Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foreign Policy)   John McCain, who is supposed to be campaigning for Mitt Romney, complains that major campaign donor and casino-mogul Sheldon Adelson is feeding Chinese money into the U.S. political system   ( thecable.foreignpolicy.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Sheldon Adelson, John McCain, Chinese money, blood donors  
•       •       •

1156 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2012 at 5:05 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-16 04:13:16 PM  
Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.
 
2012-06-16 04:40:53 PM  
The party is devouring itself.

Why is McCain "supposed" to be campaigning for Romney? Let the man spend his very, very few remaining days in peace.
 
2012-06-16 04:58:48 PM  

St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.


Yup, he definitely is far from the worst in that party. I like a lot of the stuff his daughter says too.
 
2012-06-16 05:09:22 PM  
McCain and integrity in the same sentence? Not this century...
 
2012-06-16 05:10:00 PM  

make me some tea: St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.

Yup, he definitely is far from the worst in that party. I like a lot of the stuff his daughter says too.


Annnndnnnndddd fark him. He still votes with his UnAmerican obstructionist asshat party members.
 
2012-06-16 05:10:18 PM  
Not only is it Chinese money, it's Chinese gambling money, proving once and for all that religious convictions mean nothing to Romney.
 
2012-06-16 05:10:31 PM  

make me some tea: St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.

Yup, he definitely is far from the worst in that party. I like a lot of the stuff his daughter says too.


I think you just 'hit' something with that remark. This is definitely his last term so he could be just making room for her. A long shot but 5 years is a long time..
 
2012-06-16 05:11:33 PM  
So China is the new Bain Capital? Rmoney's going to fire us all and pocket some cash?

Selling out the USA... that's got to be worth, what? A cool half billion?
 
2012-06-16 05:11:47 PM  
John McCain ...so unpredictable.
What will it be today- Douche / Not a Douche?
 
2012-06-16 05:12:08 PM  
It's ironic that the last GOP candidate is the guy who has been stridently against corporate money floods in elections, and the current GOP candidate is trying to take advantage of the Capitol One Exxon-Mobil Clear Channel Communication STEAL IT ALL NOW! 2012 Extravaganza Super Supreme Court's "Let My Money Be Free and Liberty Shall Ring" promotion (call by midnight tonight, operators are standing by, no reasonable offer refused, offer void in Guam).

If ironic is the right word
 
2012-06-16 05:12:54 PM  
You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too. Also, many multi-national companies, even ones run by Americans with American headquarters, don't view themselves as American and donate money to cover their own interests even when those interests conflict with the national interests. This is true in all countries that allow this sort of political contribution.
 
2012-06-16 05:14:00 PM  
Old man gets it right at least twice a year, not as frequently as he pees in his pants or farts a wet one.
Definitely, a sign of his sincerity and honesty.
 
2012-06-16 05:14:52 PM  
I say good. So many of our jobs go overseas, it's nice to see a return on investment.

/Vote Koopa
 
2012-06-16 05:16:12 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too.


So, vote republican?

Also, citation needed.
 
2012-06-16 05:16:30 PM  
So anyone who earns money overseas or exports anything loses their First Amendment rights..because that money was once owned by foreign individuals? Good to know.
 
2012-06-16 05:17:48 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too


Yeah but Romney has sent so many jobs to China, he's probably an honorary Chinaman.
 
2012-06-16 05:18:17 PM  

janzee: make me some tea: St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.

Yup, he definitely is far from the worst in that party. I like a lot of the stuff his daughter says too.

I think you just 'hit' something with that remark. This is definitely his last term so he could be just making room for her. A long shot but 5 years is a long time..


Hmm, indeed.
 
2012-06-16 05:18:21 PM  

St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.


He was pretty good in his 2000 version before the crazies took him over. He's always had a spine on campaign finance issues though.
 
2012-06-16 05:19:00 PM  

SoundOfOneHandWanking: McCain and integrity in the same sentence? Not this century...


He may not want to remember it either, but he defended Obama during the campaign when a nutjob was running at the mouth.
 
2012-06-16 05:20:36 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too. Also, many multi-national companies, even ones run by Americans with American headquarters, don't view themselves as American and donate money to cover their own interests even when those interests conflict with the national interests. This is true in all countries that allow this sort of political contribution.


