Slashdot Mirror

Only if it is an 8 bit binary number.

http://www.politics1.com/p2016...

MightyMartian, somewhat above-average Earthman here.

I think the whole situation is better characterized as doing what women in the U.S. often do, make themselves miserable. Underneath her statement is possibly a feeling that she doesn't like talking with men. (If you want to meet women who are, in general, much happier, go to Brazil.)

No negotiating? That's crazy! Negotiating is just talking. When there is good communication, there will be better decisions. To give one small example, maybe there is a clerical error in the human resources department that makes the person being interviewed seem less valuable to the company than he or she really is.

If someone makes exaggerated claims, that person is dishonest. Don't hire a dishonest person. If someone asks for 10% more pay than offered, ask why, and investigate any information that supports the request.

Ellen Pao appears to be another Carly Fiorina. (Look at that terrible photo of Ms. Fiorina.) To me, Ellen Pao seems to lack social sophistication.

the current US system WILL NOT ALLOW FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATES

It may not allow for 3rd party presidential candidates,

For a system that will not allow third party candidates, there sure are an awful lot of them. True, many of them were not qualified for all 50 state ballots, but they were still candidates.

What's amazing about our system that doesn't allow third party candidates is that it allows candidates to run that are not constitutionally qualified to serve if elected (PSL and Socialist Workers Party).

Which alternative? Mitt Romney, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or...?

How would voting be accomplished if one head was republican and the other a democrat. You'd have to break the impasse with an independent between the two. And another for the libertarians, and another for the http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
The solution seems worse than the problem.

Mayor Yommy Battle is listed as being a Democrat.

But I suspect he was chosen because of this by the business ppl...

http://www.politics1.com/al.htm

The Mayor also wrote to the President at the start of the month:
http://theattackmachine.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/huntsvilles-mayor-tommy-battle-writes-to-president-obama/

Which is exactly how I am left without anyone to vote for in the presidential election. No McCain (Military Commissiona Act of 2006), No Obama (FISA Amendments Act of 2008), No Bob Barr (*shudder*).

There are other options:

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

Actually, "Mighty Yar" is right when (s)he says "There are at least 13 people running - at least according to Wikipedia".

I found a large list that is broken into the two major parties - the Democrats and Republicans; the three major "third parties" - the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitution Party. There are a long list of other paties running.

The corporate media tells you that a vote for anyone but a Republican or Democrat is wasted because the others have no chance of winning. Well, since I think Obama has no chance of winning I should go ahead and vote for McCain? That's just retarded!

The Democrats and Republicans are all solidly for the Bono Act (AKA the "steamboat willie preservation act"), DMCA, PATRIOT act, FISA; are for outlawing drugs, prostitution, and gambling, while I am against all of these things.

Why should I waste my vote on a candidate whose views are diametrically opposed to my own?

I know the Libertarians are on the ballot in 49 states, and IINM the other two "third parties" are on the ballot in enough states to win should they carry them.

Right now the only major party candidate in any race I can in good conscience vote for is Dick Durbin.

Which one, pray tell: the "sociopathic" Libertarians, or the "freedom-hating" Greens?

Or are you so stupid that you think joining a party that hasn't been marginalized will do you any good?/blockquote?

Ah right, you're one of the fat, happy couch potatoes. Nothing will ever change, will it? Your apathy is overwhelming. You deserve everything you get.

 

Let's say I wanted to vote for Cobb of the Green Party and I live in some far off place like New York or Chicago. Cobb isn't on the ballot in those states - in addition to others. Most people that suggest third-party candidates aren't aware of how resticted ballot access is in many states. Further, our system is designed to make these kind of votes as effective as not voting at all.

So, I'm not particulaly concerned about how not voting is construed or not construed by my fellow citizens. What I am concerned about is more actual say in my government - which the current system does not provide. Until I get more say, I'm not voting. It legitimizes the process that is fundamentally broken, and I would rather not - even if I could vote for the candidate of my choice (which I can't).

there is [sic] no military applications.

You don't want the soldiers to become fearless, because if they do, they might say: "This war is wrong. I used to be too afraid to do anything about it, but now I suddenly feel fearless, and will get the heck away from here !"

In any case, whether or not you think wars are justified, you don't want fearless soldiers. They'd be horribly expensive.

Forgot to mention. Even when you've got a credible, centrist 3rd party it's going to take 20 years before you start having an effect. Oh and they have to actually believe in electoral reform, no point electing someone who's going to keep the status quo.

At the moment, there's nothing particularly credible:
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

I'd suggest a Liberal party but that seems to have leftist connotations in the US, despite liberalism being anything but left wing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

An American government full of neo-cons was elected, and further re-elected, by a majority of Americans. That, in itself, is damning enough of a majority of a people.

