Politics and The Almighty Buck

Here's an interview with Gore that seems blandly catering to Slashdot readers. Billionaires for Bush or Gore makes a good point. Open Secrets is tracking campaign donations. Last up is a really good article about Dick Cheney, The Only Hope which trashes lots of candidates. Also I've attached a note about politics story submissions on politics between now and the election.

• Don't bother submitting candidates official websites. They essentially are just press releases spouting bland dogma. We want some real content (although you should read Al Gore's "Open Source Website" bit and laugh your ass if you missed it when we posted it on slashdot nearly a year ago).
• We're trying to be impartial, but Nader's supporters don't seem to submit much more then links to the official website, and Bush supporters are nearly silent. We want a diverse story selection here, but a lot of folks would rather bitch in the comments that we're oppressing them then take 3 seconds to submit a story.
• There's lots of good stuff going on in these stories, but I'm sure gonna be happier when the election is over and the flames can stop. I suck, I know. Slashdot is trying to keep you down. I know. Of course I'm trying to force my political viewpoints on everyone (as I've said before I hate all the candidates, but I hate GWB most of all, so I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate). Fortunately this is is America, and I'm entitled to believe this. And you may believe whatever you want as well! And none of us are evil or wrong: we just have different political beliefs. And since this is Slashdot, we can talk about these differences in a mature manner: debate the issues. Try to make rational convincing arguments to back up what we believe, and perhaps try to convince others. Or we could bicker and fight and complain and flame about the various shadow organizations and conspirators trying to keep whatever viewpoint you have down. Its really your choice.
• And stop emailing me stories! Use the submissions form!

Comments

Re:3 Supreme Court Seats are on the line

[OlympicSponsor]

"He is not pro choice."

Not to start an off-topic flamewar, but so what? Abortion is not about choice and I can't understand why anyone thinks it IS. The religious right may not have the right answer, but they DO have the right question: Is abortion murder? Does a fetus have any right to life? This isn't about "a woman's body"--it's about a FETUS's body. Now, if you want to say that a fetus doesn't have any right to life, that's fine with me--I even agree, assuming we are talking about very very early in a pregnancy. But don't confuse the issue by talking about "a woman's choice".

And don't bother posting pointers to or arguments about how fetus's aren't people. That will only support my argument: In a rational discussion of abortion a "woman's right to choose" is irrelevant. The real issue is "a fetus's right to live".
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

History

[ronfar]

The most classic portrait of a cynic that I know is that of the French General Henry-Philippe Pétain. In World War I, Petain was a hero for fighting the Germans at the battle of Verdun. However, Pétain was a fatalist and a cynic, and when WWII began, he was convinced that resistance to the Germans was futile:

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA: Pétain, (Henri-)Philippe

Because he thought it would be worse for the French to fight a losing war with Germany, he went so far as to collaberate with the enemy, becoming leader of the Vichy puppet state.

Was French resistance doomed, futile? Well, whether it was or not, I think it was worth trying, but that's just me. Better to die a hero than live as a Nazi stooge.

Pétain, however, felt that capitulation was the lesser of two evils.... and he has gone down in history as a traitor.

This has nothing to do with the current election, except for this:

Whenever I hear someone talk about how we must support the lesser of two evils (even if they are comparitively trivial evils like our two presidential tickets), I think of Pétain and the choice he made.

Re:Some facts...

[Inoshiro]

"FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the 1990's."

FACT : Al Gore doesn't handle talking to the media well, never has. He was the principle backer of many bills that funded NSFnet -- the National Science Foundation Network (which later became the Internet) after the Pentagon decided it didn't want Arpanet running on DoD dollars. Without him, there would certainly have been little funding for networking between Universities. Leading to the loss of anything related to networked univerities (such as the original birth of the Linux kernel, etc).

This is very clever use of half-truths to change peoples' minds on the subject. A skilled troll. I hope the people reading this rememeber that no situation is as simple as one-line point/point rebuttals. Every situation has to viewed in its proper context before an informed decision can be made.
--

"being counted"

[Chris Johnson]

It would be just as fair to call it 'being counted'. I intend to Be Counted voting for Nader- all other politicians in the US will be able to consult that number and know damn well what my agenda is and what will or won't get my vote. This is NOT GAME THEORY! It is power politics. It's not about winning one particular game, it is about defining the issues and concerns that politicians consider when taking action.