Both sides are bad, right.
 
2012-06-16 05:20:43 PM  

Mugato: he's probably an honorary Chinaman.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-16 05:22:51 PM  
What's the Mormon stance on gambling? Is Romney a hypocrite for accepting a casino mogul's support? I need to know in order to better calibrate my outrage.
 
2012-06-16 05:27:30 PM  
His definition of foreign money is about as f*cked up as he is.

It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

He's right that Citizen's United is a f*ckied up Supreme Court ruling. He's completely wrong about foreign money. If it were a Chinese National donating $10,000,000? Sure. Unless you think the players in Macau are losing on purpose and that money is directly funneled, after being exchanged to dollars, to PACs...

I'm sure there is foreign money involved, but this is a f*cking horrible example.
 
2012-06-16 05:30:30 PM  

fusillade762: What's the Mormon stance on gambling? Is Romney a hypocrite for accepting a casino mogul's support? I need to know in order to better calibrate my outrage.


Oh yeah, Mormons aren't supposed to gamble. But it doesn't say anything about taking their money if given to them. This is pretty low on the Romney outrage meter, only because there's so much else.
 
2012-06-16 05:32:36 PM  

NewportBarGuy: His definition of foreign money is about as f*cked up as he is.

It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

He's right that Citizen's United is a f*ckied up Supreme Court ruling. He's completely wrong about foreign money. If it were a Chinese National donating $10,000,000? Sure. Unless you think the players in Macau are losing on purpose and that money is directly funneled, after being exchanged to dollars, to PACs...

I'm sure there is foreign money involved, but this is a f*cking horrible example.


This. I'm sure there are much better examples.
 
2012-06-16 05:37:14 PM  

NewportBarGuy: . Unless you think the players in Macau are losing on purpose and that money is directly funneled, after being exchanged to dollars, to PACs...


Right because China has a long history of doing things by the book.
 
2012-06-16 05:39:03 PM  

St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.


I wish I could agree with you, but he's doing it by repeating a classic lie about money, that somehow it belongs not to the person who earned it, but the people who spent it. This is a lie Republicans LOVE to use when talking about "taxpayer money".
 
2012-06-16 05:39:43 PM  

NewportBarGuy: His definition of foreign money is about as f*cked up as he is.

It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

He's right that Citizen's United is a f*ckied up Supreme Court ruling. He's completely wrong about foreign money. If it were a Chinese National donating $10,000,000? Sure. Unless you think the players in Macau are losing on purpose and that money is directly funneled, after being exchanged to dollars, to PACs...

I'm sure there is foreign money involved, but this is a f*cking horrible example.


You have it correct. Adelson is funneling Chinese money to Romney the same way public sector unions are funneling taxpayer money to democratic candidates. The money is no longer Chinese when they lose it gambling, and the money is no longer the taxpayer's once a government employee is paid.
 
2012-06-16 05:39:51 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too. Also, many multi-national companies, even ones run by Americans with American headquarters, don't view themselves as American and donate money to cover their own interests even when those interests conflict with the national interests. This is true in all countries that allow this sort of political contribution.


So, both sides are bad, you say?
 
2012-06-16 05:39:53 PM  

Komplex: Right because China has a long history of doing things by the book.


Right, because a guy who already is giving his cash directly to any candidate who promises to place Israeli interests before American interests is clearly just funneling money for the Chinese.

Yeah, that's a brilliant retort.

Try again?
 
2012-06-16 05:48:58 PM  
Where is the god-damned HERO tag?
 
2012-06-16 05:51:00 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Right, because a guy who already is giving his cash directly to any candidate who promises to place Israeli interests before American interests is clearly just funneling money for the Chinese.


500memes.com
 
2012-06-16 05:52:53 PM  

NewportBarGuy: It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.


That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.
 
2012-06-16 06:00:56 PM  
I just want to point out that Adelson is against online poker, which makes him a hypocrite douche like Rmoney, who declared himself against online poker while being interviewed inside a Las Vegas casino.
This was a job/hobby of mine before Black Friday last year. Just another reason to not vote Republican. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, the only (former) Republican who made sense when allowed on the debates.
 
2012-06-16 06:02:32 PM  

dahmers love zombie: NewportBarGuy: It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.