There is effectively a problem in the USA with the way the elections are conducted, that encourages the existence of only two parties. That is, there is no real choice.

Just compare :

France 2002 1st turn

US 2004 candidates and results

Almost a half of the population didn't vote for one of the three leaders on the first turn in France.

It doesn't happen in the US because it's just wasting your voice...
And it doesn't work since, huh, about 1876 if you look at it...

May I suggest some alternatives

Dogs and cats living together? http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002690.html
North America having more than two presidential candidates? http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
Duke Nuken Forever going gold? And GPL'd?
http://www.gamershell.com/news/6581.html
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, got ya there... it's 3D instead of Forever :)

Would you really want 3rd party candidates, the candidates who clearly state their positions on the issues to mess with the Democrats and Republicans with their meaningless, but well rehearsed sound bites? What would happen, if in a a debate, a candidate took a stand? {gasp} Would our entire country fall to ruin? Or, might it force the other candidates to answer a question?

Just where in the constitution does it say that we have a 2 party system, and that those two parties should be the Democrats and Republicans?

As for the wasted vote argument, so you should choose your lesser of evils candidate, remember, if you choose the lesser of evils, you have still chosen evil. Vote your mind, and your conscience. If you always settle for a lesser of evils, how do they know that you are dissatisfied with the status-quo? Or are you happy with the lack of choice that we are suffering with if you only consider Kerry and Bush to be the only valid, viable candidates?

How many people are on the ballot in your state? http://www.politics1.com/p2004-ballots.htm this site should list who has ballot access in your state. In my state, Ohio, there were 8 names to choose from on the 2000 ballot. (If you don't believe me, I'll make it easy for you to check my facts: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/index.html ) Why should the choice only come down to 2 candidates with 8 people who went to the effort to gain ballot access?

The mainstream press actively avoids reporting on 3rd party candidates. When a presidetial candidate passes though a city 6 times during the campaign, and 2 daily newspapers, and 4 local television channels completely ignore the visits? People were there to greet the candidate, but not a press member to be found, hmm... this smacks of collusion with the press and the Democrats and Republicans.

What we need to fight for is better coverage of the other people who will appear on the ballots of our respective states. If airing the news is an FCC required service of broadcasters, how about equal time for all of the eligible candidates? Oh Horrors! What a concept! Let the people hear of the people on the ballot before they draw the curtain? This would hardly be fair to the powers that be! People might consider voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican.

We complain about crooked elections in other countries. They can't get much more closed, and crooked than our own.

Political Parties in America

Republican,
Democrat,
Greens,
Socialist,
Fed eralists,
Libertarians,
America First Party,
American Party,
American Heritage Party,
American Independant Party,
American Nazi Party,
Christian Falangist Party of America,
Communist Party USA,
Constitution Party,
Constitutional Action Party,
Family Values Party,
Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women,
Grassroots Party,
Independence Party,
Independent American Party,
Labor Party, Light Party,
Natural Law Party,
New Party,
New Union Party,
Peace & Freedom Party,
Prohibition Party, Reform Party,
The Revolution,
Socialist Party USA,
SOcialist Action,
Socialist Equality Party,
Socialist Labor Party,
Socialist Workers Party,
Southern Party,
Southern Independence Party,
US Pacifist Party,
We The People Party,
Workers World Party,
Constitutionalist Party,
American Patriot Party,
Democratic Socialists of America,
Knights Party (Ku Klus Klan),
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party,
Multicapitalist Party,
Pansexual Peace Party,
Pot Party,
Progressive Labor Party,
Revolutionary Communist Party USA,
Social Democrats USA,
The Third Party,
US Marjuana Party,
Workers Party, USA,
Veterans Party of America,
World Socialist Party of the USA,
American Party

I guess we should give all 54 parties a share of the coming debate? They'd each get what - 30 seconds?

You can find out more at http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

You're actually missing the two on the largest number of ballots.

Here's the breakdown of the four:

Badnarik is on 48, all but New Hampshire and Oklahoma. He's the Libertarian Candidate.

For the following, I'm excluding what's listed as "write-in."

Peroutka is on 38. He's the candidate for the Constitution Party.

Nader is on 34. No idea how often the page is updated for the various court cases with him.

Cobb is on 28. Don't know if he can mathematically win with whatever states those are.

Here's the breakdown.

What the hell does that matter John Edwards is more conservative then Kerry that does not mean he is a conservative..

When I said "I", I meant "I as a member of We the People". It was a rhetorical thing...musta gone a little fast for you. My bad. I would like my voting preferances to be tallied in a more-accurate-than-binary way.

A list for you is provided Here

Looks like you had mroe than two choices all along..

...and if you're a liberal...which you are, RIGHT?
Check out...

DailyKos

What do you find unacceptable about the other parties, like Libertarian, Constitution, and all the rest?