I heartily encourage libertarians to get out a huge vote for Harry Browne, even though I personally think he and they are lunatics: that doesn't matter, the point is that _whoever_ wins, even if it's Nader, I would want that President to remain firmly aware that there is a large power bloc stubbornly opposed to bigger government. This needs to be VISIBLE! Those people _must_ be represented, and voting for Bush is not going to do that.

By the same token, I'm damned if I'm going to vote for Gore because Gore has been... not adequate at living up to committments that he's made (such as the toxic waste burning facility in New Jersey), and because only Nader allows me to BE COUNTED as part of a large power bloc that is obviously, blatantly, stubbornly opposed to corporatism. Voting for Gore will accomplish nothing in this: voting for Nader will make it very obvious what my concerns and the basis of my vote are. It is not relevant whether the person wins- you think the President is God? The important thing is to establish the factions, to BE COUNTED in such a way that other politicians can tell what you really care about.

Politics is a damned busy job- polling, canvassing, trying to figure out what sort of actions will get people to support you and what sort of actions will produce a deadly backlash and knock you out entirely. The politicians are not going to concern themselves with the party faithful once the votes are counted- the sheep will be good and stay in line. The politicians will be grovelling over the numbers for all the third parties- "oh look, X% voted 'no big government', if I violate that they could produce a backlash and eat away at my constituency! Oh look, Y% voted 'anticorporate', they will go and tell my voters about the 7 billion in 'soft money' I got from Microsoft to swing that House vote! Dear oh dear, that will never do- and people keep finding out about these things- perhaps I'd better not do it this time if I want to get re-elected..."

Venal, but what do you expect from politicians? THIS IS NOT GAME THEORY. It is public relations. The politician who thinks it _is_ game theory gets unseated quite promptly because you have to appease the people, pay attention to the zealots because the zealots are the ones paying attention to what YOU DO. The Libertarians are the ones who can quote off the amount of government spending you authorised. The Greens (certainly the Nader supporters) are the ones who can quote off the extent of corporate abuses in current society, and make a good case for why this is a doomed, self-destructive path to follow, to end in another Great Depression. THESE ARE THE ONES THAT PAY ATTENTION. That write editorials. That get people to the polls, that go door to door, that talk politics with their friends. These are the ones that will kill your political career if you don't keep an eye on them and keep your nose clean. CmdrTaco, I don't know if you are concerned with corporatism (Nader) or if you are perhaps vehemently opposed to big government (Browne) or whatever. I only know that if you refuse to pick a party to support based on what your genuine concerns are, you're being ignored- and I don't think you need to be ignored. Pick somebody who isn't Bush or Gore, unless you're oh-so-deeply-impressed with their wisdom and sincerity (ROFL! 'scuse me) that they truly are the ones that represent you.

There He Goes Again

[John Murdoch]

From the Yahoo! interview with Al Gore:

But my own personal journey began when I was a kid of 10, watching my dad [Sen. Albert Gore Sr.] write law authorizing the Interstate Highway System. He took me to meetings, and I remember how it all came to pass--the voting to make the signs green, how wide the lanes would be. Quite a lesson.

I seriously doubt this. The Interstate Highway System was established in the early 1950s, and the design decisions about factors like signs and lane widths were handled by members of the nascent Institute of Traffic (now Transportation) Engineers later in the Fifties. There might have been committee hearings in which lane widths or sign colors might have been discussed, but I strongly question whether they were issues that were put to a vote.

(How do I know this, you might ask? Because my stepfather was one of the transportation engineers who determined all of that stuff. And I never heard him say 'boo' about any congressional votes on the subject.)

Re:Stance on Net Issues

[donutello]

I don't know about you but I'm rather sick of having the government meddle in my affairs as it is. Unfortunately he also seems to support MORE H1-B visas, which doesn't necessarily agree with another point of his to raise education in order to allow US citizens to meet the demand.

I think the point should be to raise the level of education to the point where there is no need to bring in foreign labour to fulfill the demand - not by creating a protectionist system where inferiorly qualified people are hired because foreigners can't be hired. The restriction on foreign nationals being able to work in the US is something imposed by the government. MORE H1-B visas == less intervention.

I think I need to also correct a common misconception, which is that H1-B visa holders are underpaid. According to the law, one of the criteria for being granted an H1-B visa is where your sponsor states that the person being hired is paid the normal salary for that position.

Re:3 Supreme Court Seats are on the line

[OlympicSponsor]

"How many women are raped and impregnated every year?"

How many, indeed. And how many abortions are performed? If the latter is greater than the former your entire point is moot.

"I don't think its anybody elses right to force someone to bear a child and bring them into this world just because they believe it to be wrong to do otherwise."

