Slashdot Mirror

A good affirmative action program uses a variety of methods to achieve the goal of increasing diversity, including using race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant.

Now, anytime you include "race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant" that is racism right there.

Race and gender shouldn't matter it should be equal and should be based solely on qualifications.

More structural solutions are required to promote economic and educational equality, including a long overdue and practical Marshall Plan to eliminate poverty in the United States, and an education-focused restitution trust fund.

In other words, Nader is comparing war-ravaged Europe to the mentality of minorities. That simply by being a minority they need extra assistance in getting an education. How is that not racist?

Any time you use race to determine how much you are going to give someone as a scholarship, that right there is racist, especially when you are using taxpayer funds to do that.

At the federal level, authentic minority set-asides and affirmative-action arrangements are a modest way to support the growth of businesses owned and controlled by people of color. Affirmative action is a modest means for businesses to redress historic discrimination. Affirmative action at universities is an important tool to promote campus diversity and educational equality.

Again, Nader is using racist language. This idea of "diversity" being a huge goal is simply racist rhetoric. It sounds more or less like Animal Farm "All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others".

Nader is either saying one of two things here, he is either saying that non-minority races have little to add to society or he is saying that minority races, given an equal playing field have no chance because they can never get enough qualifications to fairly compete with non-minorities.

The Justice Department should intervene to oppose judicial rulings against affirmative action in higher education and other spheres.

And here again, Nader is arguing in favor of racism demanding that any rules against racism be struck down.

Based on his own website, I think it is safe to say that Nader's view of affirmative action is racist.

and while you're at it, write in Mr. Nader for VP.

Wouldn't that be some great governance!

http://www.votenader.org/

Speaking of voting for "alternate" parties, why can't we have a voting system like the French?

Actually, Ralph Nader supports voting system reform too. His 2008 campaign platform included instant run-off voting, which is similar in theory to the two-round system.

To answer your question, we can't have a voting system like the French because we are unwilling to vote for candidates who support it. An incumbent has no incentive to support a change that may put him out of a job.

Well, there's only been one candidate who has been consistent in his stance about the Iraq war for the entire time -- Barack Obama.

Say what?

Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East.

The current political strategy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is a disaster for both the American people and the people of the Middle East. It has bloated the already wasteful military budget and has cost at present over 4,000 American lives, nearly 100,000 American injuries, and over a million Iraqi civilian lives, plus the destruction of their country.

Nader/Gonzalez propose a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq and a January 2006 poll shows that 72 percent of American soldiers in the field in Iraq wanted the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months.

The war is costing taxpayers nearly $4,600 every second - and that doesn't include the long-term reconstruction costs.

Nader/Gonzalez proposes that a rapid negotiated withdrawal from Iraq, with UN sponsored elections, is the first step toward delivering peace to Middle East.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/middle-east/

We have one candidate that opposed the Iraq war from the beginning...

REALLY? Which candidate is that? Because Barack Obama has repeatedly voted to fund the war in Iraq and he plans to continue it indefinitely. He plans to keep open the giant embassy (bigger than the Vatican) from which we direct our puppet regime in Baghdad. He plans to keep open over a dozen massive military bases from which we routinely bomb innocent civilians. He plans to continue using lawless mercenaries like Blackwater. And the handful of troops he has proposed to maybe withdraw someday if the generals say it's ok? He wants to send them to Afghanistan—because both he and McCain agree on escalating that war.

Obama has proposed increasing military spending (from the already stratospheric level of $600+ billion Congress just passed for 2009) and he wants to increase the size of the military by over 90,000 troops. Obama has repeated the same blustery, discredited lies about Iran as Bush and has stated he's willing to bomb both Iran and Pakistan. There is virtually no difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq, except that McCain is more honest: he says he wants us to remain there for 100 years. Obama is a fraud because he is deceiving millions of voters into believing he's an anti-war candidate, when he clearly is not.

Obama has no problem with war—he just doesn't like losing. His plan for Iraq is not to end the war but to continue it in another guise—in effect, a repackaging and re-branding of the war. He's not running for antiwarrior-in-chief, he's running for commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful imperial army—and that is the role he's going to fill.

