Slashdot Mirror
Politics, Endorsements And Privacy
We have a few stories relating to the candidates this morning:
First up is
this piece which lists techies endorsing Gore (including Vint Cerf) but notes that Bush still raised more campaign money. Second is a self-promotional piece from the Green Party on Nader's stance on Privacy.
Well, still not that easy. But at least within the realm of reason.
It makes sense to vote for a candidate who you believe to have the character to make the right decision on future matters. In the same way, a party is not just its platform, but a system and a process for coming to that platform.The Green's platform reflects the beliefs of their members, who at the moment tend to be radical leftists (radical, because they haven't given up, not because they are crazy)
I don't think the Democratic or the Republican platforms really represent their members. If you became active in the Greens you would actually have a reasonable chance to change their direction in a number of ways -- if not nationally, at least locally.
Here in Chicago, under the Democratic Machine, you just can't do that. There is little I can do to make the Democrats reflect my beliefs (and the Republicans are just further yet).
A platform can and will change, but the party process underneith that platform is much more static. The Green Party's process is democratic. The Republican and Democratic parties don't even come close.
--
And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?
You raise a lot of interesting points -- but this one stuck out. Why shouldn't the wealthiest 1% pay 34% of all taxes when they own 40% of the wealth in the country?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I find it amusing that the techies (and /. ) seem to support Gore. But, in general, scientists and techies have tended to side with the democrats or communists (no slam here) rather than more conservative groups. This is not to imply that this is bad, it only goes to show that they care about their fellow man and feel their work belongs to the people. Their hearts are in the right place.
But, this philosophy has maligned itself in the recent decades with misguided politics. The people we elected to promote these ideals have, themselves, become corrupt and self-serving.
Cases in point:
How many people in the Clinton Administrator had to resign or were fired?
Clipper Chip - Designed to allow Law Enforcement to read encrypted transmissions through the Key Escrow Initiative. Failed miserably - thankfully.
Skipjack - Designed by the NSA for Clipper. It never received public review to determine if it was secure or contained any backdoors or trapdoors.
Over the past 8 years, RSA Data Security has contributed greatly to Clinton/Gore. Jim Bizdos as been seen to frequent the Whitehouse. Did he stay in Lincoln's bedroom? Funny, now that the patent has expired, the restrictions on this strong encryption technology has substantially declined.
RSADSI has been allowed to export strong encryption and set up shop in the Far East and Europe where other countries were hindered from similar action. This gave them a strong hold in countries were other companies now must try to compete.
Fund raising incidents involving the democrats (Al Gore in particular) and the relaxing of sanctions on the Chinese.
Loss of e-mail regarding Fund Raising activity during the Monica Lewinsky scandale.
Wen Ho Lee and his subsequent release on plea bargain. He admitted to taking the tapes...yet he gets off. Now everybody is screaming about Racial and Ethnic profiling.
Export of missile technology to the Chinese allow them to build more accurate and longer range missiles.
The information contained in those "missing" tapes supposedly would allow the Chinese to build deadlier warheads.
The list goes on...
How about failed promises --- HealthCare reform lead by Hillary Clinton. It failed miserably. As a result of this "reform", our Seniors are stuck in HMOs that provide worse benefits than they started off with. That issue has been raised again under the guise of Perscription Plan reform.
Hollywoods marking of violent and sexually suggestive material to children -- a Lieberman special. He condemns it yet is willing to take their money.
Don't be misled. The democrats of today ARE NOT the same ones led by JFK. They are corrupt and self serving.
Senator Kennedy was forgiven of his actions in Chappaquidic (sp). Congressman Druce was convicted under similar circumstances (they were both supposedly drunk).
I'm not saying the Republicans are much better -- but they are are concerned more with building this country (and their wallets) rather than countries that really don't want us there. Tax breaks may help the rich, but lower taxes for everybody has got to be a good thing.
And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?
Also, let's quote the rise of average salary income since 1976 of 9.6%. This came at a price of working in excess of 220 hours a year...or in excess of 10% longer hours. And, we are better off? Hmmmm...
