Slashdot Mirror
Pre-Election Discussion
With the US Presidential Election getting started tomorrow, this story is your official chance to discuss the issues of the election with other Slashdot readers. And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
Ever notice the politically based "stories" get the most comments and a ton of clicks? Yes, that translates to ad money. No wonder Slashdot added a politic$ section. Maybe we can have mid-election and post-election discussions, too?
I remember when this was a good site for tech discussion rather than a huge flamefest. Yeah, I'll probabely be modded down for this comment, but if I expressed my political beliefs here I'd be modded down anyway.
I voted early (last Tuesday) here in GA. Even still, I had to wait in line for about an hour.
Please keep in mind that this is the most important election of our lifetime(s).
Please just tolerate the the wait, and make sure your voice is heard.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Discuss.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Will probably be the biggest one in our lifetimes. Remember to vote and remember to vote for the best candidate not the lesser of two evils.
Go Badnarik!!!!
"for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther.
If you have no clue of the issues, if you're basing your decision solely on superficial reasons, or if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.
Don't drown out the voices of actual concerned citizens who have invested a good amount of effort looking at all the issues and reviewing the histories and promises of the various candidates.
Even though the daily show is "fake" news and is supposed to be comedy, I think the title of their election coverage tomorrow is all too revealing: "Prelude Recount" Let the lawsuits begin!
Why does it matter?
There are really more important things than terrorists. Such as education, jobs, the economy..
There's not much we can do to keep another attack from happening. But there are things we can, and are doing, that will provoke another attack.
We should try not being the Global Police for a few years, try to make buddies with our allies that we've pissed off.. and just focus on the home front.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
/.? Do those that truely have no idea or opinion really need to get out and vote? Does having some (more) randomness thrown in really help? Or is it all just a ploy to boost the "voter turnout" numbers, so when countries like Chile get a 98% turnout, we don't look like doofuses?
The creators of that "Team America" movies (same guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.
What say you
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
A simple question to voters of any preference: do you trust the voting machines to
A) count your vote correctly and
B) resist tampering until the end of day printout?
It just looks to me that with their documented flaws the machines simply cannot be counted on. I'm in the UK, so is the 'close up view' you've got making things look any better than I'm thinking?
I really want Kerry to win over Bush, but for once I think it's important not to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. I can't say I entirely agree with any of the 3rd party candidate. There are some things I like/dislike about each. But I really want to help show a 3rd party (or independant) is a viable option, so I'm going with Nader since I suspect he will get the most votes of the others. So instead of "lesser of evils" I'm voting "most viable of goods"
What's worse, that he has a strong decision, or that he's more informed on the issue than most americans voting?
Pretty Pictures!
As an undecided, perhaps we can start the discussion off with you. What issues are important to you and what do you expect to be resolved are revisted by the government in the next four years? The answers to such question ought to help you become a 'decided'.
The best way to build up your party is to vote for them in local elections where they are more likely to be noticed, and maybe even win the election. You can also support them by championing their ideas in newspaper letters to the editor, op-eds, protests, and other such things. If the goal is really to push an agenda rather than to put a certain group of people in power, your best bet may be to try to influence one of the major parties to listen to your point of view, and maybe get them to adopt one of your pet issues as part of their platform.
.01% of the vote anyway.
Remember that in the end, all politics are local. You may have a better chance of your party's platform actually influencing your day to day life if you can manage to get them elected to a state or local office. If your party manages to gain control of a locality, and the quality of life in that locality improves, that will be a far more valuable PR tool then voting for them in a national election where they are only likely to get
With the new release of the Osama-Bin-Laden tape supporting John Kerry, I can 100% saying I am going for Bush. If terrorists start saying they are going to start attacking any state the Bush wins and leaves the states the Kerry wins alone, then I am for Bush. Because that shows to me that the teorrists are running scared at another Bush administration. Plus Bin-Laden was spouting everything the idiot Michel Moore was saying just adds to the theory that teorrists and dictators want to see Kerry in office because he will not hunt them down and give their people freedom.
Freedom is as an effective virus as AIDS, and Influenza. It is something that cannot be stopped once it is out in the wild, and it has infected the Middle East, and it is only time when every nation on Earth will be able to say we are Free, the way God (what ever you may call god) has made us.
Bush has my vote 100%. I think you all should give the canidate that has proven himself, instead of the one who hasn't given a single inkling of what his canidancy would be like. He only says his administration will "do a better job".
Well I say to you John, with that slogan, anybody in the United States can run for President. But I know I am not qualified, because I don't have the understanding of what needs to be done in the job and lay it out in an effective way for the American people to understand. But if all it takes is saying "I will do a better job".
Then I am announcing my canidacy for President of the United States. If you want to vote for my just write in "nberardi from slashdot.org".
No matter what you decide to vote for, taking the time to vote is important.
Only for the same reason that it's important to defend yourself against criminals. What is truly bizarre is the people who think it's IMPORTANT to vote. Personally, my vote is for nobody. Maybe nobody will get elected and the government will close shop and everybody involved will have to GO HOME AND GET A PRODUCTIVE JOB.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Couple points for you:
1) The REPUBLICANS created the first lawsuit in election 2000, and they have done so again in 2004. As well, if you recall the lawsuit before the Supreme Court was BUSH v. Gore, not the other way around.
By voting for Bush because Osama says vote for Kerry (which he didn't btw if you watch the tape or read transcripts), is STILL letting Osama decide the election. Voting for whomever you were going to vote for REGARDLESS of what he says is the right course of action.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
I agree, I've never seen a fruitful discussion on the politics section either. I think most people don't ever read any comments either. I understand there's big issues this year and I understand a polictics section sounded like a good idea, but it hasn't seemed to translate as well as I, or others thought. Something needs to be done....maybe only white male landowners or something can comment....I'm only kidding so don't mod me down for that.
/. though.
I just hate to read the politics section because I learn nothing, and gain no insight. I love the rest of
http://www.commaecho.com
Okay, I'll bite:
I can think of at least a few reasons Osama would like Bush to get re-elected:
- He's still alive
- He's still able to plan and carry out attacks
- Recruitment is probably at an all-time high thanks to the Iraq war
- His captured/killed deputies have been replaced (this "75 percent" figure is apparently directly from George Bush's ass)
- Al-Qaeda is probably operating in MORE countries and is hence more decentralized than before 9/11
These are all known, with maybe the exception of the last one, which anyone who believes Richard Clarke might know what he's talking about will also be inclined to believe is true.
What the GOP argument seems to be is, "Kerry will be a pussy and will pull out of Iraq, stop hunting terrorists," etc. Which is completely unknown and, I would argue, unreasonable, but you're all entitled to your opinions. I think the Republicans basically try to reason this out because they think they know what Kerry will do. I'm saying we already know what Bush and Bin Laden have done. Bang-up job in Iraq and Afghanistan (omg but tehre holding elections now wtf lol) but we still haven't caught the guy, and the fact that he's distributing video and has any ability to speak, let alone taunt Americans, is hideous.
So the proposed GOP solution - vote for Bush, he'll keep us safe. Okay. Here's what Cheney said about a week ago on Mr. BL:
"We haven't seen much of him. You'll notice there haven't been any Bin Laden tapes running on the air where he's out broadcasting messages, frankly, because we think he's probably in a deep hole someplace, in hiding."
So as you can see, I'm completely on board with that one.
