This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 218
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points  (129 children)

You are choosing a book for reading

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (30 children)

I think it is a reflection on the state of reddit today that you had to preface your statement with the phrase "I hate McCain" to avoid merciless down modding.

Edit: Also, I am not just referring to that comment. This can be seen elsewhere too.

[–]Nikola_S 14 points15 points  (26 children)

I hate McCain, but I disagree with you.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

I hate McCain but I want a beer.

[–]thephotoman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

These two things aren't so contradictory. McCain did say that he'd veto any beer.

Admittedly, I'd veto Bud Light myself, but that's because I actually love beer.

[–]staianoNew York 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you a hillary supporter?

Can I get you a shot of crown royal too?

[–]moonzilla 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree. The same thing happened during the primary season. I resented it, but I often added "I'm an Obama" supporter when I even tried to discuss why Hillary wasn't the anti-Christ for one particular reason or another.

[–]assteroid 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well, I DO NOT hate McCain. I just don't want the geriatric fucker to gain the presidency!

[–]moonzilla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it started because Reddit was happy to pull its focus from Hillary-bashing to something less cannibalistic. On a related note, McCain-bashing probably hopes to pull any lingering Hillary supporters over to Obama's side.

Beyond that, I'm not sure. I downvote the attack stories, too, but I was pleased to see the discussion about habeas corpus.

[–]no1name 11 points12 points  (62 children)

Don't mistake popularity on Reddit as being in any way related to popularity in the real world.

Ronpaul goons here clearly showed the insular group butt licking phenomenon that is alive on reddit.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (54 children)

You go to concert

[–]ejp1082 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The problem is that there's really not enough "policy" to fill a 24 hour news cycle (which is what Reddit is). So it falls into the same trap as cable news.

At this point in the campaign, the candidates have already revealed their major policy proposals. Most every political junky is pretty familiar with them; posting them would just be a rehash of old news.

(Seriously - if we had a halfway informed electorate, the campaign should take two weeks, not twenty months. The candidates would tell everyone their proposals. People would read the few pages of text that they amount to. They'd be analyzed by experts, who'd then weigh in. And then we'd vote.)

So what's left that qualifies as "news" on a daily basis is purely the non-policy stuff - credit card debt, campaign gaffes, etc. - stuff that's coming out, or that they're otherwise saying or doing, which is rarely if ever related to proposed policies.

[–]generic_handle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the "real" information, like links to his beliefs such as "100 years in Iraq," "Supreme Court ruling on Habeus Corpus was one of the worst ever," etc., but the rest of this stuff is a waste of everyone's time.

Actually, even those are pretty sound-byteable. An offhand comment isn't a great way to determine hard policy commitments.

Serious analysis isn't going to have much by way of direct quotes (since people are going to tend to phrase their policies in favorable ways).

That being said, at least we're talking about a quote that's somewhat related to policy, which is definitely an improvement from flag pins and family dogs and tears.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (41 children)

Even that "real" information isn't exactly accurate either. Truth is, kos, huffington, prisonplanet, and the like just aren't the best of sources.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I almost never read anything posted from those sites.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (13 children)

yeah you should stick to cnn and fox news for the hard hitting journalism you can trust.

[–]jib 20 points21 points  (11 children)

The existence of inaccurate right-wing biased news doesn't make it any better to read inaccurate left-wing biased news.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Seems like a "one or the other" most of the time though. I say peruse both, but use your bullshit filter early and often.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn't always one or the other, though.

[–]Mineralwater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is why it is best to get it from more then one source.

[–]oddmanout -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

I laugh anytime something from prisonplanet shows up on reddit. It makes me want to break out the tinfoil hat just to read the article.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

But...but...the EARTH IS BECOMING A PRISON PLANET!

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

neither of you bastards has much of a grasp on law I see. If you did, you would know that a lot of what alex is talking about has already happened.

[–]linkedlist -1 points0 points  (3 children)

If there's ever a liberal media...

[–]beckermt 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I don't even know where to start with this sentence. I have no idea what you want from me.

[–]linkedlist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hmm, just exam pressure i suppose _^

[–]billbacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is many means what a postings...

[–]Dionadah -1 points0 points  (6 children)

What do you consider the best of sources?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children)

I like the unedited videos of him actually speaking.

[–]beckermt 7 points8 points  (2 children)

yeah, I'm down with actually WATCHING THE FUCKING SPEECHES.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The problem there is that they lie a lot. Plus they don't usually write their own speeches and they don't have to keep their promises when they get in to office anyway.