You're not a socialist commie nazi - just impractical. Where do you draw the line? Can I say, "Vote for Obama," on Fark? Can Drew put a "Vote for Romney" banner on Fark? Can Google put one on Google? Can I put one on a domain I own? My facebook page? Can I say it on HAM radio? Can I say it if I'm a guest on Howard Stern's radio show? Can I say it if I'm Howard Stern? Can I say it if I own the radio station? TV station? Fox News?
 
2012-06-16 06:05:56 PM  

janzee: I think you just 'hit' something with that remark. This is definitely his last term so he could be just making room for her. A long shot but 5 years is a long time..


I could be wrong, but I just don't see her having that sort of ambition.
 
2012-06-16 06:06:15 PM  

Milo1974: I just want to point out that Adelson is against online poker, which makes him a hypocrite douche like Rmoney, who declared himself against online poker while being interviewed inside a Las Vegas casino.
This was a job/hobby of mine before Black Friday last year. Just another reason to not vote Republican. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, the only (former) Republican who made sense when allowed on the debates.


Adelson is against online poker because it directly hurts his business interests. That's just buying votes in your own self interest.
 
2012-06-16 06:07:20 PM  

dahmers love zombie: That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.


Well, that's the ideal. Having to trust people to select the donate box on their 1040 is a little suspect.

I just don't want unlimited donations to PACS and bundlers of individual donations should be drawn and quartered. That whole "secret trick" of donating to the DNC or RNC so you can give $25,000 (I think)? That's bullshiat.

$2,500 is the max $5k for primary and general. Combine that with federal matching and we might be somewhere. Adjust it for inflation, but NO corporate money, aside from similar $2.5 and $5k levels. If they are a f*cking person as Mitt wants them to be, and the law allows them to be, they only get to donate as ONE person. They already decide sh*t with lobbyists. Until we actually reign in lobbying, the election should be about individual donations only.
 
2012-06-16 06:12:19 PM  

dahmers love zombie: NewportBarGuy: It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.


I wonder how such a system might affect third party political parties? Or the main stream party not currently dominant? Could it be manipulated so that, once one party is in power, they can remain in power indefinitely? Could it be used to create even tougher barriers to political participation by third parties?

When I try to google it, I get a lot of links about the Supreme Court decision referenced in this article. I hit a few sites that give a rather simplistic explanation of what a third party is; a few that describe current barriers to third party political participation. I haven't, however, seen a site that gives good information on how our political system might be affected by total federal funding of elections. I am particularly interested in any potential negative consequences because I think knowing what might come up is the best start for creating an effective contingency plan for dealing with those issues.

So, if you have information, share, please.
 
2012-06-16 06:20:30 PM  

vygramul: dahmers love zombie: NewportBarGuy: It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.

You're not a socialist commie nazi - just impractical. Where do you draw the line? Can I say, "Vote for Obama," on Fark? Can Drew put a "Vote for Romney" banner on Fark? Can Google put one on Google? Can I put one on a domain I own? My facebook page? Can I say it on HAM radio? Can I say it if I'm a guest on Howard Stern's radio show? Can I say it if I'm Howard Stern? Can I say it if I own the radio station? TV station? Fox News?


How's this for an idea? Say whatever you want..run whatever ad you like, so long as you aren't coordinating with the candidate's official campaign.
 
2012-06-16 06:22:24 PM  

NewportBarGuy: dahmers love zombie: That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.

Well, that's the ideal. Having to trust people to select the donate box on their 1040 is a little suspect.

I just don't want unlimited donations to PACS and bundlers of individual donations should be drawn and quartered. That whole "secret trick" of donating to the DNC or RNC so you can give $25,000 (I think)? That's bullshiat.

$2,500 is the max $5k for primary and general. Combine that with federal matching and we might be somewhere. Adjust it for inflation, but NO corporate money, aside from similar $2.5 and $5k levels. If they are a f*cking person as Mitt wants them to be, and the law allows them to be, they only get to donate as ONE person. They already decide sh*t with lobbyists. Until we actually reign in lobbying, the election should be about individual donations only.


