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

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.

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.

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.

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

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