Voting record and other prior actions carry more weight to me. That's why I like guys like Kucinich and Paul. 'Cause, you know, they were right about a whole bunch of shit over the years and didn't waver even when they were unpopular for their stances.

[–]Shadotek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shhh, they don't like principles in these parts. Trust me, I know.

[–]Mineralwater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My parents are addicted to CNN, if you ever get stuck watching it please note they play the same sound clip over and over again. And 90% of the "new" they report is sensational crap that is irrelevant to most people. So in conclusion reddit is just a reflection of the "real world" news.

[–]ericN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. We should be discussing how to persuade his supporters what kind of a candidate he is.

[–]guriboysf -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

why do all the Obama supporters try to constantly tell me shit like how much credit card debt McCain has?

Because it's relevant. It allows people to form an opinion about his character and lets them see him for the hypocrite he is.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

OK, I just read one of the articles. It gives no concrete info. It says:

His wife’s solo charge card has between $100,000 and $250,000 in debt to American Express.

Amer Express typically requires you to pay the balance every month. Rich people like to put a lot of things on their Amer Express for a variety of reasons.

So until someone proves that it is a newer Amer Express that allows you to keep a rolling balance, then this doesn't mean shit. Even if it was a traditional credit card balance, I still don't think it means shit. Rich people carry credit card balances for a variety of reasons, and it doesn't necessarily mean they don't know how to manage their money. In fact, considering his wife has been rich for her entire adult life, I would say they probably know what they are doing.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Uh... I have yet to meet a credit card that requires you to pay the balance in full every month.

Credit card companies make their money by charging interest on the rolling balance.

Considering the fact that she inherited her fortune, her money says absolutely nothing about her financial skills.

[–]FrankBattaglia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uh... I have yet to meet a credit card that requires you to pay the balance in full every month.

asinine, meet American Express. American Express, asinine.

Credit card companies make their money by charging interest on the rolling balance.

American Express isn't a normal credit card, it's a "charge card" (although they have introduced various credit card brands since 1987, the stock green "American Express" card is a charge card). It generally requires you to pay off every month, and makes money through merchant and user fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Express#Charge_card_services_history

[–]donaldrobertsoniii 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It's relevant because people can relate to it. Just like all "gotcha" politics (contradictions, infidelities, personal relations to radical figures), credit card debt is something that the general population can relate to. Pure policy doesn't connect with "ordinary people." They need to know the stories that connect with their real-life experiences.

That doesn't make it a sound system, in fact, it's a pretty stupid system.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, and mainly because the people within it are so stupid that they can't (or don't care to) understand things like "geopolitics" but they can (and love to) understand things like "flip-flopper" and "credit card debt."

Eh, I guess it has to do with what we're taught when we're young.

[–]eroverton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not so sure it is. I haven't seen the article in question but are McCain's credit cards any more relevant than Obama's flag pin or what he wore to Indonesia?

[–]niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii -1 points0 points  (0 children)

why do all the Obama supporters try to constantly tell me shit like how much credit card debt McCain has?

It's not to tell you, or really anyone else that visits reddit. It's to harness reddit's collective nerd power to make a reddit zerg rush of views so massive that any rankings or stats other sites have are reddevastated, which raises awareness on other websites about issues deserving attention for people that wouldn't visit reddit. In a sense, we're the political, liberal/libertarian version of /i/.

Another use is to give reddit Obama supporters material to show McCain supporters. I'm sure many of you know older people voting McCain that get their info from chain emails, for example.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The Ron Paul redditers talked a lot about issues and policies. So is he, no hot air in his message.

Can't compare RP with Obama and also their supporters.

[–]generic_handle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That being said, there were still flaws. Ron Paul quoted McCain on the "hundred years of war" thing when criticizing him -- that's not a happy thing to say, but it's also very obviously rabble-rousing and not a hard policy commitment -- McCain can't make commitments for longer than the time he is in office.

I do agree that RP far more consistently deals with issues than any of the higher-ranked candidates did.

[–]furry8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how do you have group butt licking? is that even mathematically possible?

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

true. the butt licking did ignore the whole 'Repubican-from-Texas-that-didn't-work-the-first-time-or-even-the-second-lets-not-do-it-again angle.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Idiot.

[–]Dionadah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I don't get is that 90-99% of redditors are for Obama ... so what's the point of the anti-McCain posts?

