Sisyphus

It seems you're pretty much right. The method for validating citizenship is clear, but it looks like there's no specific "validator." It's just never been an issue, since no major candidate's eligibility has ever been seriously in question, and I doubt someone who couldn't demonstrate citizenship would get very far. I suppose the Supreme Court would intervene, if, somehow, a non-citizen convinced half the electoral college to cast unconstitutional ballots, but that's so far down the hypothetical "breakdown of the system" road that it's hard to tell what would happen.

Speaking of which, it's about time the 2012 Republican primaries started up. At this point my money is on-- *ducks hail of rotten fruit, runs offstage*

I'm just about the last person to get worked up by this kind of thing, but damn. That was amazing. The gravity of what happened last night will likely be sinking in for a long time, but right now, I'm just basking in it. I think that whole crowd was literally in tears last night. And kudos, too, to John McCain. Both speeches showed those two men at their very best, each in their own way doing what nobody else could. I look forward to seeing them work together.

At least that's an improvement over the original approach, "We should do whatever Rumsfeld says. What's a general?"

That's what you get for living in Florida.

Yes, that's the idea. It's not really "moving," per se, since particles like electrons don't actually have a location until they interact with something, they just have a function of probability vs. location, which is a consequence of their wave-like nature. They actually can't have a determinate location. Nothing causes it to happen. Well, you're making choices, are you not? So they do exist. The questions are: 1) Are those choices are predetermined or random? 2) What is "free will," exactly? 3) Which option, if any, represents (or at least allows) "free will?" 4) Does it matter? You say predetermination seems to contradict free will. That's fine. But is randomness free will? If not, then what do you actually mean by "free will?" If it's not predetermination, and it's not randomness, then it's not anything, and you have to either adjust your definition or abandon it as a meaningless phrase.

Why would you have to define who is rich and who isn't?

There is randomness in quantum mechanics, and there is also "statistical determinism" on larger scales. For example, there is a finite probability that all the electrons in the floor beneath your feet will simultaneously decide to be elsewhere in the universe, and you'll fall right through. However, this is so ridiculously unlikely that we can basically say with certainty that that won't ever happen to anyone anywhere, and deterministic laws of physics work just fine. Everything is affected by some degree of randomness, but different degrees. Whether there is a significant amount of randomness in the workings of the brain isn't entirely clear. But more fundamentally, you have to ask yourself, what is free will? Can it exist in a deterministic universe? Can it exist in a random one? Those are your two options (you either have a reason for going a particular way, or you don't), and upon reflection most people don't see either one as compatible with their own notions of "free will," so in a certain sense "free will" is a meaningless concept. Personally, I don't think of it that way. To me, free will is just will. I weigh options, I make a choice, and I exert my will in accordance with that choice. Whether that choice was predetermined or random doesn't really seem to matter.

And that is precisely the idea behind progressive taxation and "spreading the wealth." The innovative people are the ones who have enough wealth that they can afford risk. Minimizing burden on the low end encourages experimentation and innovation in more people, and helps capitalism do its thing.

Nobody pays anything close to 60% taxes. Also, what's "unpatriotic" is avoiding paying taxes. Is that hard to understand?

Well, obviously, the penis and vagina evolved together as a means for the male to deposit sperm in the female. There's no "maybe" about it. The fact that they're good for other things is just a delightful bonus. The STDs, for their part, also evolve to take advantage of these things as a means to spread from host to host. They are certainly not limited to vaginal intercourse...

This is technically possible in the United States, too, it's just very unlikely. Our electoral processes (single plurality votes, the electoral college, etc.) are particularly well-suited to keeping two parties in power, and we've been that way so long that voters can't help but think that way (e.g., "a vote not for the lesser of two evils is a vote for the greater"), and our government has long since forgotten how to function any other way.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to get "everyone on the same page," except maybe actual communists and certain religious types. Is that who you're arguing against? Progressive taxes don't destroy the profit motive (and thus hard work and ingenuity). In fact, they make social mobility easier, thereby better rewarding people for working hard, not "punishing" them. So a straight percentage is "fair?" Says who? Why should I pay more for my citizenship than someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? Because I CAN? Why, how pragmatically progressive of you...