The Vietnam war was ended when widespread revolt among GI's meant that the US could no longer count on the military to fight the war. Open rebellion within the ranks is what brought that 12+ year war to an end. It will take nothing less this time around. Voting for a pro-war candidate like Obama will only serve as an endorsement of more war. If you really want to cast a vote against war then you need to vote for a genuine anti-war candidate like Nader or McKinney. Voting for the Democrats only tells them they can keep betraying us and pay no political price—it's as irrational as rewarding someone for misbehaving and then expecting a positive change in their behavior.

The outcry is right here. Unfortunately, I think that is about it (correct me if there is more)...

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

And this is why the republicans are begging the dems to go after this point, their response: if McCain dies she is just as qualified as Obama, and has at least the same ability to recruit experienced people to aid her. There is no group in the world better at politics than the republicans (they shouldn't have a chance in this election, but are in a slight lead in some polls). But as far as I'm concerned the republicans and democrats are just different sides of the same coin: Nader/Gonzalez '08.

Well, Nader is running again. And he's all for solar power: http://www.votenader.org/issues/

You could always rally voters to elect Nader instead, he still opposes FISA meddling

Quick link to Nader's website: voternader.org

Nader is so tough on corporate crime that he supports the Fair Tax!

Ralph Nader
http://www.votenader.org/

Nader's not likely to have the opinion you want, but he does have the list of the problems that MUST be attended to whether there is a space program or not, energy efficiency, global warming, global resource management, He's fairly likely to support space tech that is in line with such an end like the LandSat programs but is not likely to be overly enthused with the idea of going to Mars.... "just because it's there."

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

, and he probably has my vote at this point, as Clinton/Obama/McCain all pretty much disgust me.

http://www.votenader.org/

I WOULD like to hear something from Ralph Nader regarding space and the NASA budget, though. Hopefully his position is better than Obama's idea to effectively ground the program for about 10 years (after which it may not be too easy to restart).

Wouldn't counting the actual votes be the way to tell if he got too many votes?

Yes, I'd think that would be a better method. I don't know how many people are aware since this hasn't been in the mainstream news, but they ARE having recounts in Ohio and New Hampshire.

Jack Gerbel, president of the California company, said in response to the letters that the machine was set incorrectly to store too few votes. He called the problem "a mistake of omission" on the part of a UniLect software engineer. But he said that a warning message should have appeared on the machine when it was full.

At least these guys can come out say what went wrong. Do we have any statement yet from Diebold or ES&S? Forgive me for asking, but how hard is it to count votes? This isn't the 80's anymore - hardware is cheap. I'm having a hard time figuring out why storage is apparently such an issue here. I can't remember the last time an ATM machine forgot/lost my PIN number. Powerball machines leave adequate paper trails. Come on.

Maybe the recounts in New Hampshire and Ohio will shed some light on the issue.

Since Nader has so little to gain in Ohio, maybe he actually cares about the people and whether their votes are counted fairly.
And since you believe 9,000+ out of 14,000+ Ohio signatures were invalid, you may at least want to read the other side of the story.

If you're sad that Kerry lost November 2nd, consider that Kerry voted for the DMCA. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are on the side of the RIAA and MPAA. They're on the side of the big-money donors after all. That needs to change.

Kerry also supported the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, as well as strengthening the USAPATRIOT Act!

This means that if you voted for Kerry, you voiced your support of the unilateral invasion of a foreign nation by the US, as well as your opposition to the preservation of civil liberties in this country. That's some heavy shit, and I failed to see why anyone voted for Kerry over Bush... the only reason any of those people were able to give me was that they were "sick of looking at Bush's face" on TV, and such. Us americans are getting what we deserve, if that's the amount of thought we're putting into deciding who to vote for... sheesh.

oh, and BTW, Nader was pointing this out the whole time. But as we all know, even though he had them found to be a partisan organization, "not credible to run nonpartisan debates", the CPD was even worse than they were in 2000 (when Nader was in the audience of the CPD debates).

Let's face it, you don't need bin-laden to tell you we've been screwed by both parties.