This is typical of the poor reasoning skills of the "pro-choice" movement. If I have an apartment for rent and I want to start storing my own stuff in there, can I kill the inhabitants because "it isn't anybody else's right to force me to rent"? No, because that's irrelevant.

I am in favor of (some) abortion--but not because I'm "pro-choice".
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Arghghghgh!

[OlympicSponsor]

I know this is a flame, but I just can't help it: "its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate.

You can't risk making a statement? You can't risk not to!. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Break the cycle! Stop the madness! Other slogans!
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Re:Arghghghgh!

[Jason W]

This is not a flame. This is me trying to debunk CT's obviously wrong view of politics. :)

He'll bitch to the end of time about how stupid Bush is and how Gore's policies suck, but what does he do about it? And guess what? When the 2004 election rolls around, he won't be able to say crap about any candidate without being hypocritical, because its his own damn fault there isn't a third party candidate with as much funding. (Ok, I'm giving CT too much credit for the election results, but his vote is worth more than mine since he lives in Michigan).

Yeah, democracy is great. It lets you say what you want to say, and hopefully get something done. This is worth than voter apathy, its voter insincerity. Not only do you not get what you really want, you make the wrong impression with your vote, the impression that you want Gore to win. As much as you may applaud Nader and put Gore and Bush down, in the end only your vote counts.

And when you say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, that just fuzzy math. Do you think of the Nader supporters more were originally Democratic or Republican supporters? Who knows? From a statistical point of view (and realistic pov too), its 50-50. So if everyone voted for who they really wanted, a vote for Nader would be a vote for Nader.

There is too much politics in government. We don't need politics in the way we vote!

Re:Arghghghgh!

[ucblockhead]

If the third party vote is large enough to swing the election one way or the other, than the parties will damn-well have to pay attention to the people who voted for that third party in the next election cycle.

Otherwise, they can just safely ignore them as too insignificant to matter.

One of the reasons (along with the good economy) that we finally managed to get the deficit under control is because a third party candidate wouldn't shut up about it, and got a lot of votes. He didn't win (thank God!) but the important thing he was talking about finally got noticed.

Nader's talking about the way corporations have bought the political system. If you want to get that issue noticed next time out, you have to give him enough votes to get the attention of the major parties. Otherwise they'll just ignore the issue as ramblings of unimportant voters.

To me, a real wasted vote is a vote for someone who will likely ignore 90% of what the voter stands for. Given the stands I've seen both candidates take on the issues that continually crop on /., I'd say that that is the majority here.

Gore is better?

[kperrier]

Please tell me how Al "I want to ban in internal combustion engine, keep your money and legislate what time you should go to bed" Gore is better than any of the other candidates? Personally, I'm voting for Bush because I want my taxes reduced. Everytime I look at my pay check stub and I see how much is taken out by Uncle Bill and his cousin Al I almost hurl. Then you hear about the department of education which cannot account for about 5 billion dollars because its books are so screwed up.

Why should we leave any tax surplus in Washington?

Kent

Re:Gore is better?

[JazzManJim]

Okay folks, I'm going to jump on this yarf-fest right here and now. Just because a person, let's say me, wants a tax cut, it doesn't mean that I'm:

a) Against a clean environment
b) Ready to oppress the masses because I'm cruel and completely eeeeeeeeeee-vil.
c) Gleefully rubbing my hands together because I'm going to create dirty air and water and stupid people because I'll be taking all the school money.

I want a tax cut. Want to know why? Because I'm working two jobs right now just to pay my bills and because we've had almost eight years of "targeted tax cuts" that never have managed to target me. I'm working nearly 70 hours every week trying to keep a roof over my head, to pay my bills, and to be a responsible father and the only reply I've ever seen from Al gore is that a tax cut is only for the rich and that his tax cut is good because he'll be able to tell me just where I should spend the money in order to get my taxes cut. I don't have a "beemer" in the driveway, and I'm hardly wealthy, but right now, GWB's tax cut is the only one that will affect me much at all.

So here's the more fundamental question. What is it that I want? I want my government to be more responsible with the money that I allow it to have. let's not make a foolish mistake here. My government does not have the inalienable right to tax as much money from me as it pleases. Taxes are under the control of the people and we give the government only as much money as we allow. That we've allowed it to bloat to its current size and to do so with such ludicrous wastefulness (we're #1 in eduation spending, but #13 in education results? Huh?? Less money out of every dollar gets to a welfare recipient than it would if it were a "normal" charity? Huh???) is a shame and we should be changing that right now.