I assumed he intended to fund elections with a more solid kind of funding than reliance on donations alone. I rather like your plan. For a moment, I thought "Why not go a step further and ban donations from businesses or any other organization with donations coming only from individual humans?" I realized that you then have banned donations from unions, churches, and human rights advocacy groups. I think if the same restrictions, as you described, were applied to all organizations - even the obscenely wealthy ones - that would work.

I still have some concerns about how funds would be distributed with federally funded elections. I would like to know how we would safeguard against manipulation and abuse of such a system. I think, if we can figure that out, it might be an improvement over our current system, but we should definitely figure those things out before we jump.
 
2012-06-16 06:30:40 PM  

Lunaville: I still have some concerns about how funds would be distributed with federally funded elections. I would like to know how we would safeguard against manipulation and abuse of such a system. I think, if we can figure that out, it might be an improvement over our current system, but we should definitely figure those things out before we jump.


Right? You'd think before we give a sh*t about Iranian nukes, Syria, or anything else we'd at least focus on how best we should be running our own Democracy.

We can totally debate the specifics. I'd really enjoy that. I'd also like to see a 50-state uniform voting system with paper receipts for votes... an accurate count would be nice, right?

We pay so much attention to other sh*t that we don't focus on our own house. McCain-Feingold was actually a step in the right direction, but it was only a step. This is a conversation we must have along with taxes.

However, like the sex talk with your kids, we avoid them at all costs. Hopefully, everything will work out on it's own.

We're children, unable to face up to our responsibilities.
 
2012-06-16 06:31:31 PM  

Cataholic: vygramul: dahmers love zombie: NewportBarGuy: It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.

You're not a socialist commie nazi - just impractical. Where do you draw the line? Can I say, "Vote for Obama," on Fark? Can Drew put a "Vote for Romney" banner on Fark? Can Google put one on Google? Can I put one on a domain I own? My facebook page? Can I say it on HAM radio? Can I say it if I'm a guest on Howard Stern's radio show? Can I say it if I'm Howard Stern? Can I say it if I own the radio station? TV station? Fox News?

How's this for an idea? Say whatever you want..run whatever ad you like, so long as you aren't coordinating with the candidate's official campaign.


I believe truth in advertising should be enforced whether it's jelly or a politician being sold. So, I might go for this as long as egregious lies are banned, fined, and called out. So, for instance if a group claimed that an always civilian politician had the endorsement of some veterans' group, rather than endorsing the veteran in the race, when, in fact, that organization actually does not endorse any politician: the ad should be pulled, the group fined heavily, and it should be renounced in all media where the ad appeared. And all of that should happen prior to the election.
 
2012-06-16 06:34:23 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Lunaville: I still have some concerns about how funds would be distributed with federally funded elections. I would like to know how we would safeguard against manipulation and abuse of such a system. I think, if we can figure that out, it might be an improvement over our current system, but we should definitely figure those things out before we jump.

Right? You'd think before we give a sh*t about Iranian nukes, Syria, or anything else we'd at least focus on how best we should be running our own Democracy.

We can totally debate the specifics. I'd really enjoy that. I'd also like to see a 50-state uniform voting system with paper receipts for votes... an accurate count would be nice, right?

We pay so much attention to other sh*t that we don't focus on our own house. McCain-Feingold was actually a step in the right direction, but it was only a step. This is a conversation we must have along with taxes.

However, like the sex talk with your kids, we avoid them at all costs. Hopefully, everything will work out on it's own.

We're children, unable to face up to our responsibilities.


Oh, I love the idea of a 50-state uniform voting system with paper receipts. Can we add all federal primaries and elections will be held on the same date? That no vote counts will be announced until polls have closed in Hawaii or, at least, California?
 
2012-06-16 06:38:23 PM  

cptjeff: Milo1974: I just want to point out that Adelson is against online poker, which makes him a hypocrite douche like Rmoney, who declared himself against online poker while being interviewed inside a Las Vegas casino.
This was a job/hobby of mine before Black Friday last year. Just another reason to not vote Republican. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, the only (former) Republican who made sense when allowed on the debates.

Adelson is against online poker because it directly hurts his business interests. That's just buying votes in your own self interest.


Yep. This is pretty the stand of most casino operators. Online poker/gaming is generally bad....UNLESS....as the current winds are blowing, companies that own land based casinos will be able to operate online casinos. Suddenly, online gaming is awesome.