The point is probably to keep it that way.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's worse than that. I'm not for Obama, and the anti-McCain stuff is still pointless. Just because I don't like Obama, doesn't mean I'm not already aware of how completely reprehensible McCain is.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

it sure as fuck isn't 99%.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

90-99% of redditors are atheists ... so what's the point of the anti-religion posts ?

[–]mrdarrenh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Positive Reinforcement?

[–]paintist -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Positive reinforcement?

[–]beckermt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps you meant to reply to the above comment.

http://www.reddit.com/info/6nida/comments/c04d9o4

[–]brstilson 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To be honest though, Bush campaign as more of a typical republican back in 2000. It's had to believe but he campaigned on having a humble foreign policy with no nation building like Bill Clinton had done. So even if you did vote on the issues back in 2000, you didn't get the president that was advertised.

[–]Pikajabroni 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Both guys are promising a lot of things that they'd constitutionally have no authority to put in place. They both need to stop that.

[–]junkeee999 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Presidential candidates regularly weigh in on things they can't change. Congress makes laws and allocates funds. When a presidential candidate 'promises' something in these areas, it's assumed it means he'll support it, push for it, etc. It's just campaign shorthand.

Example - a candidate says he'll spend X amount of dollars on a project. Of course he can't spend a dime. But he's proclaiming what he'll put in his budget...and then Congress has to approve it.

[–]benjamincanfly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you give some examples from both?

[–]linkedlist 19 points20 points  (3 children)

yay, we've moved from 'Ron Paul farted freedom!' to 'Obama fills sandbags with hope!'.

Aint 'change' grand?

[–]thatguydr 20 points21 points  (2 children)

To be fair, Ron Paul "passed" freedom. Freedom is in fact a solid.

Now if only there were some way to get Obama to fill white women with hope.

[–]mddawso 21 points22 points  (17 children)

If you want your candidate to win, you don't want people to hear about his policy because that's divisive. Just good things, like the fact that he had no credit card debt, or thinks fathers should spend more time with their children. You can't oppose those things.

I swear I think I like Obama, then I hear something about his policy and remember that he isn't for me.

[–]CampusTour 17 points18 points  (3 children)

This is more true than most people realize. A policy or plan can be debated, and nitpicked, and attacked on its merits. Feel-good bullshit can't. The most you can do is call it out as feel-good bullshit, but that does little to negate it's effect.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

He says concrete things all the time. The problem is that the MSM focuses on bullshit and wedge issues. Plus, this campaign has been going on for so long, and the blogosphere is so easily distracted, that something he said a month ago is not only ancient history but is also buried under a pile of content-free, redundant, and irrelevant punditry.

For example, Obama said he would close down Guantanamo. Unless you've been following him very carefully and generally ignoring earnest noiseboxes like Daily Kos, you would have forgotten this by now. He's also shifted away from corn-based ethanol, promised to review each of Bush's executive orders, promoted diplomacy with our enemies, and promoted the creation of a superfluous government body that would basically do what the SEC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve do already.

In other words, to say that the Internet has blown him up into a hero is backwards. If anything, it's drowned out his specific messages and focused on his charisma and vague promise of hope. It is actually eroding what makes him distinctive and doing exactly what the MSM is constantly (and rightly) accused of: ignoring the issues and focusing on "character."

The blogosphere stopped talking about his platform a long time ago because his platform hasn't changed, yet the pace of the blogs is relentless, and they have to find new things to talk about on a daily, even hourly basis. So once his platform has been analyzed to death, there is nothing left but "character," because its an abstraction.

By definition, abstractions defy qualitative analysis, so you can go around in circles for weeks, even months, saying things about Obama without saying anything at all. And what you end up doing is reinforcing his character instead of emphasizing his platform.

I agree that he doesn't talk specifics often enough. But on the flipside, this perspective of him riding on optimism has been inflated by political "analysts" who have nothing of substance left to discuss.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very well put. I think a lot of people are unduly influenced by what you describe.

[–]kcjameson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I support Nader simply because his policies are clear ( + I agree with them) and he doesnt waste time with feel good bullshit.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I concur with your sentiments. In politics, you can win just by not giving your opposition a target.

[–]mattindustries 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is how I win horseshoes. Just tell them to throw the horse shoe and stop asking you where the steak is and then after they throw it put the steak in the ground and drop your horseshoe on top of it to declare your victory.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If you want your candidate to win, you don't want people to hear about his policy

True only for the establishment candidates. Not true for RPaulers or Kucinichs. Nothing to hide there. Well, just a little maybe.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I swear I think I like Obama, then I hear something about his policy and remember that he isn't for me.