When I think of the area in which Bush has made the most significant contribution (i.e., the area that would not have turned out the same if some other politician, Republican or Democrat, was in office), I think of environmental issues. Go to Google, or any other resource you know of, and research how George W. Bush has rolled back many of the environmental protections put in place by both the Democratic and Republican presidents before him. He clearly has no respect for the environment. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, but I'm certain he will do better in the enviromental domain - and GWB has demonstrated how much influence a president can have in this domain.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Many people who voted for Nader in 2000 got a hard lesson in why choosing the lesser of two evils is important. Their conscience is telling them to vote for Kerry now. This election is about determining who will be President, not about making a statement. The mathematics of US voting is such that we cannot escape the two-party system. If you can't win over one party or the other, you can't win over the nation. Nader definitely should speak out, but he should do so as part of the Democratic primary process.
I came into this election wanting to vote for Kerry but when I researched his plans, for the economy, or the war, or health care, I found that there is no way he can pull off anything that he is promising. That means that if he is elected he is going to have to go back on all of his promises and come up with a plan that is actually possible, and who knows what that will be. I can't vote for him without any idea of what he is going to actually do once in office. Whether you like his politic or not, at least you know where Bush stands.
It helps, but it need not be.
Politics falls under "Stuff that Matters". And Politics tends to invade every thread that refers to lawmaking. Politics is filthy, nasty, and tedius business that is of critical importance, and that people feel strongly about.
It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views. But no one can promise that any discussion about any of the big 5 offensive topics (Politics, Religion, Abortion, Capitol Punishment, and Same Sex relationships) will remain inteligent. This thread is sort of like a designated area for otherwise inteligent slashdotters to act just as retarded as other people about everyday things (as opposed to acting retarded about Linux vs Microsoft, or whatever).
Besides, I am Canadian, and I find the whole thing to be quite entertaining in a scary sort of way.
END COMMUNICATION
Ok... I'm going to use Bush because... well.. "THAT'S MY BUSH!!" and he's been the latest thing, so I feel justified in using him as a "bad" example.
In appealing to your voters, you may tell them you are going to try to do certain things. Bush did this in a little more.. uh... "promising" sort of the nature of things. He promised his base (the christian conservatives) that he was going to ban gay marriage and abortions.
Well.. thats fine, but HE KNEW long ahead of time it was never going to happen. Its not hard to ask the whips in congress what people are going to vote on such an issue, so he KNEW DAMN WELL that neither of these had a chance.
So, what did he do? Give false hope to the right wing'ed extremists who show very little tolerance outside anything of their norms. And what will he get for it? Quite a few of their votes.
Knowing that... along with countless other things bush has done... EXAMPLE
Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people. But in came GW Bush. He tried to limit the rights of gay people to get married. First president ever to try to limit someone's rights.
I think when a president starts limiting rights you had better raise an eyebrow.
Please people, vote third party. I don't care if it's Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, or Brown. Nothing will change if we keep rewarding the two major parties for being totally unresponsive to the people.
People complain about "throwing their vote away" when voting for a third party. I argue that voting for a candiate you don't believe in is truely throwing your vote away.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And me without my nomex underwear.
I'm for Kerry. Why? 'Cause he's a road cyclist. Anyone who would purposely wedge a bicycle seat up his ass for hours on end must like pain. And being a good leader does involve pain (even if it's mental anguish).
Chris Knight is my hero.
A sobering thought as the electoral process becomes more and more opaque.
Deleted
and because of that.. I WILL NEVER EVER EVER vote for bush. i have reasons... although I cannot discuss them..
But remember, a vote for bush is a vote for rumsfield.. sorta.
I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it.
- Eugene V. Debs
I bet the Iraqis didn't care who got elected 4 years ago either. Like it or not the US is the last of the Super Powers. There is no one country that could beat them. Stalemate, as Iraq is proving, is very possible, though. Add the fact that most commerce goes through the US or its close allies at some point.
I suspect that people will be a lot more attentive to the technology of counting votes than they were in the past. Sadly, few people seem to realize the value of an electoral college (which was state of the art vote counting technology in the 1780s.) Even today, I think recent events warrant this technology. The idea is that you determine population in an area every ten years and use this data to separate the population into buckets, you then count the vote in each bucket then determine the winner of the election by counting the buckets.
The bucket counting process does give small states a boost in the process. The main thing it does is that it evens out wierd fluctuations in the data. For example, there might be higher voter turn out in states with a hotly contested senate seat.
The Electoral College was state of the art too. IF something went wrong, you would have a body that could deliberate and select the leader. Sadly, the courts seem to have usurped this authority.
The biggest problem with the bucket counting system is that the US is not expanding the number of buckets with the population.
Of course, if you believe that the "will of the people" is real and that it is determined mathematically by the vote, then the vote counting technology is just plain wrong.
Bush IS demonstrably an idiot. It's not reflexive to say so. He is just so remarkably wrong, uninformed, stubborn, not-bright, and incorrect. He thought Sweden was neutral and had no army. MY GOD. He won't drop his notions even after they are shown to be dead wrong. WMD, Saddam=OBL, taxcuts make us rich, over and over ....
Everybody who is eligible should vote.
Separate from that, everybody who votes should be informed; but a lack of knowledge is not a barrier to voting. By accident of their birth, U.S. Citizens are eligible. No other test should be applied, as it will someday be abused.
I think the Team America guys had their hearts in the right place; but allowing uninformed or uneducated people to vote is the price we pay for ensuring that nobody does the "literacy test" kind of thing again.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
If your 3rd party vote total exceeds the difference between the two "evils," you're sending a message that the loser needs to look at pretty seriously. He might have won had he embraced some of your politics. Your return on this vote investment may be 4 years down the road (or never), but a vote for one of the "evils" will be interpreted as a mandate for his platform. I'd say it's even more important in a close race to vote for your 3rd party.
I don't have any numbers on this at all but I was reasonably sure that if the people who had voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have easily become the president. No supreme court involved. Your vote *does* make a difference.
Voting for the lesser of two evils versus the voting for candidate you truly prefer is one of the most interesting aspects of this election, IMHO.
Random is the New Order.
If not, then consider placing your third party vote another time. This may not be the best time to make a statement.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
While Bush has made mistakes (Iraq), there is no reason to suspect that he will repeat them.
I've heard similar statements to this several times. I simply don't understand it. There is every reason to think that he will repeat his mistakes. He is the same person elected four years ago, and I haven't seen any indication that he would do things any differently given the same situation.
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
Do you have anything to say that doesn't come straight from RNC talking points e-mails? If bin Laden is running scared, why is he releasing a video on the eve of the election looking tanned, rested, and ready?
Whatever happened to "dead or alive"?
Oh, that's right--Bush doesn't think about him that much anymore. Said as much in an interview during the runup to the Iraq quagmire.
I don't think Kerry will do anything useful to get the world out of its current mess, but Bush serves Osama's purposes wonderfully.
But Badnarik is a bloody nutcase.
Sorry but I have to disagree.
Blowing up the UN within a week of taking office?
That was a facetious remark that was taken out of context, as he states in this interview, in which he responded "Blow up the U.N. building? C'mon, I'm a Libertarian. You know that I'd rather sell the U.N. than blow it up." His statement about blowing up the UN was more a jocular political point about how weak and ineffective that organization has become. (They even let themselves be blown up in Iraq by refusing military protection.)
The Federal Income Tax is illegal?
I wouldn't say the tax itself is illegal, but some of the methods the IRS has used in its collection definitely are.
Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy?
Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?
Does he understand that the President doesn't wield this kind of power?
Are you kidding me? That's one of the primary themes of his campaign, the fact that politicians today (the President in particular) wield far more power than they should.