....And as a side note, this is also why Zynga has been supposedly rumored to be attempting to buy the Hooters casino (or another rinky dink off-strip casino in Vegas) as that will let them become an official online gambling company if the current thinking becomes law.
 
2012-06-16 06:42:25 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Right? You'd think before we give a sh*t about Iranian nukes, Syria, or anything else we'd at least focus on how best we should be running our own Democracy.


Right on, brother. Citizens United may be the single worst Supreme Court ruling in the history of the US. Even worse than Dred Scott.

We can totally debate the specifics. I'd really enjoy that. I'd also like to see a 50-state uniform voting system with paper receipts for votes... an accurate count would be nice, right?

Alas, I can tell you people don't really want that. At least, not any we've managed to come up with. I worked on voter protection issues for the VA Democratic Party for a few elections. VA had two options for voters: an electronic vote and a paper vote that had the paper-trail. One of the things we found was that people preferred the electronic voting by almost 10:1, in a state where the polling was more like 60-40 in favor of paper. People vote with their feet, and they vote for convenience over reliability.

It's a shame, really.
 
2012-06-16 06:45:31 PM  

Lunaville: Can we add all federal primaries and elections will be held on the same date? That no vote counts will be announced until polls have closed in Hawaii or, at least, California?


Nah... You still have to let that process work itself out. THAT is really part of our system. As much as many of us dislike it, we at least get to kick the tires and see what they're made of, even when it gets ugly. I think they need to stop f*cking around with the dates of primaries, but i actually think that process is healthy, as much as it is destructive.

I'd be fine if they didn't announce the results until 7am the next day. What's the rush? Are we going to spontaneously combust without the answer before we drift off to sleep? Of course, good luck getting the networks to agree to that. Last I checked they were owned by international corporations that controlled our process anyway. They won't allow that to happen. They love money.
 
2012-06-16 06:47:15 PM  

vygramul: Alas, I can tell you people don't really want that. At least, not any we've managed to come up with. I worked on voter protection issues for the VA Democratic Party for a few elections. VA had two options for voters: an electronic vote and a paper vote that had the paper-trail. One of the things we found was that people preferred the electronic voting by almost 10:1, in a state where the polling was more like 60-40 in favor of paper. People vote with their feet, and they vote for convenience over reliability.

It's a shame, really.


Is electronic voting WITH a paper receipt not an option?
 
2012-06-16 06:49:59 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: make me some tea: St_Francis_P: Good for him. McCain has his occasional moments of integrity.

Yup, he definitely is far from the worst in that party. I like a lot of the stuff his daughter says too.

Annnndnnnndddd fark him. He still votes with his UnAmerican obstructionist asshat party members.


McCain has legitimacy on campaign finance. At least when he isn't running for President. Otherwise though what he says versus how he votes is a bit shaky.
 
2012-06-16 06:51:08 PM  

vygramul: NewportBarGuy: Right? You'd think before we give a sh*t about Iranian nukes, Syria, or anything else we'd at least focus on how best we should be running our own Democracy.

Right on, brother. Citizens United may be the single worst Supreme Court ruling in the history of the US. Even worse than Dred Scott.

We can totally debate the specifics. I'd really enjoy that. I'd also like to see a 50-state uniform voting system with paper receipts for votes... an accurate count would be nice, right?

Alas, I can tell you people don't really want that. At least, not any we've managed to come up with. I worked on voter protection issues for the VA Democratic Party for a few elections. VA had two options for voters: an electronic vote and a paper vote that had the paper-trail. One of the things we found was that people preferred the electronic voting by almost 10:1, in a state where the polling was more like 60-40 in favor of paper. People vote with their feet, and they vote for convenience over reliability.

It's a shame, really.


So, to clarify, people stated that they preferred paper ballots, but when time to vote they opted for electronic voting? Is that correct? If so, how much choice did they really have? Aren't precincts assigned to a voter? Was both electronic and paper voting offered at every precinct? If it wasn't offered at every precinct and a voter can't opt to vote in a precinct to which he is not assigned, are you sure a preference for electronic voting has really been demonstrated?
 
2012-06-16 06:53:44 PM  
McCain then proceeded to yell at a cloud.
 
