share of the national debt which is today $50,893 (if your a taxpayer its $139,986. or are you concerned about your share of the $120.386 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drug) which your share of as a taxpayer is $1,053,746?

 

Are you concerned with the Executive Order that Obama signed on July 6, 2012 that will go onto effect September 4 2012 which gives Obama the power to cut off the internet in what he could declare a "national emergency"?

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-

 

just curious

 

Joe

[VWM]

I really hope this whole voucher system doensnt come into effect. It just never seemed like a good idea. If my grandpa was in trouble when we lost power for 6 days and couldn't get his insulin, if he can't get it at all (or anyone else like him), they are screwed.

 

 

But anyway, I think deportation should be standard who's just coming over to have kids and get benefits.

[lilbluefoxie]

the voucher system is OPTIONAL, noone is being forced to switch to it. People who are on medicare can keep their current system.

[VWM]

the voucher system is OPTIONAL, noone is being forced to switch to it. People who are on medicare can keep their current system.

 

 

It could be a problem once everyone on Medicare... Pass on.

[Q10 Airport]

On a bit of a side note do you all think that all of the attention on Hurricane Isaac will limit any post-convention bounce for Romney?

[Grand Concourse]

Hard to say. At least it hasn't turn into a Katrina type devastation, so I don't think it took that much away. Plus the convention was geared towards people who are still on the fence about who they want to vote for.

[CenSin]

Can I ask you which corporation that supplies you with your internet\phone\tv is holding a gun to your head to force you to buy their product? For the time being, this is still america, you are free not to have those services.but if you need it then why dont you build your own internet system then you dont have to worry about being nickel and dimed to death.

I'm glad you asked! I think you will find the answer by asking yourself these questions:

• How many people can disconnect from the Internet and stay disconnected for an extended period of time? Not many can. The internet is the means of communication and commerce and is a de facto necessity like potable water and electricity. Buying the services of an ISP is pretty much a given.

• How many ISPs can you choose from? There aren't many to choose from. In the New York City area, internet service is provided by a duopoly: Verizon (FiOS/DSL) or cable. Clearly there's not enough competition to keep the businesses honest. And recently, Verizon has been making backroom deals with cable companies. Any new ISPs are crushed by the duopoly before becoming viable due to lobbying and bribery. Just look at some of the state-funded ISP providers and see how incumbent ISPs have tried to sue them out of existence. No new startup could survive a lawsuit by a well-entrenched monopolist. Google, which is rolling out 1gbps fiber-optic internet service in Kansas City seems to be producing one of the few successful alternatives; they've created a service not offered by any greedy scumbags. Look towards Europe and Asia for an example of what internet services can be capable of; we can do it with ours at the flick of a switch.

 

speaking of being nickel and dimed to death, are you upset at your share of the national debt which is today $50,893 (if your a taxpayer its $139,986. or are you concerned about your share of the $120.386 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drug) which your share of as a taxpayer is $1,053,746?

Depending on the emerging culture of the United States (example: one of ignorance and extreme conservatism—which are really the same things in a nutshell), I might not be around this country to worry about that.

 

Are you concerned with the Executive Order that Obama signed on July 6, 2012 that will go onto effect September 4 2012 which gives Obama the power to cut off the internet in what he could declare a "national emergency"?

 

http://www.whitehous...y-preparedness-

You seem to be under the impression that just because the United States has a two-party system that everyone has a two-party mind (a.k.a.: a criticism of Republicans must be answered with a criticism of Democrats). Yes, I am concerned that Obama essentially signed into law a bill that give the government the same powers as those exercised in the Middle East dictatorships to silence rebels.

 

If there were a Pirate Party here in the U.S., I would vote their members into offices. The ones in Europe seem to be sensible with regards to the wants and needs of the emerging Internet-connected generation.

[CenSin]

I'm not able to edit my previous post for some reason, but here's an amendment to my previous post:

 

Other countries that have not met the goal of universal internet connectivity have already committed to making it happen through government intervention. Ireland, for example, wants to make sure there are ISPs serving every corner of the country urban, suburban, and rural. That's not to say that the government is paying for someone's internet bills, but guaranteeing that some company is there to provide service and ensure an acceptable level of service. The United States has no such ambitions at the moment, and in fact is going backwards with broadband caps and "traffic management," which is what Republicans support. Broadband caps and traffic management does nothing to help consumers, but sure does make a ton of money for the cable companies and wireless internet service providers.

 

If you own a cellphone… tell me that you would appreciate a limit of 200 text messages a month. It costs next to nothing for that limit to be eliminated, but Republicans sure wouldn't like their big businesses to be losing out on a revenue source.