I think you might want to take a look at the deeper meaning of some of the things he is saying before labeling him a nutcase.
Cos he knows Bush couldn't catch a cold.
Or rather, Bush has an agenda which is served by not catching Osama Bin Laden.
Deleted
With this in mind it is obvious you want some change since you are undecided and would like to see more/better candidates. Your best bet to do this is to vote against the incumbent at every election. For each position on your ballot find the incumbent and vote against him/her. Failing to get re-elected sends a huge message to the party. If bush gets re-elected for instance his ideas become the parties main platform and ideas if he fails however they will seek to change themselves in order to correct Bush's mistake. This is the same for all local chapters of these parties as well.
So clearly and simply, vote against all incumbents no matter what. In local elections vote for 3rd party candidates at random if your too lazy to learn what they stand for. But for presidential elections your best bet is to just vote for Kerry and bitch about him when he fucks up.
It frustrates me greatly when someone says "oh, we shouldn't talk about politics...". For those of us in the US, why the hell shouldn't we talk politics?
Our grandfathers didn't fight and die in the European and Pacific theaters so we could sit around together and avoid controversy by talking about the weather instead of who should be President.
Over 1,000 of our troops have died in the last three years in part to bring free and open elections to Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet we shouldn't talk about politics?
It's amazing to me, especially in light of our recent efforts in the Middle East, that some people look at politics merely as a source of personal conflict that should be avoided at all costs. Of course, the black-and-white conflict-driven political discussions portrayed in the popular media (talking heads yelling over each other on MSNBC, conservative talk radio, etc.) don't help things at all. But as a nation, we've grown relatively fat and happy over the last several decades and are only now starting to pay a price for that.
My hope is that this election brings out a larger share of the vote and people start taking things a little more seriously. A few huge upsets that discredit the predictive power of polling wouldn't hurt, either. I think many people don't bother voting simply because they don't believe their vote matters...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The world would be even better off without Osama Bin Laden. It would also be better off if the 100,000+ Iraqis and 1000+ Americans were still alive. Or are you saying it's worth that many lives (and counting) to get rid of one person. Then there's the thousands upon thousands of injured and permanently disabled people.
Hopefully, this will get read, so far down.
That being said, I think that Bush is a better choice that Kerry. I don't especially like Bush; however, I dislike Kerry even more.
First, let's stop living in 1971, and start living in 2004. What happened in VietNam is long over, and people have changed since then. I thank Kerry for his service 30 years ago, but I think that there are other issues more relevant to today's election that VietNam.
That being said, the most pertinant issue is Iraq. The war was totally justified. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one point in time. There's no question about it. We also knew that, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, they said that their work wasn't done. We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD. What evidence did we have that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? His word. Nothing more. UN Resolution 1441, passed in November (IIRC) of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to document fully his weapons programs. He failed miserably. There was a ton of stuff that was just plain unaccounted for. Saddam had the burden of proof to prove that he had gotten rid of the WMD's, in the treaties ending the first Gulf War. He failed. He gave no proof whatsoever. It would be irresponsible to put the the security of the US in Saddam's hands.
As we found out later, Saddam wanted us to believe that he still had WMD. He wanted everyone to think that he was strong. Well, he kind of fucked up there.
Also, let's not forget that John Kerry looked at the very same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the very same conclusions, namely that Saddam posed an iminent threat. So, any critiques you might have about Bush's judgement also apply to Kerry. Kerry also voted for the war. He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops. Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.
However, Kerry tried to attach a caveat to that, namely that he voted for the authorization so that Bush could back up his threats of military power, but Kerry didn't want Bush to actually use it. In a nutshell, he said that he wanted the threat of military force to be a bluff. What kind of respect will that get on the world stage, now that our enemies know that Kerry won't actually use the military?
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either. To use their word, they recognize that his vacillations lose a lot of respect. Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops home is based on a false premis, namely that France and Germany will send troops. However, that's fallacious, as France and Germany have flat-out stated that they won't send troops, no matter who wins in November.
Next, we have to look at the big picture in Iraq. The media is claiming that we're losing the peace. However, they said that about Afghanistain in 2002. They said that about France and Germany in 1946. The moral of the story: It may be a long and hard road, but we'll prevail. Iraq is slowly training Iraqis to enforce their on security. It'll take time, but eventually they'll be able to police themselves. Until that time, they need US troops there to prevent the situation from deteriorating even more.
Furthermore, the actual troops in Iraq support Bush's plan to Kerry's, by a fairly large margin. They don't see the same spin that we do; they actually see that there are positives, that we're actually accomplishing stuff over there now. A majority also believe that we're on the right track. If the people who have the best knowledge of what's going on over there support the current policy, don't you think that that means something?
Now, let's get on to the economy. I realize that Bush's policies aren't the best, but I do have a couple of points to make. First, the president really doesn't have that much direct control over the economy. Also, if you insist on assigning blame to the current recession, then Clinton des
A vote for anyone else than Kerry is a vote for Bush. And i can't vote for Bush.
The best thing you (we) could do is find someone who is in your same district/precinct/state/whatever who is going to vote Bush. Thus your Kerry vote and their Bush vote would be a wash. Instead, you each vote for a third party candidate that you would *really* like to win.
That way - you don't impact the election, but you send a message with your votes....
Yours is a very personal question. It is up to you, and no one else, to decide where you think your vote will do the most good.
A vote for a third party is not just a thrown away vote. Historically third parties have influenced the major parties. For example, the socialists advocated the creation of social security which was later picked up by the democrats. There are other examples. Plus, a third party can sometimes replace a major party. Example: the Republican party did not begin as a major party. They grew into one.
And we are not that far from such a thing happening. Let's say the democrats loose on Tuesday. Republicans retain control of the white house, both houses of congress, etc. It is only a matter of time before the democrats cease to be a major party. Perhaps the Green party would emerge as a replacement? Who knows.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
FLAMEWAR!!!!!!!!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I never understood that either. How is voting for someone I don't want *not* throwing my vote away?
--- Ban humanity.
No, this vote is for three or four of the judges who will decide the next election
I think that people who are choosing the lesser of two evils are still choosing evil. The only wasted vote is one cast for a candidate that you do not believe in.
It is in the major parties' benefit for people to belive that there are only two choices. Since the major parties are both backed by the same corporations there really is no difference between them.
If people voted for candidates they believe in instead of those the mass media (also supported by those same corporations) force upon them, politics might be different in the US. For god sakes, we have the INTERNET (for now)! Do your own research and do not blindly accept what the mass media has been paid to tell you.
It has become a government of the people, by the lawyers, and for the corporations. Speak your own mind and make a difference!
Sure enough, Kerry is pretty much the unknown in this equation, but honest to goodness could his record be any WORSE than Dubya's? Is the status quo really WORTH preserving here?
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Regardless of how you try to justify your vote, a vote for a major candidate is a statement that you:
If these three items are not true, you can either abstain from voting, or vote for a third party candidate. Please note that it is not possible, in the US, to vote against a candidate. The most you can do is vote for one of the competetion
As for myself, I will be voting for Michael Badnarik for President. What's that? I hear cries of:
"But, he doesnt have a chance to win!"
"This election is too important to risk electing the wrong person!"
These are both true statements, however I refuse to "waste my vote", or "throw my vote away" by voting for a candidate that I disagree with.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Question for Bush supporters:
What are the chances of 2 Texas oilmen (financially supported by many more oilmen) giving us a coherent national energy policy which frees us from dependency on oil and the Middle East?
Question for Kerry supporters:
What are the chances that 2 trial lawyers (who's biggest contributors are the trial lawyers associations) giving us the litigation reforms so crucial to getting escalating health care and pharm costs under control for the long term viability of our economy?
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a candidate you do not respect.
The Republicans and Democrats have all the media access they want, and are going to have a gajillion dollars to run campaigns no matter what. A vote for one of them would hardly be noticed. Voting for a third party has, proportionally, far greater impact on things than a vote for either Republican or Democrat. A vote for a third party candidate has a noticeable impact on the party's future funding and publicity. A Green/Libertarian/Constitution/Socialist vote in 2004 is an investment in 2008 and beyond. It is an investment in true change.
Besides, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you're going to keep getting--you guessed it--evil! Repeating an action and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanty. Therefore, if you're going to keep voting for Democrats and Repbulicans, you're crazy if you expect meaningful change.
I'd advise you to vote for whomever you agree with politically no matter what state you live in.
Personally, I'll be voting for one of the major candidates and would really like to see him win. However, I'd like to see him win by having convinced people that he is the best candidate, not just because people think that the other candidate might be more evil.
Al Gore did not loose the 2000 election because of people voting for Nader or other candidates; Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he did not do a good job of convincing enough of the American people that he could be an effective and competent President.
I recommend that you not vote for what you consider the lesser of two evils, and don't let supporters of other candidates change your principles.
With regards to the two front men who will dominate the presidential vote, all hope of progress seems lost. It would appear that a large fraction of US voters trust one or the other, believe that the speeches will actually correlate with future performance, and generally trust their gut feelings about the candidates' "character" and "values." This is not merely a sad state of affairs, it is a tragedy in progress. Is it so hard to see that these people will say anything to get elected? Can you not see how much money is at stake? Do you believe that our presence in Iraq (essentially supported by both candidates) is something other than international piracy and a huge pork barrel for the defense and petrochemical industries?
Do you fail to see that ours has has become a corrupt, authoritarian, quasi-militarized Third World government? Any of you out there who are of Mexican origin (as I am) or have lived a significant part of your lives in Mexico (as I have) cannot fail to see the style and techniques of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, el PRI, in the US, especially in the Republican party. We Americans will gradually discover that we are the hapless slaves that the vast majority of Mexicans are in their own nation.
I will be voting for Not Bush, but only grudgingly. We are in for a very rough time in the near and medium term. At present, the long term is lost in the fog of the future.
This is the problem with almost all the third party's. It seems that they want to be the lunatic fringe and/or look like wackos.
How about a 3rd party that is the middle of the road, not the same damn clones we have every single year (Sorry but bush and Kerry ARE the same. They are both billionares that have no clue as to the reality that 90% of americans live each day.)
How about a 3rd party where we have a blue collar worker for president? A Foundry Foreman or supervisor? someone that has no idea what is it like to have a Billion dollars let alone a million in the bank.
Someone that drives a 3 year old Chevy, that is sick of the utter bullshit that our government pulls every day.
No we get nutcases that want to abolish Federal Taxes, blow up the UN, abolish the Federal REserve, become isolationist, legalize heroin, prostitution, and require that neopeganism become the national religion... (Ok, I'm making the last one up.. but this is how these nutbags sound)
I want a man in there that knows what is is like to worry about feeding his family, that knows what it was like to not afford medicine for his newborn so he did not eat for a week in order to get those antibiotics.
Not these pompous assholes that think hardship is not being able to contact the butler.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No secret that I'm a supporter of Badnarik. I've been thinking, however, how I would vote if there were Instant Runoff Voting. Going off of who qualified for my state's ballot (Nader was not one of them). Forgive me if I forgot someone in my haste.
1. Badnarik. The LP has the best platform for reducing the size and scope of government. The LP is against the current brand of foreign policy* that lead to the conflict in Iraq and causes us to be the targets of terrorists.
2. Petrouka. Some of the Constitution Party ideas are a bit way out there, but in general they are for less government, are also against the current brand of foreign policy.
3. Cobb. I disagree strongly with the Green platform, but if I'm going to choose between socialism and facism (where things are headed now with the Republicrats), I'll choose socialism. At least Cobb is a real left wing candidate, and is also against the current brand of foreign policy.
4. Kerry. You can't call him an anti-war candidate. Kerry plans to pull us out of Iraq in INFINITY MINUS TWO years, as opposed to Bush's plan to pull us out in INFINITY MINUS ONE. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry's party bows to the Entertainment Industry and his administration will likely take no steps to reform IP laws so that they cannot be abused by megacorps. Still, he's better than Bush.
5. Bush. I absolutely fear what Bush's administration might try to pull once the fear of not being re-elected is out of the way. Military Draft? Even more blatantly facist policy? Legislation worse than the Patriot Act? Probably all of the above. Anyone voting for Bush because he lowered taxes is living in a Dream World. Bush has increased the size and cost of the government. Sure, he gave us back a few hundred bucks so we'd be inclined vote for him again, but increasing Government size amounts to deferred taxation. We'll eventually all pay for his outing in Iraq in the form of taxes, even if that tax increase comes from Bush's successor.
*By this I mean the current foreign policy that dictates the US get involved in the business of other countries when it shouldn't.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I'm a Canadian and up until yesterday I would have voted for John Kerry if I was an American. I love politics and have found this election race rather interesting. I recently downloaded a History Channel episode called "The Jesus Factor". It aired last week but I missed it. It's about how religion has influenced George Bush's political decisions.
The bittorent link is can be found here:? infohash=d07694cb106f7df5a17030f7a59402c61f67c119
http://www2.digitaldistractions.org:8080/info.php
After viewing the episode I had to rethink my opinion of George Bush. Now I'm not a George Bush lover by any means after watching the show, but John Kerry definetly doesn't have my full support anymore. The show does a good job of showing both sides (unlike Michael Moore documentaries, even though I love his films).
As a Canadian I think this elections will influence my country and ultimately me a lot. I think also that it will influence Americans even more and am surprised by those that choose not to vote. In the mind of many Canadians, according to a recent poll, George Bush lost a lot of respect after going to war in Iraq. I had no opinion of him until then and since then I had a very negative opinion of him. This documentary changed that a lot, but you can't change the past.
Does anybody that has watched this documentary have anything to say? I'd also be interested to see what other Canadians think of this whole election. There aren't that many that love politics as much as I do around me (my wife is glad she works tomorrow so she won't have to see any election coverage). Anyways hope to read more on others opinions.
But what's the CAUSE of the terrorism? Why attack them directly when we may be the ones at fault?
If I stomp on your foot and you punch me in the face, do I get to shoot you dead? No.
I caused the problem, and next time I won't stomp on your foot.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
At the risk of sounding like an arrogant American, I must ask, "Why is Bush a nightmare for the rest of the world?" I could flip your statement around and ask, "Why is the rest of the world such a nightmare?"
What with the terrorists, kleptocracies, dictatorships, civil and genocidal wars and all, I think it is the rest of the world, in general, which has the problem.
Europe seemed pretty happy to have the US help out in the Balkans (and Germany I, Germany II, Soviet Union, Vietnam, Palestine, etc.) but where are they now?
Actually, Palestine is a bit of a cheap shot, since that was a British problem and the Brits still have a good global view...
Oh yeah, if Europe was so superior in terms of diplomacy, why did the League of Nations fail?
Bottom line, if you want a United States which is 'engaged' in global affairs, you're gonna get things like Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq... or you're going to have another Hitler or two pop up someplace. It doesn't matter who the president is.
And yes, America is only a part of the world.. the part that everybody runs to (or from) when there are problems.
The Bible teaches, I believe, that God the Father sent down to Earth his only son, Jesus Christ, to live as man among men. The Lord said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." God sent Jesus to be the example of how a man should live his life on Earth. Only by following the way, the truth, the life of Jesus, shall we come to know the Father. This is where the modern saying, "What would Jesus do?", comes from and makes it so much more than a simple statement of admiration. "What would Jesus do", in my understanding of the phrase, is the guideline of righteous living.
... helping the poor?
And so, in order to see what Christians should focus on when looking for leadership in their time on this Earth, they should look at what Jesus focused on while he was here, living the life of the righteous man.
How often did Jesus talk about homosexuality, abortion, or assisted suicide? Were these sins the focus of his ministry? Or did he focus on healing the sick and feeding the poor?
Did he beseech us to increase the wealth of the moneylenders, so that there would be more crumbs for the poor? Or did he believe that we should help the poor by
Did Jesus limit his healing to those that could afford the money to pay him? Or did he reach out and touch all in need?
Did he focus on destroying enemies or loving them? Did he advocate war or peace?
I understand and admire evangelicals' conviction to vote their conscience and follow the Word, not just in church, but everywhere, every day. But, despite the Republicans throwing those that have strength of faith some Old Testament bones, it is the God-fearing liberal Democrats like John Kerry that best exemplify the self-sacrifice and social compassion Jesus had.
Can you really look at how George Bush reacts to the world and see him asking "What would Jesus do?" I cannot. I certainly can see him consulting the Bible and finding passages to console him. I certainly see that he believes God approves of his actions. What believer doesn't? But, try as I might, I cannot see in him a man doing as Jesus would do. Read Matthew 5:38-48 and tell me if you can hear the voice of George Bush.
Agree or disagree with the policies of George Bush and other Republicans on the merits as you will, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that George W. Bush is following the way, the truth, the life.
If the decision was in doubt, I'd certainly vote Kerry
You should vote Kerry then, because AZ is in play. I'm in AZ too; voter turnout can make the difference here.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
i really don't understand why it is that people vote for /parties/ rather than /issues/. to be totally blunt, what the hell has the rnc / dnc ever done for anyone who isn't a candidate? why is party loyalty such a huge deal? i really don't understand it. i had a conversation with someone on campus the other day and he said something to the effect of, "my family are all proud republicans. we've been that way for three generations now." so i asked him why he was going to vote republican and his response was, "why wouldn't i? that's what we've always done." that's not democracy in action, that's a sheepocracy exercising its idiocy.
In Iraq, we shot first. We invaded on a pretext, not for a real, solid threat; that is the bottom line of all those many hearings, investigations, and reports. The sanctions were working, for the time being, and Saddaam and Iraq had nothing to do with al-Quaeda. Our invasion was an alarming departure from the requirement of an "act of war" before going to war. At best, it was a grave mistake, at worst it was the kind of action you see from dictators, not from solid democracies.
Lucas (and all of us) know that the good guys don't shoot first -- that's the characteristic of corrupt sheriffs and other baddies. Lucas edited Star Wars to clean up Han's character. Wish we could do that to us in real life! But the best we can do, as U.S. voters, is to repudiate Bush and his gang.
To Bush and his gang, the invasion was not a mistake, not in the least. They revel in having shot first, in being 'tough'. The U.S's reputation in the world is terrible, because of Bush's policies and -- more important -- his aggressive actions. We are rightly seen as a threat to other nations; we're like the sheriff who goes and shoots the guys he knows are bad, without trial, evidence, or due process. There's a reason for having a 'cause for war' - it's clear evidence. Something we did not have, and our leaders knew, should have known, or at least should know now.
Sophisticated people know that there's a difference between the U.S. people and the government, and make allowances for individual Americans. But how can they possibly do so if we re-elect Bush? We will have clearly embraced the black hat.
Bottom line is I think that Bush will keep Americans safer.
Sorry for all of you not in the US who don't like his approach, but much of the world hates us and many would like to kill us. Call me selfish, but I'm voting for the guy who I think will keep my loved ones and me safer.
Facts are stubborn things.
So you're saying it wasn't short sighted to attack Saddam now when he wasn't a threat, instead of Osama who not only was (and still is) but who was actually responsible for the attacks... instead of taking care of Osama first and going back for Saddam a few years later, when he very likely would STILL not be a threat?
=Smidge=
- Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected.
- Get Bush out of office.
In reality, voting for the 3rd party candidate contributes to the failure of both goals (goal 1 is already at 100% failure). Voting for Kerry leaves goal 1 at its predetermined failure state, but actually does something towards goal 2.If you really don't care whether Bush or Kerry wins (keep in mind, one of the two is definitely going to), then this doesn't apply to you. But if you have any preference at all, it arguably makes sense to vote along that preference.
His sig is grousing about Kerry's Vietnam-era activities and strongly implying that protesting any action of the U.S. military is treason. Why are you bothering to argue with him?
and on and on and on...
What contempt they have for the American people and the democratic process. It's sickening.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
I agree, most people are stupid, and voting should be left to enlightened geniuses like Slashdot's own "maximilln".
Go fuck yourself, elitist prick.
I'm an American living in Germany, which gives me a somewhat unique perspective I think. The German people generally has a, shall we say, critical view of our current administration. The cynical obsession with the Bush administration's dangerousness occasionally goes off the deep end, such as a common view that Fahrenheit 911 is unbiased and to be taken at face value, and occasionally even a belief that 9/11 was self-inflicted. Whether you consider it a more balanced view or not, the media here tends to show a more depressing view of the Iraq war than the US media does. Like anywhere else in the world, what the media shows is determined by what they perceive the population wants, and vice-versa. For what it's worth, the US soldiers serving in Iraq seem to have a more optimistic view of their progress in the general case.
Despite having a strong Christian heritage and traditions, Germans today are a rather secular sort that view organized religion with suspicion and occasional disdain. This also makes Bush suspicious in the eyes of Germans.
Thankfully, the German people are good at separating their hatred of the American administration from their views of American individuals. I've found the hospitality to be quite warm. I just wish that Americans were the same, but the shameful way that we Americans have treated the French has proven otherwise. However, I'm not confident that Germans will continue to be as forgiving if Bush is re-elected. That action would make it appear that we Americans actually prefer Bush's policies and approve of his decisions. I suspect that I might start to get nasty looks if that happens, but I hope otherwise.
Whether you are for Bush or not, Bush's poor respect in the world is an unconquerable distraction that prevents any potential progress. That reason alone was enough to prevent my voting for Bush. However, that doesn't help me to decide who to vote for.
I'm personally stuck, and no party or candidate represents me. While social welfare programs and strong regulation are attractive from a certain perspective, I look at the unemployment and stagnancy within Germany and just don't see that as effective. In other words, I'm fiscally conservative. In the past, that made the Republican party a more natural match for me. However, these neo-cons these days have completely alienated me. Usually complaints against the democrats, there's a heckuva lot of pork in our budget, our foreign policy is in shambles, our military is abused, our personal lives are overly interferred with.
The libertarian party is a bit too radical for me. There is plenty of truth to the statements that the UN is corrupt, populated with dictatorships, undemocractic, wasteful, and totally ineffectual. I couldn't possibly support the banishment of the UN that Badnarik proposes. While I don't like regulation or socialism in general, the nearly complete elimination of them isn't on the menu for me. So, Badnarik is out. The other parties and candidates are far too left-wing for me.
So, a few days ago I mailed in my ballot in, my decision more a process of elimination than anything else. Yes, I'm voting for the flake (Kerry) and his partner, the ambulance chaser (Edwards). I have every bit of faith that Kerry will be just as ineffectual in the White House as he has been these many years in the Senate, and that Edwards will usher in a new age of hyperlitigation. And believe me, I'll be voting them back out of office in 2008 with even more enthusiasm than I voted them in.
The problem is, the Electoral College does not work with more than two parties.
All third parties are completely eliminated by the electoral college unless they have a huge following. I don't know of any electoral votes going to a 3rd party, although I suspect that it could've happened in the past.
Voting third party does not literally throw away your vote, but it does literally have no effect on the POTUS election.
What it does do is help your 3rd party for the next election. If your party gets a certain percentage of the votes, your party gets on the ballot and even qualifies for federal funds.
But let's take, for instance, Nader and the Green party. The republicans fought tooth and nail to get the Greens on every ballot they could, simply because it tends to split the Democratic vote. And the electoral college virtually eliminates the green votes, so it's like getting democrats to throw their votes away. This is american politics. The other side effect, though, is it helps republicans in the long run because it helps keep Nader on the ticket for next election, continuing the cycle of splitting the votes.
Bottom line: If you can't vote for Bush in good conscience, you should not vote for Nader.
I see these arguments that one should vote for Kerry or Bush otherwise their vote is wasted. If you truly believe this then you've already given up your ONLY government guaranteed right as a member of this republic.
Regardless of your opinion about the two monopoly party candidates - the fact is that if either one had their way YOU would have no choice at all. They have used their monopoly of government force and tax dollars to suppress the knowledge of the very existence of altervative parties much less their viewpoints. They pass laws giving them the right to steal your money to use to pay for their propaganda and influence the outcome of the election. They contrieve new requirements making it impossible for other parties to participate in "debates" or even get on the ballot so that those of us who want someone else can't even legally express that opinion.
So... if you propose voting for one of the major parties rather than who you'd really want then you are part of the problem. If you want to protect your influence on the election then push forward laws like instant runoff or "none of the above" voting and requirements that the winner actually get 50% + 1 votes to take office. Don't cry that people may not elect the person they'd prefer when the fact is that, as things stand now, they are guaranteed to get the person they don't want - and that person already knows it and has no reason to change his current monopolistic bahaviour.
Voting your conscience and informed opinion is the ONLY moral vote possible. In fact, even if you do prefer one of the two monopoly party candidates, I find it hard to morally justify voting for them if only because of their oppression of this most important right. The US has already lost the courts' support of the Constitution. Once enough people figure out that their votes have been stolen too then there will be no saving this country. There isn't any "free" country left to run to folks... let's try to make this one free once more.
I forgot to 'bottom-line it' for the readers:
It's important to vote, but even *more* important to reform voting. If you don't vote, you cannot claim to be the object of another's election crimes: you have only yourself to blame for your choice to be excluded. But if you do vote, it's fine to vote your conscience, inside or outside the two patry entrenchment. It's simply more important to fix the machine into behaving fairly than it is to feed your votes into a system that's broken.
Your attack on Kerry's position on Iraq basically comes down to the assertion that Kerry's policy would have been to use the military option only as a bluff.
This is simply false. Kerry has said that Bush rushed into war, but Kerry has not ruled out that he might have eventually taken the nation into war himself.
The difference is this: Kerry would have continued the diplomatic and economic pressure and given the inspectors the time to finish their job. Yes, it was a long arduous process (18 resolutions, blah blah blah), but so is this war that we're not stuck in.
The rest of your comments about the war are basically moot. Yes, we all know Saddam was a threat, and we all thought he had WMD. Points conceded. But Bush rushed us to war without properly verifying our suspicions, rallying a real coalition, or preparing for the aftermath.
I'm not sure what your source is when you say most troops in Iraq support Bush. I knows many people over in Iraq right now. To a man they were all gung-ho to get over there. And they are now, to a man, all gung-ho to get back. They suppport their fellow troops and will stay there to finish the job as long as their brothers are in harms way, but that's because of loyalty. Not because they agree with Bush's policies. But these are just the people I know... I have no idea what the overall feeling of most troops over there is.
As far as economics go, I suppose one would expect me to support Bush. I make over $200K, and my family also has a trust. One would think I'd be smiling all the way to the bank with the tax cuts.
But I'm not. I see the shrinking middle class as a threat, because in the long run it destabilizes the country. If the middle class disappears we end up in a situation where revolution is not only possible, but likely. And I don't see that as benefitting my long term prospects at all.
The cost of living has also gone up in ways that have made the tax cut almost meaningless, as well. Yes, tax cuts can help the economy, but if they are mostly offset by cost of living increases then the net affect is nil. Thost $300 checks that everyone received evaporated in the face of higher insurance premiums.
Further, antagonizing the rest of the world has hurt local business. Boeing now finds it difficult to compete worldwide. Given largely similar offerings between Airbus and Boeing, most foreign buyers would now prefer to buy from Airbus instead of from an American company. American brand names are taking a beating overseas. And the dollar has dropped about 30%, meaning that even if I am a bit wealthier in the U.S., I'm poorer overall when the whole world is considered.
Getting the rest of the world pissed off at us is something that could have been avoided. I'll concede that no president might have been able to keep the dollar strong, though Bush certainly didn't help.
Now for a point you didn't mention:
I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for some born-again refry who will more than likely try to appoint radically conservative judges to the supreme court. He claims there will be no litmus test, but his reference to Dred Scott is well known code that says exactly the opposite: he will do his utmost to appoint judges who will overturn Roe V Wade.
I also feel strongly about the constant attacks on civil liberties by this administration. Bush would make Jefferson spin in his grave, I am sure. In fact, this election has interesting parallels to the election of 1800 as far as setting the tone for the future of liberty.
And to follow the rule of three I should throw something else in here... but I've typed enough already and probably no one will read this anyway so I'll just stop here. But that video that strongly suggests Bush may be going senile is pretty damn frightening (and believable).
>Really, the only good thing I can think of to say >for Kerry is that the Democratic presidents have >generally been less effective at expanding the >government than have the Republican presidents.
Are you fucking for real? The democrats are primarily responsible for the size of our current government. They inacted the federal income tax, social security and most of the entitlement programs we have.
The only time when they didn't significantly expand government is when the republicans controlled congress.
I will concede that Bush has been lousy on this issue. He has acted more like a democrat than a republican when it comes to spending.
Well, here's how my logic would go in this particular election, if I were eligible:
THE most important thing about democracy, even more important that any real or perceived influende on actual policy, is that you get to hold the people in power accountable.
Kerry may be a wild card, but you KNOW that Bush LIED to you. To ALL of you, and not just about his private life, or even shady business practices, but about important political decisions with direct bearing on the security of your country and the rest of the world. He LIED to you in order to go get accceptance for going to war on a sovreign nation who was no threat. He LIED to you about the reasons you should or should not support risking the death and suffering of thousands of american soldiers and innocent civilians alike. Even if you would have supported it anyway, there is NO excuse for misleading the public in such a blatant way on such a serious matter. NOONE should get away with that, EVER.
If you don't kick him out now, you're basically telling politicians (all of them), that they can get away with pretty much anything and enjoy continued support, as long as they dangle some sort of enemy in front of you.
Even if you believe Kerry will be worse (I fail to comprehend how that is even remotely likely, but I know you are out there), how much worse could he be, and wouldn't it still be worth it just to send a clear message that you will be held accountable if you fuck up?
sudo ergo sum
why does everyone always pretend like they care if everyone votes? they should only care if their candidate wins. i hope everyone who supports the candidate i oppose does not vote. saying "regardless of who you support, get out and vote" seems pointless. isnt it most important to elect the better candidate than to just have better turnout? what good is turnout if they elect the guy who enacts bad policy? unless of course you believe more turnout is good for your candidate, which i suspect many of these people who are saying this believe. if you relly care about electing a better candidate, shouldnt you dissuade people from voting, if they support the wrong guy?
You just outlined the number one reason NOT to vote for small party candidates. I don't want to discount the importance of "issues" in choosing a candidate, but there is a great deal more involved in holding public office than holding specific beliefs and ideals, and most people in this country seem to be missing this point entirely. You can't simply elect your ideological soul mate and suddenly expect a bright new tomorrow to happen just because he is in office.
First of all, an elected president must be ready to immediately put in place a massive organization of highly qualified professionals. While mainstream parties may not be ideologically perfect, they do provide a solid foundation and a good supply of quality personnel for such organizations.
The new president also needs to have the management skill and experience to run that organization. Let me put it this way...Ideologically, I am the perfect candidate for me to vote for. After all, I agree with everything I believe in. However, I would never vote for myself for president because I do not have the managerial skills to actually run the office. I guarantee I would make a complete mess of this country and that has nothing to do with my stand on the issues.
The white house doesn't operate in a vacuum. What kind of connections does your party have in the house and senate, or even in the governments of the various states, to help them further their agenda? It would be almost cruel and unusual punishment to put a third party candidate in the Whitehouse while the entire remainder of the government is in the solid grip of the two main parties. Why don't you just have him spend the next four years beating his head against a brick wall.
And finally, I admit to being somewhat of an altruist and idealist. People like me do NOT do well in politics. We are too quick to give the other side a break, too inclined to play fair. You are better off finding a real bastard who will fight for you, because politics is a nasty business where altruists get stuffed into the office shredder. Sometimes you really do have to compromise your ideals a bit to get at least some of what you want. You may not like lawyers but you had better be ready to hire one when needed.
There was a candidate who was almost ideologically perfect for me. I voted against him in the primary because he wouldn't have been any better at running this country than I would, and believe me, we don't want that! Yeah, I would love to vote only by my ideals, but that is a good way to really screw up my country.
So yeah, I don't agree 100 percent with my main party choice (deliberately avoiding making this a political post), and I know he isn't a flipping saint, but I also know he has a solid organization under him, He has the wherewithal to manage it and he has the guts to fight for at least some of what I want for my country.
this is loaner...my sig is in the shop
I care because my country seems to support the US in whatever they do.
I care because of the USA, my country went to fight a 'war' against a country that didn't have any of the weapons that were listed as the reason for going in.
I care because I'm a member of this world just like anyone else.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I really hope that all you who are reading this post do know your candidates. However, I will publish my points of view for those ones who are undecided. Here is why I vote for Kerry:
Kerry does not want to increase the power of the federal goverment. As he stated, he would like the states to decided on several particular policies. This is as "American" as it gets. Bush, on the other hand, wants to increase the amount of control that fed. gov't has over the states.
Kerry does not want to embed discrimination into our Constitution. I am not gay, but I believe in equality and justice for all. How can one expect a fair treatment while the others are being denied civil liberties? Think about it, would straight men beat their wives if the concept of heterosexual marriage was perfect? If you want to protect marriage, do me a favor: push for women's rights and stand against family violence.
Kerry does not shove the Bible up my ass. Whether you are religious or not, you should remember that religion and state are separate in this country. Just because you believe in god, it does not mean that your beliefs should become a part of my life. I have nothing about personal religious traditions, but I think that citing the Bible when it comes to creating laws is pushing it. When is the next round of witch trials, Mr. Bush?
Kerry is for cooperation with international entities and other countries. Remember, we did not win WWII without help from numerous states. Despite personal feelings we cannot spit at the French and tell the Germans to shut the fuck up and eat that kraut. A world is a big pile of shit and all of us are in it equally.
I support women's right to choose.
During the debates Mr. Bush did not have enough guts to admit three things that he screwed. Let me help him out: "No Child Left Behind," Iraq, tax cuts for the rich.
If you think that Kerry is a "flip-flopper," think how many times YOU changed your mind and why you did it; did it make you a bad person? Although this may not be a populate saying in the United States -- it's French -- but "only idiots do not change their minds." Would you rather vote for a person who can adjust his/her decisions based on feedback (just like the spiral model of software engineering) or you would you prefer a blind follower of some sort of ideology?
Kerry is intelligent, Bush is not. Do me a favor, compare Kerry and Bush rallies, speeches, etc. You will see a difference. Our current president speaks like a fucking second grader with "internets," "budget men" and "group of folks."
48 Nobel prize winners support Kerry.
Kerry promises pro-environmental policies.
This is a strech, but compare the economies and educational systems of "blue" vs. "red" states. It will give you a rough idea who is voting for Mr. Bush. Also, take a look at rallies and the supporters of both candidates. I have nothing against Republicans because I tend to vote for the principals, not the party. However, it is not the case during these elections...
Well, I believe this is enough for starters. Ideally, I would like to see a president who is conservative when it comes to spending and liberal with social policies. However, this is never going to happen. There is too much bigotry in this world.
I believe the third parties are useless. You can get a lot of your issues done if you choose the right party and form a coalition within that party. (There is a time and a place for a third party - this election is not one of them. Take a look at how the republican party got started if you want a good example.)
I agree with a lot of the libertarian platform. Yet I am a republican. What am I doing actively working in the republican party trying to get Bush elected when I know that Badnarik would better represent me?
Quite simply, I am working with others who feel like I do. We've already caused a divide among our party in my local town. Next year, we may have the power needed to put our choices for local politics on the ballot. If they win, we will hold the power in our district. Our party platform in our area will have so many similarities to the libertarian one that perhaps we can convince the 500 libertarians to team up with us. The republicans agree with a lot of what the libertarians agree with. We are getting - for free - a couple thousand votes from people who are "blind" republicans. That's something a third party could never get.
Eventually, I hope to cause a shift in the republican party like the shift that Jerry Falwell and others have instituted. I think it is far more possible if I work from within than without. When we get our people in the state house and senate, we can get our ideas out. Eventually, one of our guys will get the governorship and become the de facto party boss.
So if you want to get your issues out, choose the party closest to yours and start working for them. Over time, you will gain the power you need to tell them what they are going to stand for. And you'll have far more power than Badnarik does now.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
>only good thing about Bush is that the Republican presidents have generally been less effective at curtailing our civil rights than have the Democratic ones.
Huh? Can you say "Patriot Act"?
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Nightmare scenario:
If the election goes into a 2000-style knock down courtroom fight later this month, and it winds up in the Supreme Court, at the moment it is a 4-4 tie with Renquist out of the picture.
I've read that a tied vote cannot overturn a lower court's ruling. Soooo they would be out of the picture.
UNLESS:
Renquist announces his retirement immediately. Bush then chooses the new justice of the Supreme Court, since he is still President.
Bush gets to CHOOSE THE MAN WHO CASTS THE DECIDING VOTE!
Everyone should vote for Bush because he respects the seperation of church and state?
Interesting thing I read, course I'd have to look it up about it all being true...
... as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look those men -- with their mangled bodies -- in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and
Things that make you think a little........
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following.
FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Kerry supporters are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
Wait, there's more.......................
JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn:
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn:
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.
It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.
I ask you to go with me
As a mathematician, I find the logic of Landsburg to be totally flawed. First of all in a lottery there is only one winner. In an election, approximately half the population gets their choice for president. So in fact you have a 50% chance, more or less, of winning. Just because your vote didn't determine the winner, doesn't mean your vote didn't count.
In baseball, statistics are kept on the "winning run", meaning the run which put the winning team ahead to stay. Likewise, the losing pitcher is the pitcher who gave up the winning run. In fact it's nonsense. The winning run had no more effect on the score than the first run scored, and the first run allowed by a pitcher is just as much a part of the loss as the last one.
Its just as silly to try to pick out single vote that "counts" and then claim that all the others don't count. All the votes count equally and anyone who voted for the winner is as entitled as any other to claim their vote as the "winning vote"
On another level the piece is equally flawed. I live in a town of about 20,000 population. According to this piece, about 7 people in our town will be killed by their mothers. We've had only 2 murders in the last 25 or so years none of them by a mother. So unless we are highly unusual that's a overstated statistic.
Now, I live in Kansas and unless hell freezes over Bush will win our 6 electoral votes tomorrow. So my vote won't count, but thats because the electoral votes are winner take all, not because of any probalistic comparison to lotteries. Over 50% of the votes cast tomorrow in Kansas will count.
In other words, register for one of the two parties (you have to guess which one will be more important) in order to help validate the existing duopoly in exchange for a slightly larger franchise that will be totally invalidated by the large numbers of party True Believers who are the ones the primaries are REALLY for.
The system is broken. Spending more time working on this system will not make it less broken. We need a new system.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Because, you know, Bush is the president of Pakistan.
I want to encourage everybody to vote their conscience. IMO, it will be terrible if GWB gets re-elected, but even worse if democracy fails because people vote for principles with which they do not agree. If the Democrats can't win an election based on their principles, then they don't deserve to win (part of the definition of democracy).
I just read your blog, and I didn't read one legitimate point in the whole thing. It sounded nice, but it sounded a lot like Bush explaining what Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century. You didn't seem to make a point, you just kinda rambled on.
So you MUST be smoking something that is really good. What is it? It can't be 100% Christ love, because I love Christ too, and he doesn't get me that high.
Here, I'll take a quick quote from your blog:
It was here that you were making the point that God gives us our rights. You are making the point that God is currently in control of our rights. How can God be pulling the strings of the government, and the constitution and law, and still give EVERYONE free will. Not most of us, not some of us, but all of us. That is apparently God's greatest gift, so if he gives us that, how can he possibly control us. That would mean that he hasn't given us free will. It can't happen both ways.
I know how people answer this question, and it really is bullshit. People usually answer it with the statment that God doesn't control people, people just do the will of God. People do what they think God wants them to do, and thus totally negates what you said about God controlling rites, it's the people creating the rights, and people that are flawed. Secondly, if God is really working through people, and people are doing his will, how do you explain the patriot act? It is be definition giving up rights. Does God want the government to be able to throw you into a jail in Cuba, and never ever give you fair trial?
If so, that's one wacky God. Now, I know I'm being an ass here. I'm coming off as rude bastard. I also kinda understand what you are saying. I am a Catholic myself, although I personally believe in Church and State being seperate. But, you really shouldn't shrug off this message, and you need to seriously sit down and rethink your whole entire view on this subject, and keep into mind that we all have free will, ALL OF US.
-Derek
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
Oh, this is the route that you are taking? I am jacking off on your face while you lick it off my throbbing cock.
I win.
The Republicans are making black people prove their identities, on the slimmest of reasons. They are racists, and YOU are a klansman. A cock gobbling klansman, to be sure.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
When President Bush attempts to justify his Iraqi misadventure, he inevitably claims that he is on the side of justice and truth and that those who oppose him are "evil doers" or their accomplices. Again and again he reminds the world, you either for us, or against us. There is no room for nuance, much less dissent. Though he has learned to avoid the word itself, "crusade" accurately describes the evangelical fervor with which Bush pursues the continued occupation of Iraq. His fanatical zeal can admit no mistakes nor tolerate any criticism.
The Administration paints Iraqi resisters as crazed fundamentalists hell-bent on enforcing their self-centered vision of God's will, the cost in human lives be damned. But, with tragic irony, such a description applies equally well to the White House. They wave the flag, hoist the cross, and profess theirs to be a mission from the Almighty. If blood is being spilled, so be it. It is God's will.
Fundamentalism of any stripe makes for bad politics, for politics involves the art of getting along and living together in peace. Any group believing itself in sole possession of The Truth will inevitably, perhaps with the best of intentions, try to convert others. The more fervently any fundamentalist believes in his "truth" (be it Mohammad, Jesus, or laissez-faire capitalism), the more coercive conversion methods can be justified. If thumb-screws or worse are needed to get non-believers on board, their use is surely better than allowing someone to go unconverted.
One of America's enduring political strengths has been a skepticism about religious fundamentalism and political absolutism. Indeed, our Founders recognized the utility of tolerance, religious and political, in encouraging diversity. From diversity spring vitality and resilience; good ideas are more likely found from amongst many options than from one dusty scroll or one blinkered political doctrine. "Truth" is not ever captured in just one person or one time or one text. It is the goal of constantly thinking, living - and thus changing - minds. Fundamentalism, demanding unyielding adherence to a predetermined creed, inevitably becomes the enemy of truth.
The motto of America itself celebrates the utility of diversity: E pluribus unim (out of many, one). It is tempting for some politicians, eager for the power of unity, to forget that a strong unum is predicated on a vital pluribus. Enforcing oneness while quashing deviation leads to brittle totalitarianism. Any system aimed at avoiding such brutal and short-lived rule, must derive legitimacy and strength by embracing and encouraging sometimes inconvenient and messy diversity
Instead of drawing on our strength in pluribus, Bush has sought to stifle and silence critics. He has armed John Ashcroft with the power to sneak peeks at political opponents' credit card receipts, video rentals, and library borrowings. Secret tribunals are to replace public trials. And everywhere, fear is generated to prevent people from daring to oppose our leader. Dissent is explicitly equated with treason.
Bush claims his fundamentalist-inspired war is to be "perpetual", thus civil liberties need be suspended indefinitely. But real Americans understand that tolerance, dissent, and diversity make America stronger, not weaker. Let us hope voters this November 2nd send a message to the world: anyone parading narrow-minded fundamentalism, martial law, and endless war as true Americanism is a dangerous charlatan to be exposed and rejected.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
The world at large, I'm sure, could give a rat's ass about my vote, but, I wanted to get it out, cause I'm doing something I didn't think I'd do.
:)
Normally, I vote conservative. (in local elections, almost always third-party) I would have done so again this time out. Bush isn't the 'new classic conservative' made out in the Reagan image, but, hey. Not doing anything of importance domestically and letting the economy shake itself out will get my vote over doing something that may not work. Granted, he's not 'inacting' on purpose, but hey.
And I'm unconcerned with people getting blown up, including myself. Take that how you will.
I was recently diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.
And you know what? If I could steal somebody's fetus and suck a cure right out of it's neural tube I'd damn well happily do the jail time. Yea, I'd have no life if and when I got out, but fuck it. I'd still be able to walk, work, shit and eat like a man.
Embryonic stem cells may not be the answer but it can't hurt. So I'm selfishly forced to vote Kerry in the hopes that a cure (or even a known working way to stop further damage!) will come sooner.
Hell, I don't even want universal health care. It'll just mess with the good health care I have now - universal health care is for people whose problems can be fixed.
So, yea. I'm a one-issue voter, I guess. Wish it wasn't this one
koewn