If you *REALLY* want to get technical, both campaings could, theororetically, be prosecuted under anti-trust laws for their debate agreement or even racketeering (RICO statutes) for all the legal manoeuvres before, during, and likely after the elections. (Intimidation, voter fraud, extortion [vote for me or else everyone gets it], rigging an election [Nader's woes]...)

Yeah, I know I'm in a "swing state," yada, yada, yada, but I look at it this way: What if? I'll be voting for someone that really does represent my views best, and, if elected, would cause repurcussions in D.C. that would be felt around the world.

Unlike Ralph Nader he is on the ballot in 49 states.

One thing I got from the bin-laden transcript the media seems to miss is he is telling us we --the voter-- have the power to steer our country but our apathy has led us down this road of conflict.

I've voted every year since I was 18. I don't think I've wasted any votes except in the last election.

I won't do it again.

(oh, god, i'm gonna get flamed aren't I?)

• Bardnik
• Bush
• Cobb
• Kerry
• Nader

Bush(www.georgewbush.com): 303 errors.

Kerry(www.johnkerry.com): 2 errors.

Nader(www.votenader.org): unable to validate.

Badnarik(badnarik.org): 13 errors.

Cobb(www.votecobb.org): 217 errors.

Well, then, treat it like a business transaction. Since his product is unavailable, try another like this one or this one. I'm sure Nader and Kerry would appreciate your business.

I just checked and Nader's site is fine from Canada too! http://www.votenader.org/issues/index_home.php I found one website that reported 71% of Canadians wanted Kerry - are we that different than the US?

Perceptions are formed through media reports and actual exchange of information and these 'modal' opinions become engrained in granite and just about as hard and resistant to change as a wall of granite.

But the 'Old Man in the Mountain' slid down the hill last Spring and the Red Sox came back from three and three-quarters games down and the Patriots beat the Rams, and even Ralph Nader has a chance at breaking through.

He just has to keep kicking at the rotten old log and he will find the soft spot. And then one good kick will crack the entire rotten thing in half.

Perceptions aren't reality. Perceptions may be a reflection of reality but they are not reality. Reality is reality.

Less isn't more. It is less. More is more.

Bush is not the enemy. He is our President. He should not be reelected... but he is not the enemy.

Nader is not the enemy. He is trying to break through into people's consciences... but even though he stands right in front of them, people cannot see him.

Kerry is not the enemy. He is a good guy. He is a war hero. He is not a leader, however, and cannot lead people where they need to go.

Step out of your reality for a second. Check your assumptions. Test your reality. Verify the opinions that you rely on. Trust your instincts. Let no rock go unturned.

Nader for President.

Who are you working for? What are you trying to accomplish?

You don't have to vote for anyone in particular.

You don't have to be educated or white or a homeowner or a Yankee fan. You don't have to be super good looking, or have a killer smile or anything.

You don't even have to be loyal to your Commander in Chief (in the voting booth only), if you think that he is doing wrong.

You just have to care about the place you live and the people around you.

For those of you looking for a cheap thrill, send $1 to Ralph Nader at VoteNader.org

How about this? A challenge-- to those of you who have said or thought this-- send $1 to Ralph Nader's campaign. Is his contribution to this election worth $1?

Heck, you Democrats can probably overtax his computer systems with all those $1 transactions.

As it is forbidden for surveyors to call cell phone numbers, those people who have ditched their landlines and only have cells are not included in the polls... and these are exactly the Slashdot dwelling technophiles which traditionally have been apatic to politics, but are now waking up...

Will we see some surprise support for Kerry on November 2nd? Or even better: for Badnarik or for Nader...

As it is forbidden for surveyors to call cell phone numbers, those people who have ditched their landlines and only have cells are not included in the polls... and these are exactly the Slashdot dwelling technophiles which traditionally have been apatic to politics, but are now waking up...

Will we see some surprise support for Kerry on November 2nd? Or even better: for Badnarik or for Nader...

Democratic slant that is. Take this latest one as an example:

"Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"

What proof o they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats. Just look at what Dems have been doing to Nader... all those frivolous lawsuits, constant misinformation's... Dems should be ashamed.

Two lawsuits try to keep Nader off ballot And this is just in one state, Florida! They've been using the same dirty tactics in other states as well.

Don't vote for the "better" of two evils, vote Nader in 2004! Evil is still evil and there's very little difference between the two major parties.

http://www.votenader.org/

Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on

The Green party doesn't have the draw the democrats have. [...] I'd love to see Nader or Badnarik president. [...] Next election I'd like Nader to run. But I feel that voting for Nader will have as much effect as writing a letter to Bush asking him to "play nice".

Just to clarify, like they do in polls.slashdot.org:

Michael Badnarik: Libertarian Party candidate for president. http://www.badnarik.org/

David Cobb: Green Party candidate for president. http://www.votecobb.org/

Ralph Nader: Rejected by the Green Party because we want to grow the party, not just tilt at windmills. Independent candidate for president, though he did exhume enough of the Reform Party to get on the Florida ballot under their name. http://www.votenader.org/

Of the three, Cobb is the only one (as far as I know) who has the guts to publicly state that Bush must go at any cost, even if it takes away from Cobb's own votes. Here's a good news article from Minnesota that puts Cobb and Nader's differences in context.

Cobb is the Green Party candidate, not Ralph Nader. Nader is running as an independent.

is anyone else bother by the fact that Ralph Nader is not running on the green party platform. that their candidate is David Cobb. This has been completely ignored by the media and presents either the false impression that Nader is backed by the Greens or that the Greens have absolutely zero party loyalty. Either way I think that this should recieve some attention; parties, whether we like it or not, are treated as the dominant political institutions and to ignore party affiliation just because these candidates are not Republicans or Democrates seems absurd.
Do any (former)Greens have a justification for abandoning their party to follow Nader? I'd like to hear them.

Why just the Libertarian party? Why not other third parties too. Personally I couldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans in good conscience. But I couldn't vote for the Libertarians either. Check out all the parties that you can. Don't just latch onto the first one that's "Not Republicrat". That would be as bad as being in the "Not Bush" party.

There's David Cobb the Green Party candidate, Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party candidate, Ralph Nader the Reform Party candidate (no, I'm not kidding), and as mentioned, Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party candidate.

Those are just the four parties I've heard the most mention of. If you don't like any of them, keep looking. If you're really interested in them, there are even Socialist and Nazi parties.

If you want a quick intro to the Green and Libertarian parties, search the videos on C-Span for the Cobb/Badnarik debate. It's very informative and gives you in a nutshell what the policies of the two parties are, and helps to highlight the problems of having just two major parties.

Those <a href="http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php ?cid=106">sleazy</a> Democrats!

Don't forget about Abstain

U.S. troops sent to war half a world away. American foreign policy controlled by an arrogant elite, bent on projecting military power around the globe. A public misled into supporting an unconstitutional war founded on deceit and fabrications.

As the death toll mounts, we hear claims that the war is nearly won, that victory is just around the corner. But victory never arrives.

As the public loses confidence in the government, the government questions the patriotism of any who express doubt about the war.

When a presidential election arrives, both the Democrat and Republican nominees embrace the policy of continued war.

The military draft comes to dominate the lives of America's young, and vast numbers who believe the war to be a senseless blunder are faced with fighting a war they do not believe in, or facing exile or prison.

The year was 1968. Because voters had no choice that November, the Vietnam War continued for another six years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you died, were maimed, or suffered from diseases like malaria. A far greater number of Vietnamese died.

Today, the war is in the quicksands and alleys of Iraq. Once again, under the pressure of a determined resistance, we see an American war policy being slowly torn apart at the seams, while the candidates urge us to "stay the course" in this tragic misadventure. Today's Presidential candidates are not Nixon and Humphrey, they are now Bush and Kerry.

Once again, there is one overriding truth: If war is the only choice in this election, then war we will have.

Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place.

Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the sixties.

I am running for President, and have been against this war from the beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' future from this looming disaster.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

HTTP://WWW.VOTENADER.ORG

The original constitutional reason for copyrights and patents was to support "THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS"--not to protect the creation of what the great Ralph Nader calls "violent corporate sponsored pornography".

I don't opposed government subsidies of "science and the useful arts"--if done on a basis that is fair and democratic --promoting technological development that creates the kind of advancements and culture much of the population wants. What Hollywood wants goes beyond free speech, or subsized technical advancements, Hollywood wants active government support of privately owned, corporate managed social control mechanisms. Given the fact that since protection of these mechanisms has intensified the last 40 years, we've seen a signficant drop in things like disposable income, and an increase in economic inequality, IMHO it is high time we use what political rights we have left and seriously look for alternatives here.

U.S. troops sent to war half a world away. American foreign policy controlled by an arrogant elite, bent on projecting military power around the globe. A public misled into supporting an unconstitutional war founded on deceit and fabrications.

As the death toll mounts, we hear claims that the war is nearly won, that victory is just around the corner. But victory never arrives.

As the public loses confidence in the government, the government questions the patriotism of any who express doubt about the war.

When a presidential election arrives, both the Democrat and Republican nominees embrace the policy of continued war.

The military draft comes to dominate the lives of America's young, and vast numbers who believe the war to be a senseless blunder are faced with fighting a war they do not believe in, or facing exile or prison.

The year was 1968. Because voters had no choice that November, the Vietnam War continued for another six years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you died, were maimed, or suffered from diseases like malaria. A far greater number of Vietnamese died.

Today, the war is in the quicksands and alleys of Iraq. Once again, under the pressure of a determined resistance, we see an American war policy being slowly torn apart at the seams, while the candidates urge us to "stay the course" in this tragic misadventure. Today's Presidential candidates are not Nixon and Humphrey, they are now Bush and Kerry.

Once again, there is one overriding truth: If war is the only choice in this election, then war we will have.

Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place.

Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the sixties.

I am running for President, and have been against this war from the beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' future from this looming disaster.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

HTTP://WWW.VOTENADER.ORG

U.S. troops sent to war half a world away. American foreign policy controlled by an arrogant elite, bent on projecting military power around the globe. A public misled into supporting an unconstitutional war founded on deceit and fabrications.

As the death toll mounts, we hear claims that the war is nearly won, that victory is just around the corner. But victory never arrives.

As the public loses confidence in the government, the government questions the patriotism of any who express doubt about the war.

When a presidential election arrives, both the Democrat and Republican nominees embrace the policy of continued war.

The military draft comes to dominate the lives of America's young, and vast numbers who believe the war to be a senseless blunder are faced with fighting a war they do not believe in, or facing exile or prison.

The year was 1968. Because voters had no choice that November, the Vietnam War continued for another six years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you died, were maimed, or suffered from diseases like malaria. A far greater number of Vietnamese died.

Today, the war is in the quicksands and alleys of Iraq. Once again, under the pressure of a determined resistance, we see an American war policy being slowly torn apart at the seams, while the candidates urge us to "stay the course" in this tragic misadventure. Today's Presidential candidates are not Nixon and Humphrey, they are now Bush and Kerry.

Once again, there is one overriding truth: If war is the only choice in this election, then war we will have.

Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place.

Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the sixties.

I am running for President, and have been against this war from the beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' future from this looming disaster.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

HTTP://WWW.VOTENADER.ORG

Nader's views on violent media

A quote from that article:
But a new coalition of parents and friends -- the Center for a New American Dream -- is moving to organize public opinion and offer stiffer resistance. In a poll of parents commissioned by the center, 70 percent of parents, with children age 2 to 17, say that marketing to kids is bad for their kids' values and world view, makes them too materialistic, and puts pressure on kids to buy things that are bad for them.

Now, I will be the first to admit that Nader is not actually a Green, but many Greens have chosen him multiple times as their spokesperson, and his opinions are the most readily available. My knowledge of the views of other Greens comes largely from reading such far left media as Adbusters Magazine, where many, many readers have written in screaming about how violent video games should be banned, especially immediately following the Columbine incident.

My responses are not meant to imply that there are only two points of view possible, but to reply to an earlier grandparent post stating that the idea that liberals and censorship go together is laughable. They do go together. Wake up. Most liberal ideology strives for greater government micromanagement - more rules, more laws, more restrictions. That IS in fact what the word implies at this point, and if you don't believe it, you're fooling yourself.

Here I am. Come and get me, jews.