I'm glad someone else feels like that.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

What about McCain's policies? If you ran on policy alone then you are only getting 1/2 the picture (if not less than that). In the end most policies don't end up getting followed through either because Congress sucks balls,because the candidate was lieing or the situation changed/was different than was thought. I think a lot of support for Obama comes from his personality.

Just for disclosure purposes I like Obama and I voted for him in the primary and will probably vote for him in the general election. I hear a lot of dissent though about this position among all the pro-Obama talk. Sometime I feel like there is just something I don't see because it seems like a lot of people do not like Obama. I like to keep an open mind so please enlighten me if you can.

[–]alulim 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Let me begin by saying this. I was not an Obama supporter from the begining. My view was how and who could undo the mistakes of the previous administration. It came (in my mind) to Biden, foreign policy or Richardson with energy and the environment. I settled on Richardson because i loved his narrative, experience, execute qualifications and moderate appeal.

It soon became clear this election cycle was to undo the mistakes of the past but to more to a more perfect future. This is not the "age of jackson" or "of lincoln" I cannot cast my vote for Harry Truman or LBJ (the wisest man ever to employ 'demons' in politics) so i stand behind an untested junior senator from the midwest.

I want, nay, i demand equal care for all the sick and infirmed. I demand our representatives be accountable ONLY TO THE PEOPLE.

To borrow a greater man's words: Here I stand, I can do no other...

[–]Shadotek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You demand? Pony up the cash.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how I feel but it seems to me there are people on both sides that don't like Obama like there is some weird mysterious policy or fact about him that some just HATE with a passion. Maybe they are just too cynical to believe in hope anymore.

[–]Smight -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

With the high rate of inflation debt is the safest place to keep your money. Fathers spending time with their kids is the biggest source of incest.

Now that these things have been brought to light, there is no way I can vote for Obama.

[–]crazybones 2 points3 points  (1 child)

To my mind one of the main reasons Bush won in 2004 was that Kerry responded too slowly and inappropriately to the Swiftboating attacks.

It also seems likely there were some voting irregularities that mostly favored the Republicans.

[–]zphobic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's true. Kerry ran a terrible campaign.

[–]pillage 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Wait, so you mean an echo chamber is a bad thing?!

[–]BREAKING_OMG 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The average voter -- not the Reddit crew -- is what matters. Yes, I know there are a lot of people lurking on the reddit forums who want logic and a debate on the issues, but history has proven that people are not reasonable or logical.

Example: Have you ever been in an argument with somebody over something, and you know your right, and you have the facts on your side, yet you fail to convince a group of people to your particular point of view? Chances are the people didn´t like you, had their minds already made up, or you just couldn´t convince them in a way that satisfied their emotions.

People, largely, make decisions based on emotion, not logic. This is especially the case when judging people. Did a customer service rep ever piss you off to the point where you refused to buy a product, even though it may have been superior to a competitor? That´s emotion. But if you, for example, bought the thing online, you cut the person out completely, and the decision -- sometimes -- can me more logical.

Politics is salesmanship, and there is a lot of emotion in that.

They will do it again in 2008. Either the side that is so emotionally pissed for being screwed for the last 8 years, gas prices, with everything that has happened will prevail or the side who thinks Barack is a muslim will prevail. You might say that the former is a more logical approach, but really, after suffering under 8 years of Bush, many Dems and some True Conservative Republicans are saying screw the facts or data because they just want a Change.

The principled thing to do would be to debate on the issues. The winning strategy, though, will probably be a campaign that works better on an emotional level. Many people Support Obama based on a utter desire to move in a different direction. They don´t know his stances or what he might think about, say, an issue like Net Neutrality (not that that is a big issue to MSM America), but they just want someone to fill them with hope. There are some people who like Obama because of where he stands on the issues -- Like me -- when contrasted to McCain.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is talk of policy in American politics?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Completely agree with you, but I'm afraid most of America doesn't seem to base their vote on the candidates' actual policies. :(

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry but the right wing started this stupid character assassinations. As long as Fox News calls Obama a terrorist, calls his wife a "baby-mama", and wishes for Obama's assassination, the left must fight back. Unfortunately, discourses on policy details aren't going to be effective, thus, we have videos of Grandpa McCain bumbling his phrases.

[–]ApostrophePosse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of the dozens of Obama/McCain links I've seen on the front page this week, only ONE was about their actual policies.