I'm voting for GWB, not because I think him the ideal candidate, but because, of everyone who is in the race right now, he's in the position to do more of the things I find important to my life.

Wow, okay, that sure ended up being more of a rant than I intended. Oh well. :-)

-Jimmie

Re:In the Bushes

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm - actually I am the network admin for the Bush campaign and he has a laptop on the trail with an email account that he setup in '94 that he checks pretty often. He also bought a nice new Dell for the Governor's Mansion last Christmas. I'm not saying that he is gonna be hacking the Linux kernel anytime soon but you statement is not correct.

vote libertarian

[mrsalty]

it seems than whenever anyone thinks 3rd party the name on their lips is Ralph Nader. It is time to focus some attention on Harry Browne, the Libertarian candiadte for pres. if you are truely interested in free tech policy then check out what Browne has to say in this wired article:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38748, 00.html
here are a few choise things he has to say about bush-gore: "If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you're just giving up. You're saying, 'We never will have smaller government, so I'm just voting for whoever will take me to Hell at the slowest possible rate.'"
"Both believe they are best qualified to run your life. Neither one of them believes in freedom, neither one of them believes in the Constitution as a limiting force on government."
or the greens:
"The Green Party platform is pure fascism and socialism," said Browne. "It's either government regulation to the nth degree, or government taking over to the nth degree."
give personal resposability a chance.

Screw Gore!

[quantum bit]

Vote Vader. Or else.

Dear Taco

[festers]

so I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate

Is Gore who you really think is the best candidate? If so, by all means vote for him. But don't give me that crap about wasting a vote. The only vote wasted is the one for a candidate you don't think is best. How many times does this cliche need to be repeated until you get in into your thick, geek skull?


--------

Moore's Law or Gore's Law?

[Taliesin]

What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months was causing a logarithmic increase in processing power, and yet the throughput capacity was hardly changing at all.

Gore seems to come dangerously close to asserting that he essentially came up with Moore's Law before Gordon Moore.

BTW, the article does say some good things about Bush compared to Gore, such as:

Bush also supported the controversial exportation of cryptographic technology, an issue on which Gore dragged his feet. In addition, Bush took a George père-type "Read my lips: no new taxes" stand on e-commerce and ISPs, whereas Gore supports the current moratorium but has indicated that Net taxes are inevitable.

And strictly anti-Gore fodder:

But Gore has a less consistent record on the kinds of free-speech issues that are important to many in the online community... Gore supported what became known as CDA 2, the Child Online Protection Act, a bill that First Amendment advocates find objectionable because it attempts to regulate speech on the Net.

Keep that in mind if you think Gore "gets" all technology issues better than Bush.

Re:Moore's Law or Gore's Law?

[thelonius]

Gore seems to come dangerously close to asserting that he essentially came up with Moore's Law before Gordon Moore.

What Gore said was, "By the time I got to Congress in '76, I began holding these hearings about the future. What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law [the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months] was causing a logarithmic inrease in processing power, and yet the throughput capacity was hardly changing at all."

Here is a paper which addresses the history of Moore's Law, and it clearly says that, though he first made the observation in 1965, the current manifestation of what "shortly thereafter, someone (not Moore) dubbed this curve", was delivered in a paper at the 1975 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting. I don't know when this unknown third party dubbed Moore's Law "Moore's Law", but it's not a stretch to imagine that it happened somewhat later than Gore's 1976 Senate hearings. Gore is not saying that he observed the phenomenon before Moore did, he is just saying that at the time he did observe the phenomenon (by way of listening to tech-industry testimony at these hearings, I assume), it was not known as Moore's Law yet.

In my opinion, this does not by any stretch qualify as a Gore exaggeration.

"lesser of two evils" vs. "statement"

[G Neric]

I'm so sick of the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum debate that accompanies the "lesser of two evils" vs. "statement" debate.

Face it, you of both sides: your vote can make a (very small) statement, and can have a (very small) impact on the outcome, both in who gets elected and in how well the also-rans "show", potentially helping a future third party.

Problem is, you only get one vote. It's easy when someone like Ronald Reagan is running because you either buy that ideology or not. But when positions are in the fuzzy middle and the race is closer, the decision gets murkier. There is no right answer: you can spend your vote hoping to influence the "lesser of two evils" outcome, or you can signal a broader protest by moving to an extreme.

But what you can't do is convince me that there is just one way to go. It is obvious that there is merit to both sides of the argument.

Makes me sad...