So you're saying it's a good thing that those currently in power are attempting (and succeeding) at permanently entrenching the two current parties by refusing to expand suffrage and through other means (refusing to end soft money, etc). By institutionalizing the current campaign funding system, the government is ensuring that no third party candidate without a tremendous bankroll will stand a chance (ie: not Perot, Nader, or someone funded by Perot - Buchanan). Not that I'd personally want Buchanan to stand a chance (did you ever HEAR the meatball commercial?), but he should still have a right to. It seems like McCain is positioning himself to run as an independent, but if he fails expect it to be the last serious attempt for a long time - that is until people realize that their government is run by those who make their oil, bombs, and drugs.

As for Nader having no stance, check this out.

And here's a serious example of how our voting system hurts America. I had just turned 18, and wanted to vote for a fellow high school senior for city council. About a week before the election, I looked and found that I had to register TWO WEEKS before the election to vote. That's rediculous. I hadn't even been given any information regarding voter registration despite the fact that I payed state property and income taxes. This is quite simply the disenfranchisement of the youth vote. I live in a borderline conservative area (usually votes republican, but last election voted in a democratic rep because the republican was essentially a nazi :) - it's easy to see why the board of elections would refrain from allowing easy registration given the fact that conservatives tend to register and vote on their own at FAR higher levels than liberals. At the least, the voting board should have, say, set up a table at lunch for registration or announced opportunities for registration the same way they announce that I must sign up for the Selective Service. As it was, I had to do all the research myself, download the form, mail it in (using my own stamp), wait for the card, and only then was I allowed to vote. Now, forcing someone to get to the polls or vote absently is one thing, but having this rediculous barrier to mere registration is assinine. Registration should be automatic if you pay taxes. Maybe you can request a card if you want, but I should be able to show up to my polling place and vote.

"The roles of giant, transnational corporations and government have slowly reversed,"

"Government is now more an instrument of such corporations than the corporations are instruments of government." - Dee Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA International

However, soon after Mastercard brought their lawsuit, Jay Leno actually had Nader on the Tonight Show, and they showed the ad for the audience. Jay Leno understands what parody is.

You can see the advert at VoteNader.org.

Unfortunately, you need Quicktime to view this ad. Feh!

I am happily surprised that most of slashdot readers are intelligently pro nuclear and not a bunch of Naderites like I had thought...

Heck, even Nader wasn't on all 50 ballots. He was a write-in in four states. In three other states he wasn't even allowed as a write-in candidate. (see here)

Some day I hope to have a .plan.

All I recieved in the mail was the Massachusetts package of what the ballot questions were about. Usually, I recieve a phonecall or two asking for support for the candidates, or some malings about the candidates and their issues.

That's because there are so many states where the candidates are in a dead heat, and those are where they've been spending their money. I live in Oregon - normally completely ignored because it has only seven electoral votes, and most recent national elections have been decided before the polls even close here at 8PST.

This year tho, it's been crazy. Al Gore called me. Robert Redford called me, (taped messages, but still fun to boast about) a slew of other prominent and supposedly influential people have called me, to the point where I haven't picked up the phone in over a week. *Four* different times, live people have called to offer to pick up my ballot for me, or drive me to a drop box.

The irony is, I voted last week. Oregon is 100% vote-by-mail, and almost two-thirds of all voters had turned in their ballots by yesterday (They're expecting 85% turnout overall). If I had thought either major party candidate actually cared or knew about issues important to Oregon, I might have been flattered by their attention. But Al Gore has refused to take a public positions on locally prominent and controversial environmental issues, and George Bush Jr. just alarms me on too many levels.

So I voted for a candidate I actually liked, and he didn't even have to call me on the phone.

I thought about doing the lesser of two evils thing, until democrats started running adds saying a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and that if George wins, on Jan 1, 2001 all women who think about having abortions will be arrested, etc. They know Gore would win if not for the strong Nader presence here, but their use of FUD pissed me off so much they'd have had a better chance if they just left it alone.

I can't wait until tomorrow. There are blessings to living in a "sure thing" state, and you should count 'em. Protest and conscience votes are much less ethically challenging, and when the phone rings, odds are it isn't a recorded message asking you to change the ballot you cast a week ago.