 

Ireland calls for minimum Internet speeds of 30Mbps

by Cyrus Farivar

 

With the exception of Google Fiber, the United States isn’t exactly breaking records when it comes to high-speed Internet policy. The National Broadband Plan, which was released two years ago, says that there should be a minimum level of service of at least 4Mbps for all Americans. Since then, not much has happened.

 

But across the pond in Ireland, Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte, has recently decided that that’s not nearly enough.

 

On Thursday, he outlined a new broadband plan for Ireland that puts the United States to shame. He says that half the population, largely in the urban and suburban cores, should have speeds of 70Mbps to 100Mbps, with service of at least 40Mbps to the next 20 percent of the country. Finally, he writes, there should be a "minimum of 30Mbps for every remaining home and business in the country—no matter how rural or remote."

 

The measure in Ireland is part of the European Union’s Digital Agenda for Europe, which, among other things, requires member states to publish national broadband plans by the end of the year to bring a minimum level of 30Mbps service to all citizens by 2020. It also requires that countries bring speeds of 100Mbps to half of the EU’s households by 2020. Back in 2009, Finland announced a plan to bring a minimum service of 1Mbps by 2010, which would then be bumped to 100Mbps by 2015.

 

The Irish government says it’s prepared to put up €175 million ($219 million) to support the market’s failure to deliver broadband in rural areas. To be clear, the Irish government isn’t buying people Internet access—rather, it’s just making sure that a certain level of service is commercially available throughout the country.

 

"State funding will only arise where it is clear that the market will not deliver," states the Irish Department of Communication’s National Broadband Plan (PDF), published on Thursday. "The precise cost to the State will be subject to the outcome of the procurement process chosen. The source of the State’s contribution will be subject to further consideration and may include the proceeds from the sale of State assets, the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the Strategic Investment Fund."

Source: http://arstechnica.c...bps/?comments=1

[Phantom909]

I'm glad you asked! I think you will find the answer by asking yourself these questions:

• How many people can disconnect from the Internet and stay disconnected for an extended period of time? Not many can. The internet is the means of communication and commerce and is a de facto necessity like potable water and electricity. Buying the services of an ISP is pretty much a given.

• How many ISPs can you choose from? There aren't many to choose from. In the New York City area, internet service is provided by a duopoly: Verizon (FiOS/DSL) or cable. Clearly there's not enough competition to keep the businesses honest. And recently, Verizon has been making backroom deals with cable companies. Any new ISPs are crushed by the duopoly before becoming viable due to lobbying and bribery. Just look at some of the state-funded ISP providers and see how incumbent ISPs have tried to sue them out of existence. No new startup could survive a lawsuit by a well-entrenched monopolist. Google, which is rolling out 1gbps fiber-optic internet service in Kansas City seems to be producing one of the few successful alternatives; they've created a service not offered by any greedy scumbags. Look towards Europe and Asia for an example of what internet services can be capable of; we can do it with ours at the flick of a switch.

 

Depending on the emerging culture of the United States (example: one of ignorance and extreme conservatism—which are really the same things in a nutshell), I might not be around this country to worry about that.

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that just because the United States has a two-party system that everyone has a two-party mind (a.k.a.: a criticism of Republicans must be answered with a criticism of Democrats). Yes, I am concerned that Obama essentially signed into law a bill that give the government the same powers as those exercised in the Middle East dictatorships to silence rebels.

 

If there were a Pirate Party here in the U.S., I would vote their members into offices. The ones in Europe seem to be sensible with regards to the wants and needs of the emerging Internet-connected generation.

 

 

so all companies are greedy scumbags? Companies that employ people and give them a standard of living better than anywhere in the world. Your socialism knows no bounds. State funded ISP`s like BPOT and BIP are paid by us taxpayers. You like to make it sound like the government is giving it out of the goodness of their hearts. Basically they are subsidies to the cable companies, just like the subsidies for the oil companies which you liberals cry about all the time. I love the hypocrisy of the libs, they badmouth companies and then pay them for their services, mindboggling.

 

The ignorance comes from the liberals, you buy into the illusion that big government with their cradle to grave mentality, that attacks success yet glorifies dependency on the government. Those food stamp commercials with the 2 women laughing about it is offensive.You keep waxing poetic about thats how they do it in Europe and Asia, MEMO we fought a revolutionary war to get away from Europe and the rest of the world, and by giving us liberty thats guaranteed by the constitution, which obama and the rest of you libs hate, we built the greatest country in the history of this planet. Yes, the American people, regardless of the liberal media, are EXCEPTIONAL, Deal with it.

