Slashdot Mirror

That's not my experience at all. I've been on the pro GMO side of this ever since I heard it was a thing, primarily out of distrust of food alarmists (there's enough bullshit about food to turn all of California, where these myths are the most prevalent, dark brown. My biggest peeve of the moment is that people actually think MSG is bad, but the opposite is actually true.)

The the worst offenders have all been Democrats. Their reasons are usually because they think GMO harms the environment (the opposite is true) they think it causes cancer, (false) they're on a crusade to make everybody eat organic (try finding an organic purist that isn't a Democrat. Vegans almost universally fall in this category as well, and try finding a vegan that isn't a Democrat.) Another reason it's usually Democrats is because of their very anti corporate stance, and/or they just hate Monsanto, not even bothering to consider that the technology itself is separate from the companies that employ it. The bill to ban GMO labeling was mostly supported by Republicans and mostly opposed by Democrats. Although Obama did sign the bill, in spite of his base labeling him as a coward for "caving to Republicans", and indeed many well known left leaning people here on slashdot were whining about their "right to know" about food's very immaterial GMO status every time that I told them the only purpose is to stigmatize it (i.e. labeling Jews.) Ironically, these guys want to know that more than they want information about material facts that manufacturers aren't required to put on labels, like the arsenic content of apple sauce.

But, if that doesn't satisfy you, then this should help:

https://www.isidewith.com/poli...
https://newrepublic.com/articl...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...
https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...

Oh, and if you support Bernie for 2020:

https://geneticliteracyproject...
https://www.politico.com/story...

It's all but guaranteed that if Bernie gets elected, and Democrats have a supermajority in Congress, (the later if which could likely happen, given the shit coming out of Republicans lately, especially with net neutrality) you can bet your ass that GMO would end up banned, which would be a huge setback for the United States.

Even if we are just considering foreign policy, there are not many people I would want in the white house less than Hillary Clinton. But the republican party somehow managed to find a person that would make me *want* HIllary to win. And that person is a 70-year old man-child who (as much as a despise crooked Hillary) cannot in good conscience trust with the nuclear codes. And no, I don't want to see Hillary succeeding in pushing her corrupt agenda. If she is elected, I sincerely hope everything she wants to do is stopped. And yet, I still find this situation preferable to potential carnage that Donald Trump has convinced me he is capable of.

I think at this point, it's really a guessing game of which of the two is more dangerous. My reading is that with Trump, I'm seeing his stupidity and incompetence fully exposed; I don't think the man is capable of holding anything back. Hillary has learned to play her cards close to the chest, and I think there is a power-hungry psychopath hiding behind her public persona. I suspect she would have no qualms ordering someone killed if it served her political purposes and she felt she could get away with it. Hillary has screwed up badly as SoS, and shown that she is rather resistant to advice. And the Clinton political machine also has enormous power, both domestically and abroad. On balance, Hillary still scares me more than Trump.

I think the other factor, though, is simply to go by the issues. When I take the isidewith.com questionnaire, Hillary comes dead last for me after Johnson, Trump, and Stein.

Well, it's still a few weeks until this circus is over and a lot can happen.

"Should the government increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers?

Jill Stein's answer: Increase" (source)

If it is backed by those big names and billionaires, I am afraid what the real reasons are.

We are at a situation where we think that people who are not us are fighting our battles, because they (partially) are now the same as ours.

If Microsoft, Google, Apple or any other company gets something done ine politics, they do it for them, not for you.

Just think and go to https://www.isidewith.com/elec... so you can decide with you mind, not with your heart or balls, who YOU think might be right for your future.

I'm just curious as to which candidate best fits your ideological stance..

https://www.isidewith.com/elec... because it is better to vote rationally. Unfortunately most people will vote emotionally.

People still will vote for the party they have always been voting for, even when the ideas do not agree with their own, because voting for the other is even worse, for whatever reason.

This is a Snowden video interview:
http://www.isidewith.com/news/...

I don't know if that has been posted here before nor if the claim that NONE of US media have published this or if it was removed from YouTube shortly after publishing.
For what it's worth. Informative for sure, seen as it stands.

Educate yourself.
http://www.politicalcompass.org
http://politicaltest.net
http://isidewith.com

I like the graph on this page (though I'm not sure why they felt the need to rant, there). Maybe a bit oversimplified, but it gets the point across beautifully.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

In case anyone missed the 4-way debate moderated by Larry King in Chicago on 2012-10-23:

https://kat.ph/torrents/20121023-full-third-party-presidential-debate-yt-avi-t6769764/

All of the presidential candidates' social/economic ideologies are graphed here. [Note the proximity of the two corporate parties' candidates.]

Please—especially if you live in an uncontested state—vote for the best candidate, not the second-least-worst candidate; our country (and especially our civil liberties) have taken just about all the "lesser evil" that can be withstood.

This quiz can help you determine which candidate best matches your own ideology.

Not a chance if you happen to live in any of the 41 non-contested states. Vote for anyone you want in Georgia or California... The outcome is already conceded by the D's and the R's. Your vote in those places does not matter! If you happen to live in one of the 9 swing states, you've probably tossed your television and radio out the window by now. You've heard how both the D and the R will destroy America as we know it! So don't vote for either one of them.

Go here and vote for whomever's platform best matches your own values... If that happens to be the D or the R, so be it. If you're a typical /.'er you'll probably match with someone like Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Gary Johnson.. Vote for any of them... If you're an extreme Xenophobe and worship at the altars of Limbaugh and O'Reilly; you definitely won't match with the D and probably not with the R--you might match up best with Virgil Goode of the Constitution party..