2012-06-16 06:59:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: vygramul: Alas, I can tell you people don't really want that. At least, not any we've managed to come up with. I worked on voter protection issues for the VA Democratic Party for a few elections. VA had two options for voters: an electronic vote and a paper vote that had the paper-trail. One of the things we found was that people preferred the electronic voting by almost 10:1, in a state where the polling was more like 60-40 in favor of paper. People vote with their feet, and they vote for convenience over reliability.

It's a shame, really.

Is electronic voting WITH a paper receipt not an option?


The ideal would be a card that is printed out and the voter takes it and drops it in a box and the box results the re-count canvas. I'm not an expert on all forms, but one we tried was for an election with only two candidates, and it was a two-oval scan-tron-like card that you put through the machine and placed in a locked box yourself. It worked fantastically well - I was impressed. People didn't use it.

I suppose a touchscreen that spits out a card with your selections that you can then place in a locked box could provide a useful alternative. I don't know if someone has tried that specific version yet. But getting a state to try it in light of some of the other spectacular failures is pretty hopeless. People tend to trust their elections - it's other elections they hate. Just like their congressmen.
 
2012-06-16 07:07:31 PM  

Lunaville: So, to clarify, people stated that they preferred paper ballots, but when time to vote they opted for electronic voting? Is that correct? If so, how much choice did they really have? Aren't precincts assigned to a voter? Was both electronic and paper voting offered at every precinct? If it wasn't offered at every precinct and a voter can't opt to vote in a precinct to which he is not assigned, are you sure a preference for electronic voting has really been demonstrated?


You'd walk in the precinct and are given an option of electronic voting or the paper voting. I honestly can't remember if coverage was 100%. But I was in a very liberal part of the state, where some precincts went 80% for Obama. Yet only about 10% used the paper option.
 
2012-06-16 07:12:35 PM  

St_Francis_P: SoundOfOneHandWanking: McCain and integrity in the same sentence? Not this century...

He may not want to remember it either, but he defended Obama during the campaign when a nutjob was running at the mouth.



Yeah, so his record was about 50,000-1 in that respect. Not exactly inspiring.
 
2012-06-16 07:14:22 PM  

KWess: St_Francis_P: SoundOfOneHandWanking: McCain and integrity in the same sentence? Not this century...

He may not want to remember it either, but he defended Obama during the campaign when a nutjob was running at the mouth.


Yeah, so his record was about 50,000-1 in that respect. Not exactly inspiring.


McCain is a strange bird when it comes to integrity. It's like he WANTS to be a good guy, but can't help himself.
 
2012-06-16 07:29:55 PM  

vygramul: Lunaville: So, to clarify, people stated that they preferred paper ballots, but when time to vote they opted for electronic voting? Is that correct? If so, how much choice did they really have? Aren't precincts assigned to a voter? Was both electronic and paper voting offered at every precinct? If it wasn't offered at every precinct and a voter can't opt to vote in a precinct to which he is not assigned, are you sure a preference for electronic voting has really been demonstrated?

You'd walk in the precinct and are given an option of electronic voting or the paper voting. I honestly can't remember if coverage was 100%. But I was in a very liberal part of the state, where some precincts went 80% for Obama. Yet only about 10% used the paper option.


People are weird.
 
2012-06-16 07:44:25 PM  

Lunaville: Cataholic: vygramul: dahmers love zombie: NewportBarGuy: It's Adelson's money. He "earned" it through all the various operations of his company, which is international. That is like saying you can't accept "foreign money" from the CEO of GE because most of their profits come from overseas contracts.

That works for me. Of course, I'm for federal funding of elections (and ONLY federal funding), so I'm probably a socialist commie nazi.

You're not a socialist commie nazi - just impractical. Where do you draw the line? Can I say, "Vote for Obama," on Fark? Can Drew put a "Vote for Romney" banner on Fark? Can Google put one on Google? Can I put one on a domain I own? My facebook page? Can I say it on HAM radio? Can I say it if I'm a guest on Howard Stern's radio show? Can I say it if I'm Howard Stern? Can I say it if I own the radio station? TV station? Fox News?

How's this for an idea? Say whatever you want..run whatever ad you like, so long as you aren't coordinating with the candidate's official campaign.