[GoNINzo]

Like many other people my age, I didn't feel like I had a real choice. The difference between Gore and Bush was almost negligable (yes I know a flame commment) but at the time either candiate is a crap shoot for affecting issues I care about. Hence, I did not even register to vote (because of the number of calls/junk mail that I would get from the freely available registration lists). Why should I get harrassed at home more often just so I could flip a coin (with the edge of the coin being Nader).

Now, I'm a little regretful that I don't even have a choice. I should have registered, I should have voted. I wish that Bush had cooperated in this interview (damn did Gore come off well to a geek like me!) just so I could hear if he would bother to memorize some standard rhetoric.

Anyway, for those who did register, go out there and vote. Vote for whoever you think will do the right job for you, not your dad or your company or your community, but who you think is correct. You are not a Democrat just cause your parents are either. Make a conscious choice about what you choose....

Best way to illustrate it is the difference between Linux and AIX. Given a set of technical tasks defined by an IT department, these two operating systems might seem similar in nature. But only after you do a little research do you realize the strengths and weaknesses of each. From the surface, they seem the same. But if you can get past the tough kernel of linux and the gui of smit, you'd find which is the best for the job... and any unix person would agree that is the correct way to make any choice.

--
Gonzo Granzeau

Stance on Net Issues

[envisionary]

Typically Bush stances have been modded down (but we won't get into that). On to the point, Bush seems to take a very laissez faire approach to how the government should approach the internet, which is good.

Governor Bush recognizes that our new economy is driven by the hard work and creativity of men and women in the private sector -- and not by Government bureaucrats.

I don't know about you but I'm rather sick of having the government meddle in my affairs as it is. Unfortunately he also seems to support MORE H1-B visas, which doesn't necessarily agree with another point of his to raise education in order to allow US citizens to meet the demand.

The high tech industry is in great need of highly skilled workers. Too many Americans are unable to fill these jobs because they lack the necessary skills.

However overall (apologies for a link to a homepage), he seems to be very technology oriented especially from what I saw in the last debate, as opposed to Gore that proposed filtering 95% of content at the ISP end.

However, I'm all about exploring both sides of the issues so to present both sides.
Warning: The last link is a slow load...

Nader and Bush supporters

[mobileunit]

Here in Tompkins County, the Green Party has a much larger presence on the ground than either the democrats or republicans. In fact, the only sign I've seen of the republicans are some signs for Rick Lazio for senator and an office out by the commercial strip.

Bush and Gore expect to win this election by television, so they're making no effort to activitate the population. In the post-Kennedy age, the role of the president is to be a political neutralizer. The aim of the game is to win the race with the fewest number of votes.

The Gore campaign has bullied a few labor unions and feminist groups to speak out, but Bush doesn't care about having an off-television voice. This is why the Bush supporters are so silent. They don't exist.

People who are voting for Bush are voting because they hate Gore. People who are voting for Gore are voting because they hate Bush. Bush and Gore don't step up and say "I'm a great guy, you should vote for me" rather they step up and say that you shouldn't vote for that other guy. Both Bush and Gore are aiming for a political absolute zero.

Bush will probably win because he's a more perfect zero. What kind of Republican proposes the first-ever legislation to restrict CO2 emissions? What kind of Republican has no position on affirmative action? What kind of Republican says he "supports a culture of life" (opposes abortion) but admits that "we're going to have to change a lot of minds before we can get there?"

Unfortunately, most of us Nader people aren't high tech, so a lot of them think that http://www.votenader.org/ is hot stuff.

I disagree with the idea, however, that the author is sick of politics and wishes the election season would end. What the movement learned in 1968 was that it isn't enough, possibly isn't even desirable to have state power. The Green Party got a student elected to city council here in Ithaca and he's been crushed, domesticated and turned into a Democrat by the old ladies, wives of real estate speculators, who currently run the town.

To get real change, the people need to be mobilized and put constant pressure on public leaders. People are sick of globalization and the economic boom and they're fighting back... You can read the latest at

http://www.indymedia.org/

The Nader campaign is building a Green Party that is going to get in the face of elected officals and corporations.

Is that a quote?

[OlympicSponsor]

"What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law [the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months] was causing a logarithmic increase in processing power..."

I hope you cut and pasted this from Gore's site because if so it is absolutely classic. It's also self-refuting. On the one hand he claims to be so technologically literate and insightful that he figured out Moore's law before Moore did but on the other hand he doesn't know what "logarithmic" means. Tee hee!
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Some links

[Hard_Code]

Reposting this from previous article for the links (because supposedly Greens are only posting the official site). Lessee, add grassroots.com to that list (you know, Google is your friend). Also see bottom of post for debunking of Taco's lesser-evilism philosophy (you'da thunk that recent electoral college article would have made this obvious).

