healthyguy63

I am looking for a reference or any exit polling date that estimated the number of Ralph Nader supporters who voted in an election in 2000 or 2004 for some other candidate besides Nader. In other words, Nader was the voter's favoirite candidate, but the voter nonetheless voted for Gore or Bush or some other candidate.

I would like to remove the emachines tower from my whole desktop system and replace it with a Mac Mini. Will the mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers, mic and headphones I have now be functional when connected to the Mac Mini?

e-machines computer with Windows XP svc pack 3, 2 gig RAM.

Symptoms:

1) Computer seems to boot up okay, but Windows will not load; left with blank screen. For a while, Windows would load if computer turned off and on several times, but no longer. The only way to get Windows to load is to start computer in safe mode.

2) Setting the computer to an earlier restore point fails, even if done in safe mode.

3) Internet connection problems:

a) Connecting to internet, after turning on computer, requires turning off (unplugging) modem and turning back on. Note that another computer in the house that connects wirelessly to this same modem has no connection problems.

b) Most recently developed symptom: in safe mode, I can get Google search page (my designated home page) to load when I open my Firefox browser, but when entering search terms and hitting enter, I now get internet connection failure.

Three different people I have asked each suggest a different cause: failure of motherboard, video card, or hard drive.

Any suggestions?

In this last New Hampshire presidential primary, did any Democrats go to the trouble to switch party affiliation to vote in the Republican presidential primary (deadline for this change for the recent primary was in Oct 2011), and then plan to switch back again so they can vote in the Democratic state primary? Is there any evidence that Republicans do this as well in years like 2004 when there was a Democratic presidential primary, but no Republican one? Is there any way to track this type of behavior?

Dates and rules for NH voter registration and party affiliation deadlines are shown at the following site:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/HOW%20TO%20REGISTER%20TO%20V...

The 2008 presidential election prompted the creation of very many choices of presidential "candidate calculators" that could be found at various websites. These are questionnaires on political issues that match your views and political opinions to that of particular presidential candidates. Recently, news stories about the Republican primary race have dominated the headlines, several debates have been televised, and there are many candidates to choose from, yet I find no candidate calculators online. Why this difference between 2008 and 2012?

It is my understanding that repealing the 16th amendment to the US constitution reinstates article 1 section 9, which requires congress to collect taxes in a way that is apportioned to population.

"No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

I assume from what I know of the history of the income tax that taxation of an individual's income is prohibited by this article, but is this also true for corporate income taxes?

I would like to buy a pre-owned Mini Cooper, but the reliability ratings for these cars are below average as reported in the recent April issue of Consumer Reports. Are these ratings poor relative to other cars because a few owners are more likely to drive the Mini very hard, or are they generally less reliable regardless of who drives them?

I am also interested in a Mazda 3 or perhaps a Honda Fit. I am single and do not need a big car, and I do not drive an awful lot (less than 4000 miles/year). I am concerned about cost to own over many years.

It appears that the "throw-the-bums-out" policy is not being applied equally to all incumbents. On the same election day, Arkansas voters have turned a cold shoulder to Blanche Lincoln but welcomed John Boozman. Boozman has been in the U.S. congress for many years now, and his voting record suggests that he is less of a small-government conservative than many of his primary opponents. I am surprised that anti-incumbent and anti-big government sentiment did little harm to Boozman.

Although Lincoln received the most number of votes in her primary against two opponents, it is unusual and foreboding for an incumbent to be forced into a run-off election. By contrast, Boozman received 52 or 53% of the vote as one of eight candidates.

-

-

Many Libertarians have claimed in posts I have seen online that the FairTax is a form of taxation based on coercion. Could Libertarians here at Yahoo Answers explain such comments and perhaps give me some examples of taxes that are not based on coercion and contrast them to those that are?

See the following 21 second YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTJVYDDFXPY

This movie clip comes from the movie I.O.U.S.A.

OR

See the interview with Alice Rivlin at time 12:39 to 13:09 in the 30 minute version of the I.O.U.S.A. movie below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo&feature...

Can anyone explain to me why these programs are projected to suddenly grow so rapidly?

According to this projection, the ONLY spending allowed after the year 2030 will be for two basic items: entitlement programs and interest on the debt. There will be no money for roads, bridges, military, research, education etc.

This is one mess we cannot borrow our way out of, nor can the Treasury print our way out of it. GDP increases will not increase enough to provide tax revenue in the future, interest rates have no place to go but up, we've reached our credit limit and these entitlement programs appear to be a bottomless pit! This particular disaster appears to be unstoppable.