I believe truth in advertising should be enforced whether it's jelly or a politician being sold. So, I might go for this as long as egregious lies are banned, fined, and called out. So, for instance if a group claimed that an always civilian politician had the endorsement of some veterans' group, rather than endorsing the veteran in the race, when, in fact, that organization actually does not endorse any politician: the ad should be pulled, the group fined heavily, and it should be renounced in all media where the ad appeared. And all of that should happen prior to the election.


1. Who is to be the arbiter of "truth" in this system?

2. Would it apply to the candidates themselves?

As a side note, media outlets already will pull ads that are proven to be false.
 
2012-06-16 07:50:29 PM  

NewportBarGuy:
If they are a f*cking person as Mitt wants them to be, and the law allows them to be, they only get to donate as ONE person.


This.

If corporations are a separate person, they're one person. If they're a collection of people, then those people shouldn't get to donate twice since those of us not in a corporation cannot.
 
2012-06-16 07:52:35 PM  
A Pole, an Italian and a Chinese guy all die and go to Hell. The Devil meets them at the gate of Hell and says "I don't know what you're expecting but let me tell you one thing: in Hell, everybody works. So the first thing I want you to do is take this aptitude test. This will determine your job in Hell." The Devil looks over the test results and says to the Polish guy, "You didn't do too well on this test. I'm putting you to work shoveling coal in a furnace." He says to the Italian, "You didnt do well either, so you shovel coal too." He turns to the Chinese guy and says "You did pretty well on the test. I'm putting you in charge of supplies."

A few weeks later the Devil is back in the area and he decides to check up on the three of them. The Italian and the Pole are both shoveling coal furiously, but the Chinese guy is nowhere to be seen. The Devil asks "What happened to the Chinese guy?" and the Pole and the Italian answer "We don't know. He disappeared right after you left and we haven't seen him since." The Devil is furious and says "When I catch that guy I'm really gonna let him have it!" He starts off down the road to the next furnace. Then, as he's passing a big rock, the Chinese guy suddenly jumps out from behind it and shouts, "Supplies!"
 
2012-06-16 08:11:53 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too. Also, many multi-national companies, even ones run by Americans with American headquarters, don't view themselves as American and donate money to cover their own interests even when those interests conflict with the national interests. This is true in all countries that allow this sort of political contribution.


The problem here is not a partisan one. Naturally, the big contributors who don't have ideological axes to grind (which is most of them) want to invest in a winner - and the surest way to do that is to bet on both sides - and most big corporate donors do.
 
2012-06-16 08:15:05 PM  
I said this in the red thread, but this is all about McCain losing his campaign finance bill and he's mad he won't be indirectly referred to constantly in elections.

It has nothing to do with integrity.
 
2012-06-16 08:30:13 PM  
Helps reduce the trade deficit.
 
2012-06-16 08:41:14 PM  
Adelson wants the US to invade Iran. And he's willing to put a lot of money into making it happen
 
2012-06-16 08:51:37 PM  
See what happens when we outsource our gambling industry!
 
2012-06-16 09:05:20 PM  
that's Communist Chinese money. sometimes, McStain gets lucky and says something useful.


cleared it up for 'ya.
 
2012-06-16 09:55:01 PM  
So, religious fundamentalists from the Mid-East and the Communist Chinese are influencing our Government? Henry Kissinger will be pissed off when he hears about this.
 
2012-06-16 10:06:04 PM  
SCOTUS said it's fine for corporations to spend as much as they please on politicians. If China just happens to own some of those corporations, I guess that's legal too.

/was a nice country we had once.
 
2012-06-16 10:30:11 PM  
 
2012-06-16 10:38:46 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too.


I'm not even going to ask you for a citation, because I think this is probably true. However...it's also a bad thing.
 
2012-06-16 10:48:49 PM  
I'm shocked that the system that the conservative fought tooth and nail for so that people could have a say in the US political system is just a sham to allow the Chinese to purchase our president for them.

Shocked. SHOCKED!!

US! US! We rule!

I feel like buying a beat up pickup truck just so I can fly two American flags off the back of it to prove to people what a patriot I am.
 
2012-06-16 11:02:41 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too. Also, many multi-national companies, even ones run by Americans with American headquarters, don't view themselves as American and donate money to cover their own interests even when those interests conflict with the national interests. This is true in all countries that allow this sort of political contribution.


really? which ones and why?
 