Because it takes an awful lot of work and money to get together yet another party.

If you aren't aware of them, there are a slew of other parties that you can join.

I do not believe it is possible to find completely truthful information. I think the best thing a person can do is read all sides of the debates and make up their own mind. Education is the key. Besides wikipedia, here is Politics1. Politics1 gives you links to all of the varying ideologies of the current debates. Maybe this will help.

Lemme guess. This is all about how the Republicans are going to steal the election... Again.

Insecure Republicans with superiority complex's always give my the best laughs. No, this is not about some vast liberal conspiracy theory. This is about someone with a bit of computer knowledge subverting the elections. Imagine your suprise if you woke one day to realize Calero won the election.

There are more to choose from, including TWO parties dedicated to the reinstatement of Prohibition, and four socialist ones. The Christian Phanalgist party is luckily out of the race, though.

Just to back up the parent with a little info, a list of actual candidates running for president can be found here. Take a look, vote FOR a candidate instead of against. If your man/woman loses, at least you'll know you actually did The Right Thing(TM). (And BTW, Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is actually one of the DEFINITIONS of insanity!) };->

Last election - I can't imagine Gore would have been a good choice, and Bush sure as hell was not a good one.

There were 10 other party candidates on the ballot as well as 3 independents. Don't give me that crap there was no one to vote for just because the other parties weren't on TV.

Voting is kind of like Wargames, except the only way to lose is not to play. If you don't like the democratic or republican candidate, vote for your favourite third party. It's the best way to get the message across you didn't like either.

I can go vote for someone new and it doesn't have to be Kerry, and the person I choose doesn't even need to win to make a difference. There are more choices than just Bush and Kerry! Take a look at this list of the political parties! We have the American Reform Party, the American Nazi Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the U.S Pacifist Party, and many more. On top of all of that, you can write-in "Micky Mouse" as thousands of Americans do each year to send the message the even Micky would be better than the major party choices.

No matter who is elected, if the Green Party gets 20% of the vote and the Libertarian Party gets 20% of the vote, then the group in office have a very large incentive to focus on the environment and shrink the size of government. Even if the Pacifist Party grows by 10,000 votes, that sends a message! On top of the initial message, once a "fringe" party gets enough of a percentage of the votes, they start to qualify for federal matching funds and can spread their message further. You don't need to change the person to send a message.

Speaking to US Citizens: If you don't like the choices, VOTE and PARTICIPATE, the critical component of our political system is the ownership of the individual citizens. This government works on our behalf, if it isn't doing your will, vote and talk to other citizens about your concerns and ask them to vote too!

LaRouche calls himself a "Democrat" but has been disowned by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) due to his views, sorta like how David Duke has been disowned by the Republicans. In 2000, he won 22% in the Arkansas Democratic primary, enough to win delgates. He did not get any. Later he sued the DNC, and lost.

I did some reading on LaRouche a few years back. He started in the far-left and over the years drifted into the far-right. Larouche is also a big beliver in conspiracies.

Read more here.

Most definitely not all the candidates. They're missing people like Muadin (who among other things supports the creation of "a planetary e-democratic federal government, The Terran Federation of Earth"), Jack Grimes (the Leader and Director of the United Fascist Union - see him posing in a bad wig with his wife? girlfriend? MOTHER???), and innumerable others.

Check out a far more complete list at Politics 1.

The government doesn't get to rule abortion information sites, birthcontrol sites, sexual education sites, political sites, as "unacceptable".

When I visited the Toledo Blade's main page, I noticed something interesting: the banner ads at the top *and* bottom of the page were for none other than our new favorite ISP, Buckeye Express. One at the top for their digital cable, one at the bottom for their ISP "service".

The only other banner ad I've seen on the site is for the local TV station -- and out of 6 pages (12 ads) I pulled up, only 4 of them (1/3) were for the TV station. The rest were either Buckeye cable or Buckeye internet.

Both ads are served through doubleclick.net (wish we could /. this site!), so it seems possible that they're just randomly placed. Sometimes, you even have the ironic juxtaposition of a story about Buckeye bracketed by ads for the service.

The paper's relationship with a major advertiser makes me wonder. Just how big was the "raid"? Was the FBI even really involved at all? The story says "Members of the Toledo police computer crimes task force and FBI agents seized computers and modems..." without ever telling how many FBI agents were involved or interviewing anyone with the local FBI office.

But they did get an interview with "Paul Shryock, vice president of information technology at Buckeye CableSystem."

Did the Toledo Blade blow things out of proportion at the behest of their biggest online advertiser? Did the local DA need a high-profile "cyber crime" in the week before election day, but couldn't get any of the local pedophiles to cooperate? Are we getting the whole story here?

At least we know the answer to the last question.

I wasn't saying I should take $10 from you and give it to the democrats, or the skinheads. I was saying that we should all pitch in $10 and make sure that there's a forum that anyone, who can get public support, can use.

