Category: Politics

Same Tactics, Different Party

People, especially self-proclaimed Democrats, often chided the Bush administration for using patriotism to silence their opposition. Now that Bush is out of office and the tables have turn the Obama administration is trying its damnedest to show that there is only one party, the party of the state, by using Bush’s exact tactics to silence its opposition:

In the eight years since then, Democrats haven’t learned how to beat Bush’s tactics. What they’ve learned instead is how to mimic them. “There were very important moments in the discussion about Libya,” Obama adviser David Plouffe told CNN last night. “Gov. Romney looked like someone playing politics, and I think the president looked like a resolute commander-in-chief.” On MSNBC, Obama strategist David Axelrod said the president “is aware every single moment that he’s responsible for the lives of the Americans he sends overseas. … He feels that intensely. So it is offensive, the suggestion that somehow he would play politics with this issue.” Today on Good Morning America, Vice President Biden added:

It became so clear to the American people how Gov. Romney and the campaign continue to try to politicize a tragedy. … The president was clear: We are going to get to the bottom of this. The whole world will know it. And I think when the president turned and looked at Gov. Romney and made that assertion, saying, basically, “Don’t question me on this, in terms of my caring,” I thought it was a powerful moment.

Patriotism is a powerful and frightening tool. It allows the state to great a religious zealotry in those it expropriates from. Instead of fighting against the exploiters the people defend and even worship them. When you speak out against the exploiters the people throw out accusations of treason and being unpatriotic (as if that is supposed to be bad). The state itself uses this reverence for all it’s worth in an attempt to silence all critics. Unfortunately people often fail to see “their” party use patriotism to silence opposition, they only see it when “the other” party does it.

We must avoid succumbing to patriotism. If we allow yourselves to worship the state, to see the state as benevolent, then it becomes far easier to sucker us into supporting heinous crimes such as the stripping of liberties, wars, and ever increasing expropriation.

Rand Paul Makes Hating Him too Easy

Even though I already have good reasons to dislike Rand Paul it’s nice to see that he’s working hard to give me more:

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is running ads in support of controversial Republican Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin in his bid to unseat Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill.

For the past week, RandPAC has been targeting Senate Democrats for voting against Paul’s proposal to cut foreign aid to Libya, Egypt and Pakistan.

Rand Paul is throwing his support behind Todd “Women Rarely Become Pregnant from Legitimate Rape” Akins. Normally I wouldn’t waste your time reporting on this. Nobody should be surprised that one sociopathic neocon is supporting another sociopathic neocon. However the fact that many people in the liberty movement still believe that Rand Paul will be our savior makes this stupid political move noteworthy. Obviously Rand’s opponents are going to descend on this news like vultures on a corpse and his supporters will be expected to justify his actions. It’s going to be damned difficult to justify Rand’s support of Akins since Akins’s did a wonderful job of vilifying himself in the eyes of almost everybody. Heck the Republican Party even told Akins to quite.

This should make for a very entertaining episodes of Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers.

Why Your Presidential Vote Won’t Count in Minnesota

Advocates of voting for third-party candidates are often subjected to ridicule because their votes, statistically speaking, don’t count. Supporters of the two party system claim that anybody voting for a third-party candidate is throwing their vote away or is actually voting for one of the two major candidates (Republicans will claim a third-party vote is actually a vote for Obama while Democrats will claim that a third-party vote is actually a vote for Romney). Fortunately I live in Minnesota and can tell you that your presidential vote won’t count unless you vote for Obama. To understand this one must look at the electoral college system. Many people don’t realize that presidential elections aren’t determined by popular vote, they’re determined by the electoral college system:

When U.S. citizens vote for president and vice President every election cycle, ballots show the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, although they are actually electing a slate of “electors” that represent them in each state. The electors from every state combine to form the Electoral College.

Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. House representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each state’s population as determined in the census).

When you cast a vote for president you’re not actually casting a vote for that candidate, you’re casting a vote for a group of presidential electors. These electors are the people who actually vote for the president. Effectively you cast a vote for a group of “representatives” who actually get to vote for the president. Now we must look at how electors are selected:

Each political party with a candidate on the ballot designates its own set of electors for each state, matching the number of electors they appoint with the number of electoral votes allotted to the state. This usually occurs at state party conventions. Electors are typically strong and loyal supporters of their political party, but can never be a U.S. Senator or Representative. Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge.

After the election, by statutes in 48 states and the District of Columbia, the party that wins the most votes in that state appoints all of the electors for that state. This is known as a “winner-take-all” or “unit rule” allocation of electors, which became the norm across the nation by the 1830’s. Currently, the only exceptions to the unit rule are in Maine and Nebraska that allocate their electors by congressional district, plus two at-large electors awarded to the candidate who wins the states’ popular votes.