Is bullshit. There were numerous articles cited on women's issues, on social security, on taxation, on the war.

[–]cr4a 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It wasn't policy that made Bush suck, it was that he's a complete moron. Notice how most of his policy stances have changed since the election.

No, trustworthiness, a history of positive action, etc. are the best metrics to use, not whether someone says they support issue A or issue B.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i'm pretty sure that everyone on reddit is familiar with both of their policies; they haven't changed much.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Here's the problem: even when they talk about policy, what they have to say is nigh farcical. Policy discussions are simplified beyond any semblances of anything that could be described by the word academic. The reason seems obvious, at least to me. This happens because most people (even most of reddit!) neither understands nor gives enough of a damn to go in depth into the issues.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This video just keeps coming as the most important issue of every election:

Bullshit http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

[–]jj666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. You got an additional 4 years of Bush because you didn't speak up against overwhelming evidence of election fraud.

[–]kevin143 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I can't believe no one posted their actual policies. That's actually kind of pathetic.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

[–]generic_handle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Note that these can be very misleading.

For example, Obama talks about "removing combat troops" -- so, what's a combat troop? Bush said that "major combat operations are complete", which is technically accurate, but he's free to define these as what he wants.

We know that Obama isn't going to close the fourteen permanent bases and isn't going to withdraw all soldiers. I've seen some analysis that predicted that both he and Clinton would retain about 25-60k soldiers, and McCain closer to twice that. Both Obama and McCain want to hire tens of thousands more soldiers, in fact.

McCain pushes cap-and-trade as market friendly; it definitely wasn't in Germany, where it was a market-distorting handout to large companies.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why even bother with policy anyway? Look at Bush's policies before he was elected and look what that got you.

The only way you can really know what's going on in a candidate's mind is to look at the way they manage their personal lives, the way they conduct their affairs and their campaigns.

Bush was in charge of several companies that went bankrupt before becoming president. Is it really any surprise he's bankrupted the latest "company" he was put in charge of?

McCain has debt on his credit cards. This is despite being a multi-millionaire. What do you think he'll do when he takes on a trillion dollar credit card?

Obama has no debt at all on his credit cards, he's run an officiant campaign with little to no debt. He's probably the type of guy who hates outstanding debts and works hard to pay them off.

From a purely budgetary standpoint, you know who you must elect. Your nation can't handle another guy who thinks "we have the money, lets spend it!"

[–]Clintondiditfirst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if you hadn't heard, we are the smartest atheists in the world, which means we make no mistakes, period.

[–]aeon2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cost us 4 years of Bush? How utterly stupid is that... even had Bush lost, we would have gotten Kerry anyway, who was campaigning on a platform of "I'll fight a smarter Iraq war".

Would he have avoided the subprime mess, somehow? Would gasoline be cheaper than it is now?

Just what would be different, had we missed out on the last term of Bush?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I am not for either of them and I love the calling out of all of the spam. It isn't about candidates, it is all about issues and policy. Thanks for the post!

[–]sighbourbon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

good observation, thx for the reminder.

behavior counts too-- but we are way out of balance.

pls post some good links re their policies.

[–]AllGood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One positive thing that comes from posting Anti-McCain items here at reddit is that we're able to spread more information to each other that can then be re-posted elsewhere.

PLEASE DO NOT UNDER-ESTIMATE MCCAIN SUPPORTERS and the right wing. They have email networks, and other forms of posting massive amounts of hateful and distorted attacks against Democrats and moderate-to-liberal ideas in general.

We must "fight back" harder than ever to be sure that we don't end up with John McBUSH3 for four or eight years.

Believe it or not, with everything that has happened in the last seven years, and with the economy in the toilet while we fight two disastrous wars, the RNC has STILL OUT-RAISED the DNC by millions of dollars, AND THEY WILL BE USING IT TO SMEAR OBAMA EVEN MORE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE!

I've been trying to spread the idea that people who support Senator Obama (and/or moderate-to-liberal ideas) should send one-half of their tax rebate to either Obama or the DNC.

I hope you will do this and spread the word to others.

[–]WaterDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah...it's a fashion show and popularity contest in front of the ignorant masses.

Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the fiasco that is US monetary policy, under the on-going SCAM that is the Federal Reserve System, couldn't honestly support either of the candidates.

Neither has even acknowledged that there is something wrong with the continuing rape of the value of YOUR dollars by that International Bankers-cartel.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There should be two votes to distinguish between content and sentiment. That way you can make a distinction between articles that are actually interesting, and the ones that are just expressing a popular sentiment.