She promised to kill God! ZOMG!

What I meant is that you're putting words in our mouths. I think Obama will win legitimately, but not necessarily for the reasons you give. That makes the option overly specific. It comes across almost as editorializing about causes within the question itself, which is why it seems biased. And polls themselves can be biased, too, since even asking a question is a way of putting things in people's minds. "Do you think Obama will cheat, yes or no?" That is not making any assertion, but it nevertheless implies that it's at least an issue. It's what push polls do.

We have progressive taxes because they work - they're the least harmful way overall to gather a given amount of revenue, in terms of maintaining the economy and a having a minimum of screwing people over. Is it fair? Not particularly, but fairness is highly subjective in things like this, and the effects are not nearly as melodramatic as Ayn Rand types would have you believe. I don't mind paying a higher rate than people poorer than me because I can much better afford it, and if I had to pay those taxes when I was poor, I would still be poor, and being poor I wouldn't be contributing nearly as much to the economy, in turn making other people poor, etc., etc. And I don't feel bad about making richer people pay more, because guess what? They're still rich. It's not like there's no motivation to make money. Trust me: people are still trying like hell to get rich.

I love how the stories about Obama are that he: a) is a secret Islamic fundamentalist b) is a radical black liberation style Christian c) is sympathetic to Bill Ayers style "terrorism" d) is a "communist" and e) is literally the antichrist. Rarely does anyone point out that these things are all mutually exclusive...

Interestingly, Obama has SO much money that he's actually purchased half hour tv spots in which he (presumably) is going to explain at length why we should vote for him. No, I'm not joking.

Ah, yes. I often observe anomalies in which my calculations yield unequal sides of equations.

The short versions are pretty straightforward, although its missing an "Obama will lose due to vote rigging" option. The long versions are overly specific and biased and I don't think any of them represent what's really going on.

I see there's been a lot of argument recently (here, and in the national dialogue) about throwing the word "socialist" around, and about what it actually means and whether it's necessarily bad. So I thought I'd bring up this particular example and give it its own topic, because, due to its current governor's central role in the name-calling, this might be especially revealing. Ok, so here's the deal: Alaska has zero state income taxes and zero state sales taxes. Instead, almost all of its revenue comes from the federal government (Alaska receives almost twice as much federal money as it pays in federal taxes) and from charging oil companies to use the land. This latter isn't all used to pay for infrastructure, etc. (we all do that with our federal taxes), but to mail every Alaskan citizen a yearly check. Governor Palin has increased this check by $1200, to a current total of $3269. Said the governor earlier this year (before her nomination), "We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." I don't know if this is technically socialism, but I don't know what to call it. It is "collective ownership" and "sharing the wealth," at least. Yet Obama is accused of "socialism" by this same person with the same distaste one might call him a Nazi, for using the phrase "spreading the wealth" while debating presidential candidate Joe the Plumber. Clearly the distinction here is not only significant but the crucial difference between good and evil. So what is it?

Well, there's a 96% chance of option 1, a 0% chance of option 2, and a 4% chance of option 3. I'm going with 1. I don't think dichotomy has been paying attention.

Yeah, and TV ads cost thousands, too, and they only last thirty seconds! The reason Palin's wardrobe was an issue (well, it wasn't an issue, but the reason it got attention) was that it played so perfectly into the liberal perception of Palin ("caribou Barbie" abusing her power) and was so contradictory to the image she tries to project, the sensible backwoods hockey mom. That's what made it funny. Obviously vast sums of money get spent on campaigns, but that's not really the point.

What you need is some more exciting politics. Let's have the Queen start asserting her sovereignty again. Technically she can declare war on her own, right?

Well, I feel stupid. I assumed it was based on traditional polling, but in retrospect that's pretty clearly unfeasible. So the question isn't "why do people in [country] feel that way," it's "why do Economist readers in [country] feel that way." Which obviously is a very different question.