2012-06-16 11:52:30 PM  
Too mavericky?
 
2012-06-17 01:03:15 AM  

Hobodeluxe: If you want a war with Iran then vote Romney.


From that link: "He planned to stop at a Wawa gas station and convenience store in Quakertown, but scratched the event when protesters and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, showed up to denounce his economic plans."

Good grief, what's he going to do if he somehow gets elected, barricade himself in the Situation Room to avoid exposure to people who disagree with him?
 
2012-06-17 01:39:36 AM  
Sheldon Adelson should be kicked out of the country.

/Good job, McCain.
 
2012-06-17 03:26:02 AM  
Mitt Romney. Not good enough to be McCain's VP.
 
2012-06-17 08:28:25 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: This is true in all countries that allow this sort of political contribution.


And how many countries is that?
 
2012-06-17 12:19:51 PM  

vygramul: The ideal would be a card that is printed out and the voter takes it and drops it in a box and the box results the re-count canvas. I'm not an expert on all forms, but one we tried was for an election with only two candidates, and it was a two-oval scan-tron-like card that you put through the machine and placed in a locked box yourself. It worked fantastically well - I was impressed. People didn't use it.


Sounds similar to the "ink blot" voting we use in my district, actually. The ballot is a big Scantron-type form that you slot into a laminated booklet. The booklet is designed so that, on any given page, only the column of the form that corresponds to that page's questions is exposed, and arrows point from each choice to the corresponding bubble. You use a special stamp to fill in the circles, then you remove the ballot from the booklet, leave the booth, and feed it into the machine. The machine scans the form, and then drops it into an attached lockbox. We've been using it for years, and it's pretty reliable.
 
2012-06-17 01:17:46 PM  
Well McCain did endorse BHO in the last election.

//yeah, yeah I know but it's not like he was really trying to win
 
2012-06-17 04:58:11 PM  

NewportBarGuy: vygramul: Alas, I can tell you people don't really want that. At least, not any we've managed to come up with. I worked on voter protection issues for the VA Democratic Party for a few elections. VA had two options for voters: an electronic vote and a paper vote that had the paper-trail. One of the things we found was that people preferred the electronic voting by almost 10:1, in a state where the polling was more like 60-40 in favor of paper. People vote with their feet, and they vote for convenience over reliability.

It's a shame, really.

Is electronic voting WITH a paper receipt not an option?


This. There's nothing wrong with electronic voting per se. It's that Diebold's system lacks non-repudiation that makes it outrageously unacceptable.

Local elections here are done with a Scantron-like device. All the convenience of electronic tallying with the accountability of a signed paper receipt. I think it's great and look forward to the day when we can confidently eliminate paper from the process.
 
2012-06-18 01:37:26 AM  
Arizona:

Do not elect this man again. I mean it.
 
2012-06-18 01:54:03 AM  
So Mitt is taking money from Communists. Does that make Mitt a communist?
 
2012-06-18 01:58:52 AM  

cptjeff: Milo1974: I just want to point out that Adelson is against online poker, which makes him a hypocrite douche like Rmoney, who declared himself against online poker while being interviewed inside a Las Vegas casino.
This was a job/hobby of mine before Black Friday last year. Just another reason to not vote Republican. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, the only (former) Republican who made sense when allowed on the debates.

Adelson is against online poker because it directly hurts his business interests. That's just buying votes in your own self interest.


R0mney is available to the highest bidder.
 
2012-06-18 02:39:31 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: JasonOfOrillia: You're crazy if you think that foreign companies aren't covering their bets by funding the Democrats too.

So, vote republican?

Also, citation needed.


Yes please.
 
2012-06-18 08:00:48 PM  
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/senators-pocketing-money-from- foreign-connected-pacs.html

I was originally thinking of the whole Clinton/Lincoln bedroom thing and extrapolated to today. I think the more important idea is that there are companies that put profits ahead of any social responsibility regardless of their national origin. Wholly American owned companies behave like you would expect a Chinese company to behave. And that's fine but when those companies engage in regulatory, or perhaps legislative, capture it becomes a problem.

Anyway, if you feel that companies should be held to account you might consider voting Democrat for a marginal benefit. Independent would be a more pure choice but only because Independents aren't powerful enough to attract the big bucks.
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report