Minnesota has 10 electoral votes (we have eight House representaties and two Senators) so each political party gets to elect 10 presidential electors. With the exception of two states, presidential electors are selected on a “winner-takes-all” basis. Minnesota is not one of those two states:

6. Can a voter split votes between presidential elector candidates of different political parties?

No.

A vote can only be cast for the entire slate of electors by voting for the presidential and vice-presidential ticket that the candidates for elector are pledged to support.

7. Are the presidential elector candidates required to receive a majority of the votes cast (50%) in Minnesota?

No.

The presidential electors pledged to support the presidential and vice-presidential ticket that receives the MOST votes in MINNESOTA are certified as the official presidential electors for Minnesota. The winning slate of electors is only required to receive more votes in Minnesota than any other slate of electors. A majority (50% plus one vote) is not required for an elector to be elected.

Whichever party gets the majority of votes in Minnesota gets to select all of the presidential electors. If the Democratic Party gets 30% of the votes, the Republican Party gets 29% of the votes, the Libertarian Party gets 21% of the votes, and the Green Party gets 20% of the votes the Democratic Party gets to select all of the electors. If you don’t vote for the majority presidential candidate in Minnesota your vote literally doesn’t count.

Let’s take a look at Minnesota’s electoral college history. Since 1932 the Democratic Party has won all but three presidential elections in Minnesota. The last presidential election won by the Republicans in Minnesota was in 1972. That means since 1972 no vote for a Republican president has counted in the state of Minnesota. Furthermore Obama is polling ahead of Romney in this state so history is looking to repeat itself.

Claiming that any presidential vote cast for a third-party is being thrown away in Minnesota is effectively true. Likewise claiming any presidential vote cast for the Republican Party is being thrown away in Minnesota is also effectively true. Unless you’re planning to vote for Obama in this election your vote won’t matter in the state of 10,000 lakes.

What does all of this mean? For those of your on the fence about voting for a third-party candidate it means you can safely do so without worrying about whether or not your vote may lead to the “greater” of two evils becoming president. If you’re a libertarian that is worried about Obama getting reelected if you vote for Gary Johnson put your worries to rest. The same goes for those of you considering voting for the Green Party, Constitution Party, or any other political party. Obama is all but guaranteed to win all 10 electoral votes in Minnesota regardless of how you vote. Vote your conscious because, unless you’re voting for Obama, your vote won’t have any affect on the presidential race.

Don’t let the two major parties scare you into voting for one of their candidates. I know many advocates of gun rights are trying to convince people to vote for Romney because they believe he will nominate more gun friendly Supreme Court judges. That issue doesn’t concern you if you live in Minnesota because you don’t get a say in this election unless you support Obama. Vote for who you want to win. Since your vote is going to be thrown away you might as well have a clear conscious after you’re done casting a ballot.

The Romney Campaign Needs a Better Propaganda Minister

I don’t know how to put this delicately so I’ll be blunt; the Romney campaign needs to hire a new propaganda minister. After Paul Ryan’s recent fiasco it’s obvious that the campaign’s propaganda minister isn’t doing his job:

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week “ramrodded their way” into the group’s Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

[…]

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

A propaganda minister has one very simple job: make the candidate or candidates under his or her care look good in the public eye. That’s it. Apparently the Romney campaign’s minister can’t even accomplish that simple task. When this impromptu photo opportunity was starting to develop the minister should have asked some very basic questions such as whether or not Ryan would be able to actually help the soup kitchen. If Ryan came too late to actually help the photo opportunity would be meaningless because it would become public information that the man didn’t actually do anything. In that case the campaign should have just kept rolling and not have bothered going to the kitchen. If Ryan came early enough to help then the minister would have to inform Ryan that he would actually have to help otherwise it would become public information that he did nothing.

This fiasco was a very elementary mistake for a propaganda minister to make. Even an amateur should have caught this and forbidden Ryan from entering that soup kitchen after the patrons had left and everything had been cleaned up. Romney’s campaign really needs to take some lessons from Obama’s campaign. Obama has hired some of the slickest propagandists out there that do some absolutely amazing work. They do such an excellent job that they still have many people who supported Obama during the last election because of his anti-war platform supporting him again even though he’s proven himself to be a complete war monger.

If Romney wants to win the election he needs to get somebody who can propagandize effectively. There are only three weeks left before the election but a really great propagandist could still help pull off a victory by raising Romney and Ryan’s status in the public eye.