-

-

See the following 21 second YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTJVYDDFXPY

OR

See the interview with Alice Rivlin at time 12:39 to 13:09 in the YouTube video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo&feature...

According to this projection, the ONLY spending allowed after the year 2030 will be for two basic items: entitlement programs and interest on the debt. There will be no money for roads, bridges, military, research, education etc.

What is the evidence or likelihood that this projection is accurate?

Can anyone at Y!A provide a link for information that contradicts this projection made by Alice Rivlin in the movie I.O.U.S.A.?

-

-

Is the projection for the U.S. federal budget correct for the year 2030 as it is shown in the movie I.O.U.S.A.?

David M. Walker and the movie I.O.U.S.A. predicts that interest on the debt plus entitlement spending (social security, medicare, medicaid) by the federal government will grow and grow as a percentage of the whole budget until they become 100% of the budget by the year 2030. There will be no money left to spend on research or education or military, etc.

What is the evidence or likelihood that this projection is accurate? Does anyone know?

-

-

Sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo&feature...

See interview with Alice Rivlin at time 12:39 to 13:09 in the above YouTube clip, or see the following 21 sec. clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTJVYDDFXPY

-

Is the loss by Doug Hoffman in the Nov. 3rd, 2009 congressional special election in New York's 23rd district, a heavily GOP-favored district, an omen for the limited government conservatives or Tea Party movement?

I see Hoffman as a symbol for the Tea Party activists, and the NY-23 race as a microcosm of what is happening to the Republican party across the whole nation. In this race, I was interested to see if the Conservative party or any group representing small, limited government could organize and run a campaign from outside the politically moderate Republican party and win. I might suggest that it does not bode well for conservatives that in an election with very little if any vote-splitting, and in a district favoring the GOP, the limited government candidate still lost. I realize that Republican governors won in New Jersey and Virginia on the same day, but these were not necessarily small government, fiscally conservative individuals, while Hoffman and the Tea Party activists are.

Conversely, should it be assumed that this election was very atypical, and not too much should be read into it? After all, it was not preceded by usual primary races. P

Is the loss by Doug Hoffman in the Nov. 3rd, 2009 congressional special election in New York's 23rd district, a heavily GOP-favored district, an omen for the limited government conservatives or Tea Party movement?

I see Hoffman as a symbol for the Tea Party activists, and the NY-23 race as a microcosm of what is happening to the Republican party across the whole nation. In this race, I was interested to see if the Conservative party or any group representing small, limited government could organize and run a campaign from outside the politically moderate Republican party and win. I might suggest that it does not bode well for conservatives that in an election with very little if any vote-splitting, and in a district favoring the GOP, the limited government candidate still lost. I realize that Republican governors won in New Jersey and Virginia on the same day, but these were not necessarily small government, fiscally conservative individuals, while Hoffman and the Tea Party activists are.

Conversely, should it be assumed that this election was very atypical, and not too much should be read into it? After all, it was not preceded by usual primary races. Perhaps Hoffman will easily defeat Owens in 2010?

[To give you some idea about where I stand politically, I prefer a Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater style of conservative, and I was hoping to see Hoffman win.]

For some background, go to the following website to see the list of current or recent U.S. alternative parties and a brief description and history of each one: http://politics1.com/parties.htm

Note that the major two parties hold together and do not split, while third parties split and splinter and disintegrate very frequently. Why is this???

I have posted this question before ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhUVp... ), but this time I have changed the background information following the question in an attempt to invoke more thoughtful answers and discussion.

One person has answered my previous post of this question by suggesting that the major parties are so large, that when one or a few people split off, it is not really noticed. Small splits like this certainly occur, but why don't we see large groups of people splitting off from the major two parties? I might just as well ask: "why are party splits never large, but only splinters?"

The major two parties are certainly no monolith - they are composed of many factions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Repub... ). In the Republican party for example, Sharp differences and disagreements about fundamental policy and philosophy exist between large groups of people. Hawks versus non-interventionists or blue-bloods versus social conservatives or fiscal moderates versus fiscal conservatives are skirmishes frequently seen within the party, some of which were highlighted during the 2008 Republican primary and are the basis of lots of finger-pointing and blame for year 2006 and 2008 election losses.

These fundamental differences appear to be as potentially divisive, if not more so, than those that induce splits in smaller "fringe" parties. To use an analogy, one might think that the nucleus of an atom should fly apart due to so many closely packed positively charged particles if not for the existence of the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. What are the mysterious forces that are holding together disparate groups and philosophies within the major two parties? Why is it that the very large tents of both the Democratic and Republican parties have not split into a few moderately sized tents, yet the small third parties split frequently?

For some background, go to the following website to see the list of current or recent U.S. alternative parties and a brief description and history of each one: http://politics1.com/parties.htm. Note that the major two parties hold together and do not split, while third parties split and splinter and disintegrate very frequently. Why is this???

I have posted this question before ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhUVp... ), but this time I have changed the background information following the question in an attempt to invoke more thoughtful answers and discussion.

One person has answered my previous post of this question by suggesting that the major parties are so large, that when one or a few people split off, it is not really noticed. Small splits like this certainly occur, but why don't we see large groups of people splitting off from the major two parties? I might ju

Did one single conversation between Horatio Bunce and Davy Crockett have the impact on Crockett's political beliefs that is suggested by one particular historical account?

See the following website for an account of a chance meeting between Bunce and Crockett, and the impact it supposedly had on Crockett's view about the role of government and government spending:

http://fee.org/nff/not-yours-to-give/

To summarize, Congressman Davy Crockett was campaigning and traveling by horse around his district when he met Horatio Bunce plowing his field. Bunce informed him that he was not happy with his support of a bill that gave money to various people out of pity or benevolence. According to the story, Bunce's argument was so convincing that Crockett completely changed his political views, his votes in Congress and his arguments made on the floor of the congress.

I really like this story, but I am skeptical that one single conversation with a constituent would have such a transformational impact on a U.S. representative's fundamental political beliefs. A Wikipedia entry says that little is known about Horatio Bunce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Bunce), but I wanted to know if there is any evidence for this conversation having taken place, or if it really had the impact suggested by Edward S. Ellis, the author who recounts this story. Is there any evidence from the House of Representatives voting record of Crockett's sudden change of philosophy about spending? Is there a record of arguments made on the floor of the House that would suggest a sudden and obvious change?

If a different voting system were available in 2008, would voters and the U.S. public in general have benefited from Ron Paul running as a third party candidate in the general election? Under the rules and limitations of vote-for-one plurality now used in the U.S., it would have been unwise (improve Democrats' chances to win), and fruitless (couldn't win) for him to do so. Perhaps it would have been a very good idea for him to run in the general election as a third party candidate if a voting system were used that allowed a single voter to cast a ballot for more than one candidate on the list. Such a system tremendously reduces vote-splitting, election spoilers and "wasted" votes. One or two of the "third" parties may grow to influential size under such a voting system. Approval voting or range voting are two systems I like very much. See the following websites:

http://rangevoting.org/MotPlusMenu.html

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

I believe the voting system we use is limiting and harmful, and I would liked to have had the opportunity to vote for a true conservative in the general election.

or has the public shifted overall to a more moderate position on these issues? I am inclined to believe that the public has shifted. What do you think?

Many people at Yahoo Answers state that only recently the Republican party has become too influenced by religious and socially conservative ("right wing") philosophy, and that this influence is the reason Republicans have lost the presidency and many congressional seats in the last two elections. I am inclined to believe that both of these ideas are incorrect, and please note that I am NOT a religious social conservative or defending that point of view. I am approaching this question from the standpoint of historical accuracy.

For example, read the following question posted recently on YA:

"Are Goldwater republicans disgusted to have their party taken over by religious fanatics in the 21st century?"

This idea seems strange to me in light of the tremendous influence the very politically active religious groups had on the Republican party during the 1980s and early 1990s. In other words, it was taken over in the 20th century, not the 21st! For those of you at YA who think the Republican party has become dominated by religious fanatics recently, do the names Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, Francis Schaeffer and Dr. D. James Kennedy, just to name a few, sound familiar to you? My recollection is that the "culture war" was more heated, and religious groups were more influential, in the '80s relative to today, and yet, during that period, Ronald Reagan won two of the larger landslide victories in U.S. history.

Sanctity of the unborn, gay lifestyle and teaching of evolution versus creationism in public schools were contentious issues back then as they are today. The global climate change debate may be the only issue that is unique to today.

If my thinking on this is wrong, please explain. What am I missing?

The actions of Republicans, and that of Specter to switch parties, appears to have cost them a senator. Did Republicans miscalculate?

I realize that Republicans had reason to believe Toomey would beat Specter in the primary election, but did Republicans consider the possibility that Specter would switch parties? If they are now indeed surprised that Specter has switched parties, are they wishing now that they had not challenged Specter in the primary election? Polls suggest that Toomey is unlikely to beat Specter in the general election.

If they were aware of the possibility that Specter would convert to Democrat, were the Republicans assuming that Tom Ridge was going to run and not Toomey? Polls show that Ridge does much better with Pennsylvanians than Toomey does in a hypothetical race against Specter.