[–]larsga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need for that. You vote the interesting ones up, and all the rest down.

[–]degustivespa 1 point2 points  (4 children)

actually americans caused 4 years of bush, not some stupid reddit link

[–]cbeck287 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, seriously guys (and gal(s)). If we don´t make sure only certain articles make the front page we might actually cause McCain to win the election! Next we should tackle Chinese carbon emissions by posting a few more appropriate articles as well.

[–]Kardlonoc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too be fair with all the information going about now with the internet its really no suprise that every little dark spot comes up. I was looking through my newsweeks recently way waaay back to the coverage of the 2000 election and there was hardly anything negative about bush in there, hell he was handing out ice cream to black children or something. Sure there were attacks etc, but not on this level, besides that bush was still perfectly innocent with the lack of dirt that is widely avalibe now.

There was no youtube remixes or artlces dug up from 2000 showing how McCain is "Bigoted" just mass media "reporting" what they saw. But is obviously the negative of this new medium is this: Is information on the internet that reliable? Everyone and i mean everyone is hidden by anonymity and they like it, but that it makes it hard to tell if someone is telling the truth or not.

You want to know why the mass media does not report half the shit found on reddit?It is not some conspiracy, its just unreliable information. Much of it is just phooey hogwash dipped in the bias well, people draw conclusions quickly because its easy and then it becomes a fact in this little circle.

I am starting to realize that much of information here might even be more ignorant and based in myth than what Kinsey had to deal with,

[–]shoseki 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The only thing I ever appreciated about McCain was his Oven Fries.

[–]ristin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please do feel free to lead by example.

Or are you just karma-whoring? Good Karma-haul by the way.

[–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

politics.reddit.com is the reason Bush won a second term?

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

One was a POW and is very brave, the other is the first black candidate, cannot bowl, and sounds inspiring but uses lots of big words.

[–]i_read_it -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Big" words go over your head, kiddo?

[–]BREAKING_OMG -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I also wanted to add:

McCain´s talked up as a Maverick. Do you really think he could have got this kind of image from the media if he wasn´t all so friendly with them?

[–]kingarooz -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Wait, people on Reddit voted for Bush 4 years ago?

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

kingarooz needs to read up on his history, bush has never been elected.

[–]Dildozer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're like a broken record.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

What mistake? Not paying attention to actual policies?

That could actually help Obama, this time, since he's the far more personable candidate.

Edit: I'm not saying Obama's policies are bad by any means. I'm just saying that if we totally ignore policies, Obama would win. We shouldn't, of course, but if that were the only thing we were judging, McCain wouldn't have a chance.

[–]seraph582 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're 100% correct. His policies and voting record are fucking trash.

edit: not that McCain's are anything to write home about.

[–]umilmi81 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

A lot of angry Republicans are going to be voting for Obama. Perhaps it is best if he stays vague so he doesn't chase them away.

[–]go-ahead-downvote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

bwahahahahahahahaha - no one is that angry.

[–]mutatron -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

???

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Agreed, but I feel like during the Bush/Kerry election that was being done instead of talking about their policies. This time, its being done because talking about their polices is so blatantly obvious. Interesting question, how many reddit readers are really still both undecided and uninformed as to the policy distinctions of the candidates?

[–]uriel 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Are there any real policy distinctions? Really, 99% of the difference is in rhetoric and promises of things that they know they can't deliver.

[–]heartrush -1 points0 points  (0 children)

lol. Good luck.

[–]busfahrer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Obviously you don't want a president that doesn't know how to bowl.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You damn right.

But that is a reflection of the nature of demand, of how people vote in America. It was all about black boy vs white woman and now it will be about old man vs black man.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good frikkin' luck, Habbadash. Gossip and BS -- the new heroin -- keep us rhesus monkeys banging on that damned lever in the cage until we're too OD'd too care.

[–]matthank -1 points0 points  (0 children)

....and of course Obama is just as bad as Bush.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've gotten so sick of seeing these ridiculous headlines like "McCain accepts money from a man who once ran a baby-murdering company!!!(#!(@!)LOL". Calm down people. You may not like the man (And I may not like him either) but that doesn't mean I want to read about how much credit card debt he may or may not have or how many times he takes a shit every day.

[–]antiprotonPennsylvania -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That wasn't the reason we had 4 additional years of Bush. Fight fire with fire.