 

Youve hinted about leaving the US, whats keeping you here? Go and live in your socialist utopia you dream of, and let us who love this country, even with its flaws, fight to keep the American Dream alive.

 

Joe

[GojiMet86]

I'll side with Paul Krugman on this one. Remember, it's from the opinions section from the NYTimes:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

The Medicare Killers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Published: August 30, 2012

 

 

Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night may have accomplished one good thing: It finally may have dispelled the myth that he is a Serious, Honest Conservative. Indeed, Mr. Ryan’s brazen dishonesty left even his critics breathless.

Some of his fibs were trivial but telling, like his suggestion that President Obama is responsible for a closed auto plant in his hometown, even though the plant closed before Mr. Obama took office. Others were infuriating, like his sanctimonious declaration that “the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” This from a man proposing savage cuts in Medicaid, which would cause tens of millions of vulnerable Americans to lose health coverage.

And Mr. Ryan — who has proposed $4.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, versus only about $1.7 trillion in specific spending cuts — is still posing as a deficit hawk.

But Mr. Ryan’s big lie — and, yes, it deserves that designation — was his claim that “a Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.” Actually, it would kill the program.

Before I get there, let me just mention that Mr. Ryan has now gone all-in on the party line that the president’s plan to trim Medicare expenses by around $700 billion over the next decade — savings achieved by paying less to insurance companies and hospitals, not by reducing benefits — is a terrible, terrible thing. Yet, just a few days ago, Mr. Ryan was still touting his own budget plan, which included those very same savings.

But back to the big lie. The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills; instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. And, if the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, hey, that would be your problem.

Moreover, the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate; their value would be set by a formula taking no account of likely increases in health care costs.

Why would anyone think that this was a good idea? The G.O.P. platform says that it “will empower millions of seniors to control their personal health care decisions.” Indeed. Because those of us too young for Medicare just feel so personally empowered, you know, when dealing with insurance companies.

Still, wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid, which have less bureaucracy than private insurers (if you can’t believe this, you’ve never had to deal with an insurance company) and greater bargaining power, are better than the private sector at controlling costs.

I know this flies in the face of free-market dogma, but it’s just a fact. You can see this fact in the history of Medicare Advantage, which is run through private insurers and has consistently had higher costs than traditional Medicare. You can see it from comparisons between Medicaid and private insurance: Medicaid costs much less. And you can see it in international comparisons: The United States has the most privatized health system in the advanced world and, by far, the highest health costs.

So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Seniors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck.

Still, the G.O.P. promises to maintain Medicare as we know it for those currently over 55. Should everyone born before 1957 feel safe? Again, no.

For one thing, repeal of Obamacare would cause older Americans to lose a number of significant benefits that the law provides, including the way it closes the “doughnut hole” in drug coverage and the way it protects early retirees.

Beyond that, the promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away.

The question now is whether voters will understand what’s really going on (which depends to a large extent on whether the news media do their jobs). Mr. Ryan and his party are betting that they can bluster their way through this, pretending that they are the real defenders of Medicare even as they work to kill it. Will they get away with it?

 

[Phantom909]

Oh yeah Paul Krugman is so objective. Hes another liberal disciple of Keynesian economics.

 

The GM plant in Janesville, WI, built sUV`s and Light trucks. The SUV line closed in December 2008, but the Light truck line continued until April 2009, so Krugman is wrong about that

 

Obama taking out $716 billon from medicare to pay for obamacare, hes justifying that by saing that payments to doctors, hospitals, and insurence companies will be lowered. since medicare now pays about 92 cents on the dollar, how much less. doctors dont want to take anymore medicare patients. im already on record saying that i dont know if ryan`s plan would work but something has to be done

 

and you notice that krugman never mentions the wyden-ryan plan that gives you a choice, take a voucher or keep traditional medicare, so again he is lying.

 

at least give me somebody who is at least slightly unbiased.

 

Joe

[GojiMet86]

You're missing the point. The voucher is for $6500, which if you're a more wealthy American, is no problem. However, when you age, you're not going to be able to pay for insurance for things that happen, unless you're wealthy. And when that voucher runs out, you better have a lot of money saved to pay for whatever costs.

 

Oh, and you pay the private companies more and get less in benefits.

[MHV9218]

^ It's a lost cause.

[Tokkemon]

^ It's a lost cause.

[GojiMet86]

Extremists are a lost cause. On both sides. That's what happens with polarization of the political groups.