--

The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.

Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.

If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.

The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.

I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.

Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.

Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.

Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."

Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html

Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html

Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com

Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,72 43,58092,00.html

Nader Campaign
http://www.votenader.org
http://www.nader2000.org

And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.

And on the risk of getting too squishy here:

"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi

What's the difference...

[Entropius]

...between politics and karma whoring? The skills some slashdotters learn now could be of great use in a political career...

Al Gores environmentalism is trivial

[Glowing Fish]

One of the greatest reasons I see people supporting Al Gore is his environmentalism. I am think Al Gores' environmentalism is pretty trivial.

Yes, I think it will be a great loss if George Bush has his way with the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. (That phrasing makes it seem like George W Bush is about to seduce their daughters! And that is almost the emotional level this seems to be at.) And I do think Gore will be able to stop this from happening.

But a few national parks and national forests in this country are a trivial matter. The result of losing these is that a few yuppies may miss out on a chance to commune with nature.

The real environmental issue is the third world, and the corporate control of it that will lead to it's ruin. Al Gore and George W Bush both support turning the entire third world into a resource pool, and a market, for US goods, and support any military dictator who will uphold this.

So with Gore and Bush, we get environmental destruction of the 3rd world, but with Gore we get a few pretty parks saved to look at while the world burns.

Gore is a Geek?

[Hard_Code]

Well that is actually an impressive interview, and it sure makes it clear that Gore has his head on much straighter about the net than Bush.

However, I think that Gore's "vision" for the internet is not as pluralistic as we might want it to be. As you could only expect from somebody largely funded by corporations with vested interests, I think Gore sees the net more as an economic engine, than as some great democratizing force in which ideas can flow freely. Let's just be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.

Re:Sickening

[StormyMonday]

It sickens me how much money is donated and spent on this bullshit that could be better donated to help people out.

It sickens me how *little* money is needed to buy a candidate. The press made a big hoohah about how Bush supporters raised US$70M to get him to run. That's what, one major movie or two Internet startups?

A politician is one of the highest-returning investments a business can make.

See a patter here?

[grappler]

As it turns out, they split them. Gore supporters include Apple Computer's Steve Jobs, Netscape cofounder Marc Andreessen, and John Doerr, the venture capitalist who has backed many Internet companies. Bush's include Cisco's John Chambers, former Netscape president and CEO Jim Barksdale, and Michael Dell of Dell Computer Corporation.

Is it just me or does bush have the PHBs, and Gore have the "visionaries"?

Granted, they're all suits, but I like Gore's suits much better than Bush's suits. Andreessen or Barksdale? I'd go with Andreessen any day of the week.

Of course, I'd be more interested in Jamie Zawinski's vote...


-------

Wasted votes

[sulli]

Wrong.

Suppose you don't like any candidate, but you think that Bush would be a disaster, and Gore and Nader would each cause more trouble than not but would not be as much of a disaster than Bush.

The question is now whether you are in a swing state; if you're in a swing state (e.g. Michigan), vote Gore, because if Bush wins you're really in trouble, but if you're in a NON-swing state (e.g. California or Alabama), you have a free vote and can afford to vote Nader.

As for me, I'm voting for Gore, because he's smarter than Bush, has a record of balancing the budget, and is not rabidly anti-business like Nader. All y'all who are planning to vote Nader need to think hard about his anti-free trade, pro-union policies; you may find that you don't have any markets overseas for your geek product because Ralph has forced us into pointless trade wars. And all y'all thinking of voting for Bush do need to consider the Supreme Court factor: one vote could not only overturn Roe v. Wade but also roll back our freedom in other important ways.

Just my $.02.

Re:Some facts...

[jellicle]

Unfortunately, you're basing all of those assertions about what Gore did on statements made by the Republican party - in fact, you're copy-and-pasting them from an email circulated by the GOP, which I've seen making the rounds. Unfortunately, the GOP has made up those straw men out of whole cloth.

I don't really feel like rebutting this crap right now, but I think you'll find that if you investigate, everywhere you've tagged Gore with some "Fiction", the real story is that Gore told an absolutely truthful statement, which the GOP has tried to turn into a lie.

Don't take my word for it - investigate. Read the actual incidents. You'll find that all of those attacks on Gore are nothing but GOP propaganda.

--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org