I'll barely mention the support of Gore gave to Clinton while he lied to the American people.
Economic policies generally take 8-12 years to take effect. What boon we are experienced is because of the previous administrations policies. What we are experiencing now (i.e the slump in NASDAQ and DOW) is the result of Clinton/Gore politics. Don't believe me? Read your history.
President Bush experienced the effect of Reagan's policies following the fall of communism. The machine was too big to fight nobody and the subsequent result was a major scaling back within industry. Prez. Bush turned his attentions back to domestic issues after the Gulf War (after a major build up). But, it was too late then to bring about a recovery before the election.
Think long an hard about the actions of both parties over the past 8-12 years and decide.
If you don't want to vote Republican, then at least vote for a party leader who knows the difference between right and wrong.
RD
Why is this starting to sound like a scene from "Life of Brian"? Are they the same party or not?
The AGSP platform is less extreme, probably because they have more of a chance to actually get candidates elected at the local level and don't want to saddle them with unpopular extremist positions.
In fact, I actually like the AGSP platform quite a bit. It's the kind of moderate left position I wish the Democrats hadn't abandoned years ago. And, I hope you will note that I avoided attributing the national party's views to Nader in my original post. I erred in not posting a link to the AGSP platform too for balance, but I quoted the national party's platform to make certain points, which remain:
I'm not doctrinaire about this. I'd be open to voting for Nader if you could convince me that the prorities of the moderate ASGP platform would be advanced by that vote, or that I want the Green party is a party I want to support.
Or are the state Green parties actually a different party from the Greens? The situation is, to say the least, confusing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A few days ago, a telephone pollster called me asking about the election.
Most of her questions were so vague, I didn't answer them, ie. "Would you vote for the candidate that would cut taxes.?"
But she asked if I would vote for Gore or Bush, so I told her Nader. She then said, "Oh, so you're undecided?"
I got nasty, "No, I'm not undecided, I decided I would vote for Nader."
Dipshit, but it sure felt good.
OK, I'm getting a better sense of why the Greens have two platforms.
It seemed a bit like having your cake and eating it too -- as if the Republicans had a red meat platform which banned abortions for the faithful and a milquetoast platform for the general public. You make it seem much more like standard messiness of the democratic process (democracy being the absolutely worst system of government except for all the rest of them).
Still it does leave me with a dilemma though. Do I utterly ignore the national party's platform? If the platform was constructed democratic means, it must reflect what the Greens stand for, right? The fact that the greens are democratic doesn't mean they stand for what I believe in. If the ASGP platform Nader was running on were the only platform, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter. I realize that parties always have problems with their lunatic fringe, but to an outsider the Green party looks like a Jekyll and Hyde case. And the disparity in the platforms makes me wonder if the Green party's democratic machinery isn't a little buggy itself.
So, if I have a party which is democratic but might not agree with me (I'm not sure), and a party which is not democratic but will advance my positions or damage them to a lesser degree, which way should I vote?
By the way, as long as you have the electoral college, the bug (among others) remains. The only way to fix the bug is to go to direct popular elections under which any voter can select as many candidates as he pleases, victory going to the most widely supported candidate. This would be simpler than a run-off, egalitarian, democratic and mathematically consistent.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Also notice that Dubya has gotten more donations from high tech companies. I wonder if a large part of that is from Microsoft. Dubya has already said that he's against breaking MS apart. I think it'd be in Gates' best interest to side with Dubya.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Man, Ralph's sounding more and more like a real politician every day.
Note: "most government agencies." Which ones are the exeption? Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits? Surely he knows this law is completely disregarded? Surely he's not proposing more legislation instead of enforcing the laws we already have?
Ralph's got a lot of good ideas in this Q & A, but he's cutting them down to sound bites. One of the reasons I don't support him for President is that he's more effective as a consumer advocate when he can tell the whole truth. Running for office he has to say "I think..." and "I support..." a dozen times a day, but doesn't have the latitude to propose actual solutions.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
Okay, this is pretty cool...