We Should Address Real Voter Fraud

We’re being told that voter fraud is rampent. In Minnesota there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot that, if passed, would require voters in the state to present state issued photographic identification in order to vote. Minnesota Republicans have been blaming two of their highest profile losses on voter fraud. I’m here to tell you that voter fraud is a real threat, it is happening, but it’s happening in the courtroom not at the polling places:

Around the country, Republican operatives have been making moves to keep Mr. Johnson from becoming their version of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate whose relatively modest support cut into Al Gore’s 2000 vote arguably enough to help hand the decisive states of Ohio and Florida to George W. Bush.

The fear of Mr. Johnson’s tipping the outcome in an important state may explain why an aide to Mr. Romney ran what was effectively a surveillance operation into Mr. Johnson’s efforts over the summer to qualify for the ballot at the Iowa State Fair, providing witnesses to testify in a lawsuit to block him that ultimately fizzled.

Libertarians suspect it is why Republican state officials in Michigan blocked Mr. Johnson from the ballot after he filed proper paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline.

And it is why Republicans in Pennsylvania hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive in Philadelphia, appearing at the homes of paid canvassers and, in some cases, flashing an F.B.I. badge — he was a retired agent — while asking to review the petitions they gathered at $1 a signature, according to testimony in the case and interviews.

The Republican Party has been doing its best to prevent Gary Johnson from appearing on the ballots just as the Democratic Party previously attempted to do to Ralph Nader. Both major parties have a history of actively trying to prevent potential competition from being valid options in presidential races.

What’s more fraudulent, a potential handful of individuals voting multiple times or major political parties actively trying to silence those who oppose them? I would say the latter. Preventing candidates from appearing on ballots not only takes votes away from those candidates but it also disenfranchises supporters of those candidates. If you believe the voting system is how an individual expresses their desire during an election and Gary Johnson is prevented from appearing on the ballots how can a libertarian express his or her desire during the presidential election? They can’t. Doesn’t that effectively cheat libertarians out of expressing their desire in this system where everybody supposedly has a voice?

If you want to address voter fraud look no further than these tactics being used by the two major political parties to silence third party candidates. Entire blocks of the voting public are being prevented from expressing their desires during the election.

The Real 2012 Presidential Debates

The second presidential debate will be airing tonight. Needless to say I’m not going to be watching it. If I wanted to watch an idiot debate a mirror I could walk into my bathroom and scream at myself. Instead of wasting your time with the presidential debate I encourage you to watch the rap versions of the presidential debates. They’re far more entertaining and, unlike the actual presidential debates, you may actually learn something:

“Don’t let this war is peace price deceive you, I bombed a whole heap of people to pieces and my first term ain’t even completed,” has to be one of the best lines ever written regarding the presidential race.

The second video is pretty good as well:

What the Minnesota Constitutional Amendments are Really About

On November 6th the people of Minnesota will be given the oppertunity to vote on two constitutional amendments. One of the amendments would make reversing Minnesota’s prohibition against same sex marriages more difficult by making that prohibition constitutional. The other amendment will require Minnesotans to present state issued photo identification in order to vote. If you live in this state you’ve probably heard all of the arguments for and against these amendments by now and if you don’t live in this state I’ll save you a bunch of pointless reading. Yes I said pointless reading. These amendments aren’t being put on the ballot to solve any problems, they’re being put onto the ballot to get people to the polls.

Consider the majority of candidates being put forth by the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have managed to put forward candidates that their bases simply can’t get fired up about. Even their presidential candidates are failing to excite the voting base as Mitt Romney isn’t well liked by many Republicans and Barack Obama isn’t well liked by many Democrats. A huge number of Republicans and Democrats have noted that the only reason they’re voting for their party’s candidate is because he’s not as bad as the other guy.

In such a situation both parties need to perform some card tricks to encourage their voters to go to the polls. The constitutional amendments are those card tricks. The Marriage Amendment is getting the evangelicals who traditionally vote Republican and the progressives who traditionally vote Democrat fired up. Evangelicals believe that religion and the state should be tied and therefore laws prohibiting same sex marriages should be placed on the books. Progressives believe that the state should be secular and therefore oppose any law that attempts to enforce religious morality. The damnedest thing about this amendment is that it serves no actual purpose since same sex marriages are already illegal in the state of Minnesota.

The Voter ID Amendment is no different. Republicans in this state are still butt hurt over the fact that they lost two close elections. First Al Franken managed to pull a slight victory over Norm Coleman and then Mark Dayton managed to pull a slight victory over Tom Emmer. Instead of admitting the possibility that Coleman and Emmer sucked as candidates the Republican Party attempted to blame their failures on voter fraud. Meanwhile the Democratic Party in Minnesota has claimed that the Voter ID Amendment is meant to discourage minorities, the elderly, and college students from voting. If there’s one thing the Democratic base loves it’s democracy and they will fervently attack any perceived attempt at discouraging individuals from voting. Much like the Marriage Amendment the Voter ID Amendment is pointless because there has been no proof brought forward demonstrating any notable voter fraud has taken place.