My point is that if I have to give $10 to be used for such a forum, and I'm behind 1 of 5 candidates, I am still giving $8 to people I don't support. I'd rather give my $10 to the guy I like, and if the other guys' views aren't good enough to get people (and their money) behind the cause, too bad.

Also, there's still the question of who gets invited to these forums. Do you have any idea how many political parties there are in America? Do we give equal platform to some fringe dude that no one's heard of (Da Vid of the Light Party for instance...bet you've never heard of him) just because he's organized a party? Say he's one of the 5 candidates...why should 20% of our tax money go to support this guy that only .0001% of us are behind? And if you don't include this guy, then his supporters (all 25 of them) are being taxed for something they get no benefit from. That's not right, either.

So I stick by the principle. Do not compel me to support views I disbelieve in, and I will not compel you to support views you disbelieve in.

I hate the democratic welfare state, I think it's self perpetuating and punishes the workers to support the lazy. However, I can see that some welfare truly helps the economy.

I'd prefer to see private charity. I think it would be more efficient, and would more likely go to those who really need it. Those who are just lazy would be told to get off their butts and get a job. Americans are about the most compassionately generous people in the world. I see no reason to force us to be generous through taxation, and then smack us in the face with the fact that the money is going to perpetuate sloth in many cases.

I'm opposed to Bush's faith-based initiative for the same reason. Either some of my money is going to a group with views I wouldn't support myself (which is wrong), or the group is told what they can or can't do by the government (which is wrong). Lose-lose situation.

Ditto for schools. I'd rather see the government removed from schools. Again, because they teach (with public funds) ideas that the parents may not agree with and would not want taught to children. For instance, if teaching of history or politics is slanted favorably toward any one religious viewpoint, it's wrong because it may not be the view the parents believe. If you secularize and avoid any reference of religion in history and politics, kids get the impression that God/religion is unimportant in life, which all devout parents would believe is wrong. Another lose-lose situation. (Add the fact that home-schoolers and private-schoolers are being taxed for services they get no benefit from.)

The best way out of this whole prickly mess is to live by principle. No public funding for things there are different views on. Limit gov't strictly to it's Constitutional functions, like defense.

I apologize for the omission, that was a terrible oversight.

We should add the Reform Party

the the Independence Party

Not to mention a myriad of other third parties. We have options. There is no need to just bow out and accept the mediocrity offered by Gush and Bore.

By the by, for your other/write-in choices, check out this site for your 'other' alternatives (Cruel site of the day). My favorite is the guy who's running so the government wills top stealing his mail.

A simple google search yielded the following URL . It contains a list of ALL candidates running for president. Cast your votes everyone!

And just one more comment to all you voters, voting for a third party candidate is not throwing your vote. It's a statement for your party. Politics asside, do you think that Jesse Ventura would have been elected governer of Minnisota if it wasn't for Ross Perot's run for the presidency two years earlier? If the reform (independance) party can elect a governer, any party can, and that should be the starting point for any party.

If you'd like to see a list of most of the candidates then go here. Vote Libertarian!

Good thing I voted for him in the last election... (now, how many of you out there even realized you had the choice when all you ever heard about was Bill Clinton or Bob Dole?)

Of course a lot of the items I expressed no particular opinion on - however what I would have preferred would be an option to keep the status quo, without radical change either on one side or the other (for example, affirmative action - I don't want to vote for somebody who vows to never let it be changed, but on the other hand I don't want to vote for a racist either). Be that as it may, here's the scores I came up with:

Ralph Nader: 76
Bill Bradley: 69
John Hagelin: 69
Al Gore: 64
Warren Beatty: 54
John McCain: 48
Howard Phillips: 33
Donald Trump: 32
Pat Buchanan: 29
George W. Bush: 29
Steve Forbes: 27
Gary Bauer: 23
Orrin Hatch: 22
Harry Browne: 15
Alan Keyes: 10

The only surprise there (other than how poorly that moron Bush did) was John Hagelin. I'd heard of him, but couldn't remember where. The Natural Law Party platform does look like one I could support. And he's a "PhD ... quantum physicist" - just like myself and the man of the century...! And he's also challenging for the Reform party nomination. Then I remembered where I'd heard of the guy - anybody remember the Maharishi International University with the bouncing transcendental meditators? Hagelin was their token physicist, and he'd previously recommended transcendental meditation as the solution to crime in Washington DC (crime was up the day they tried the experiment). More info at

http://www.politics1.com/nlp.htm.

Hagelin is "director of Maharishi University of Management's Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy". He "follows the teachings of His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". The institute publishes on the "Maharishi effect". Weird stuff. I don't want to be a religious bigot or anything, but I've got to wonder if there's some undercurrent here we should be concerned about...