Vote *your* conscience and *your* choice, not the lesser evil, or whom you've been told repeatedly to vote for!

I voted for Obama, again, because I could not in good conscience vote to further empower the deranged hysterics of the Republican Party.

Posting anonymously because I've been modding posts.... There are other choices besides Obama and Romney. Don't buy the garbage that you have to vote for one of them to prevent the disaster of the other one getting elected. Vote for the presidential candidate that you actually believe in! You might want to check out http://www.isidewith.com/ If it is going to be Obama or Romney I could hardly care less which one will win. I am voting for the person who is running that I agree the most with.

Have not really heard of her until I went to this position survey

All my friends, regardless of political party, are told by that site that they side with Jill Stein. So do I, apparently.

Your friends are morons.

This is how a true friend stacks up:

Candidates you side with...

99% Gary Johnson
72% Virgil Goode
69% Jill Stein
67% Mitt Romney
62% Rocky Anderson
57% Barack Obama

Have not really heard of her until I went to this position survey

All my friends, regardless of political party, are told by that site that they side with Jill Stein. So do I, apparently.

I side with Jill Stein. http://www.isidewith.com/results/98618484

Have not really heard of her until I went to this position survey

Forget about amending it--it needs to be abolished.

Back in the late 18th - early 19th century, there were very few common folk who even knew the name of the candidates. And with news traveling via Pony Express, getting reliable and timely information to the masses was effectively impossible. Therefore the idea of voting for a representative who'd vote on your behalf for a candidate made a bit of sense. The "Winner takes all" system of state electoral votes was a bad idea IMNSHO then as it is now though. I live in Tennessee for instance which is certain to go for Romney this year regardless of who I vote for or even if I vote. That's what I consider to be disenfranchisement, my vote simply doesn't matter. Likewise, a voter in New York likewise knows (or should know) that no matter who they vote for, Obama will win that state. In fact, unless you live in one of nine "swing states", your vote doesn't count! But those living in those states can't turn on the TV, radio, or go outside without being bombarded by thousands of negative ads paid for by mostly anonymous donors.

Today in the internet age, It's fairly easy to send a message to a very large percentage, if not a majority of the populace--though with the replacement of most hard news media with tabloid and shock journalism it seems the masses are more caught up in the "Bread and Circuses" offered by the ever-shrinking oligopoly of major media outlets than at any time since the fall of the Roman Empire. That is, the average American seems far more interested in Jersey Shore than boring politics. And with more biased editorial programming whether its Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart what political insights most people receive are sermons for the choir which is increasing polarization and dividing families, churches, and communities in the process.

I would like a couple of things to happen which could reverse this trend in very short order: 1) Require a basic civics exam to register to vote made to be as non-partisan as possible IE "You must be [x] years old to serve as a U.S. Senator." or "A president may serve a maximum of [x] [y]-year terms." This would hopefully help weed out those who simply vote for the taller candidate or the one their parents, minister, and/or spouse like. 2) I'd like voters to be required to answer a questionnaire such as the one provided at ISideWith.com to see which candidate's platform best matches their own interests and values. It would possibly open a messy can of worms to automatically cast a vote for the candidate who's positions best match yours . For instance, I may agree those most with Jill Stein's platform, but see Rocky Anderson's positions as more credible... But I'd still vote for either of them long before voting for Obama or Romney, and would vote for either of them long before I'd vote for Virgil Goode--Who's positions are nearly 100% diametrically opposed to my own. But I'm glad to have had the opportunity to hear them from him directly.

Require everyone to take a civics quiz and an all-inclusive candidate matchmaker questionnaire then compare the results of the latter among those scoring 75% or better on former to the overall popular vote generated by a free and open polling process.

Realistically, you should realize that you have 6 choices to choose from. If you believe that your choices are 2 instead of 6 then you're taking the bait. Take that quiz and figure out who best represents you, and sack up and vote for that person even if you don't think they'll win. If Romney represents you the best, so be it. But don't vote for him just because you don't think you have another choice, that's a stupid reason to vote for something.

I'd argue that there are plenty of voters who actually like their candidates, but the 'no one really' comment is merely an exaggeration - Obama, Bush, and Clinton weren't elected because 51% of the population thought he was the best candidate. Realistically, a statistically insignificant number of people is going to believe that their candidate is the 'most optimal choice', but a lot of people are voting for somebody they agree with barely half the time because they perceive the other guy as being even worse.

So when somebody goes to the polls and pulls the lever for Romney when they'd really prefer Ron Paul, they're voting for the 'least worst' candidate they think has a chance.

As a 'moderate libertarian', I'm the type where in preference polls I tend to hit about 40% for both candidates... Huh, this is new, in the 'selectsmart' test I scored 52% for Obama, 39% for Romney. I'll note that in previous tests I normally agreed with Ron Paul(48%) the most. Eh, I had been leaning Obama recently anyways, in the sense that I've seen nothing that suggests Romney would 'do better'.

2nd Opinion: 75% Ron Paul, 60% Obama, 51% Romney.

Given those results, I'd say that a candidate I could vote for without 'holding my nose' would have to at least be in the 70-80% range, average. I say this because Ron Paul is still hold the nose at 62%. Obama(57) clearly leads Romney(45), but not overwhelmingly.