Let’s face it, the Republican and Democratic politicians don’t give a shit if same sex couples can marry or if voter fraud is occurring. If same sex marriages are made more illegal through a constitutional amendment the Republicans can jump for joy and claim a victory while the Democrats can scream about civil rights being violated by the Republicans. Likewise if voters are required to present state issued identification before voting the Republicans can jump for joy and claim victory while the Democrats can scream about much of their base being discouraged from voting by the big mean Republicans. No matter how the amendment votes go both parties win. In the end they’re merely using voters as pawns in a vicious game of chess. Neither party cares about you, they only care about maintaining their power. Maintaining that power requires the support of public opinion and that can only happen if the people are too distracted by these minor issues to analyze the bigger issue of the state itself.

Voting for a Third-Party

The presidential election is fast approaching and that means the voting rhetoric is heating up. One of the most repeated fallacies regarding voting is that voting for a third-party is a vote for one of the two major candidates. Republicans will claim that casting a vote for Gary Johnson is actually casting a vote for Barack Obama while Democrats will claim that casting a vote for Jill Stein is actually casting a vote for Mitt Romney. As I’ve explained before voting doesn’t work that way. The premise that voting for a third-party candidate is actually a vote for one of the two major candidates is based on the assumption that the voter would have voted for one of the two major candidates if the third-party option wasn’t available. This assumption states that libertarians voting for Gary Johnson would have voted for Mitt Romney had no Libertarian Party candidate been available. Why would anybody make such an assumption?

I would never vote for Mitt Romney, period. The man supports gun control and wants to murder people overseas. Both of these stances are morally abhorrent to me. My opinion is shared with many people who are planning to vote for Gary Johnson this election season. Gary Johnson isn’t stealing votes from Mitt Romney because many of Johnson’s supporters would never vote for Romney. If Johnson wasn’t on the ballot many libertarians wouldn’t vote for any presidential candidate.

Consider this example: you’re given a ballot to vote for who will be living with you for the next year. This ballot contains three options: a serial killer, a serial rapist, and a man with no criminal record. Which of the three are you likely to vote for? I’m guessing most of the people reading this post would vote for the man with no criminal record because nobody wants to live with a serial killer or a serial rapist. What if the ballot was changed and the man with no criminal record was removed? Would you sudden vote for the serial killer, serial rapist, or simply not vote? I’m guessing most of the people reading this post would simply not vote. Under such a circumstance it’s asinine to claim that the man with no criminal record is stealing votes from the serial killer or serial rapist. If you’re still unsure of what my point is exchange the serial killer for Mitt Romney, the serial rapist for Barack Obama, and the guy with no criminal record with Gary Johnson.

Two Politicians Opened Their Mouths

Two politicians opened their mouths and, as expected, said something incredibly stupid:

Regarding slavery, Hubbard wrote:

“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.” (Pages 183-89)

Yes, “representative” Jon Hubbad of Arkansas is actually trying to claim that slavery was a positive thing for African Americans because it eventually allowed them to gain citizenship in America… fuck yeah! Not to be outdone “representative” Loy Mauch also had to say something positive about slavery:

In two letters, Mauch wrote about the Bible and slavery. The Arkansas Times quotes from a letter Mauch wrote in 2009:

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

Apparently Mauch hasn’t read through the Bible or, if he has, he’s forgotten Acts of Apostles 5:29, which states “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!'” Since slavery is effectively obedience to another human being it would seem that the Bible does oppose it. In fact Christian anarchism is based on this very ideal.

As for the Constitution, slavery was included in the document because the document was written as a power grab. You know what document didn’t have slavery in it? The Articles of Confederation. I’m just saying.

Needless to say Hubbard and Mauch did what politicians do, they said something incredibly stupid and offensive. There isn’t much else to be said regarding their statements as they are pretty effective at condemning the speakers.

Mitt Romney is Promising More War

It’s good to see that Romney isn’t going to disappoint the war mongers as he’s openly stated support for embroiling the United States in more wars:

On Iran, Mr Romney said he would “not hesitate to impose new sanctions”, describing Tehran as “never closer” to a nuclear weapons capability.

“For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.”

On Syria, Mr Romney said Mr Obama had “failed to lead” and said that his administration would work “with our partners to identify and organise those members of the [Syrian] opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets”.

So who do you want America? A man who is advocating more wars or a man who is advocating more wars? This election more than any other demonstrates the illusion of choice we have in the United States for the president. When Romney or Obama gets elected is entirely irrelevant because nothing is going to change. The economy will continue on its downward spiral, the United States military will continue to kill innocent people in foreign countries, and the police state will continue to expand here at home.