Should the US Government create a watchdog agency to protect US citizens from privacy invasions from other government offices or from corporations?
Yes. The US is the only major industrialized country in the World without such an agency. More than 40 countries have them. An aggressive, independent watchdog agency is essential to protect citizens' privacy from corporate and governmental invasions.
Still, I'd rather go to my Democratic preceinct meeting, bring up this issue, have it voted on, and make it part of the Democratic platform than vote for a candidate who wants to take our trade practices back to 1930's isolationism rather than figure out ways to support the individual and worker in a global society...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
I know he's not going to win, but I'm tired of the political "discussion" that goes on now between the 2 parties.
If we can get a real third party, or maybe even 4th or 5th, perhaps we could actually talk about issues, rather than "fuzzy math" and "lockboxes."
If Nader & the Green party can get 5% of the popular vote, they get Federal funds next time around. 5% gets their foot in the door.
If you wish he could win, vote for him. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
I do have some concerns about Nader hurting Gore, and I'm not sure where I stand on that... but if you're in a state where Bush has no chance of losing (say... Texas, for example) and you like what Nader has to say, then by all means, vote for Nader! (Or any 3rd party candidate, for that matter). A vote for Gore in Texas is more of a throw-away vote than a vote for Nader...
---
I don't live in the US, sometimes, I am extremely happy about it.
Presidential elections in the US I find an absolute insult to human intelligence, I think it's obvious that you will NOT be voted in as president unless you:
A) Have support from either the Democrats or Republicans
B) Are filthy, stinking rich
This system does not work, I might be the most capable person on the planet for the job, but I'll lose out on not being rich alone, this is an absolute shame, the US has obviously had some utter idiots as president, and looking at this election I don't see much changing.
People need to be judged more on merits instead of their ads, these elections are an absolutely stunning show of ignorance and flat out idiocy.
---- Stage 5 of drinking : Politics begin to appeal
OK, guys, one more time - Al Gore NEVER said that he invented the internet. He said that he "took initiative in creating" it, in a context of talking about legislative proccess. Some conservative wack job took a slightly over-reaching comment that was clearly about funding and regulation and distorted it into a claim of technological might. Then everyone one the planet decided that the fake interpretation was actually the orriginal quote.
The fact that I support gore more than bush only accounts for a small part of my annoyance at this entire thing (I'm voting for Nader anyway). I just hate it when an irresponsible media allows retoric to trump fact, then eventually to become fact. "A little boy was charged with sexual harrassment for kissing a little girl who wanted him too!" nope, never happened, but that doesn't matter, does it? "One of the colimbine victims proudly declared her belief in God at gunpoint before being killed!" Totally false, but who cares, the book sold well. "Al Gore says he invented the internet!" Significantly different from his actual comments, but its just FUNNIER, doncha know?
OK, enough ranting for now. On a slightly different note, is there anyone for whom the computer/privacy credentials of the canidates will be a deciding factor in voting?
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
When "TV" started offering very expensive "advertising" and people actually listened to it.
That will run you a couple million. And corporations are willing to pay these funds... IF they are sure the politition is on their business' side. As Bullworth said: "Give them free air-time they won't have to pay." Not that this is a particularly interesting notion. And actually the free air-time already given to the candidates is impressive (Convention, Debates, Etc...) I think our whole corporate culture has decided to just vote money out of the national treasury.
Like Microsoft decided to give stock options and not pay taxes. We think the Government can solve this problem, but the big G. gave them their patents, powerful copyrights, their free ride, and a good portion of their software sales!
-Ben
I don't believe either candidate is trying to "get rid of guns".
There is no reason to have universal gun registration except for confiscation. Nowhere in the history of this world has gun registration NOT lead to confiscation. Being reasonably well read on this topic is all it would take to be aware of this. If Al Gore wants to ban them, let him do it honestly. Let him be upfront about it instead of pretending that he has another agenda.
BTW, I don't see how preventing people with criminal records from purchasing guns is "unconstitutional".
Who is championing any such effort?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano