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.
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?
Great point. WHY WHY WHY would you say that this is the most important election of our lifetime? Just to get people out to the polls? Jesus, the democratic process doesn't allow for "the most important election", it allows for "ELECTIONS" in general. All of them are equally important.
Don't be one and done. Vote now, vote later, vote all the time. Whatever you do, don't just vote once (except during each election, voting multiple times is bad).
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
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.
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
It is an important election for several reasons:
1) We are at war.
2) World opinion of the US is at an all time low.
3) At least one Supreme Court justice will be replaced in the next 4 years.
4) The world is watching these elections.
And the comment about "of our lifetime" is typically meant as retroactively only. When I say that this was the best day of my life I mean my life to this point. Hard to say what things will be like in the future.
Of course we don't know what will happen in the future, but this election is important because:
Just my $0.02
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 ....
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
2) World opinion of the US is at an all time low.
And? I care why?
Because the low opinion of the US is what causes people to strap bombs to themselves and fly planes into tall buildings.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.
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'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.
<sarcasm> But you've forgotten - unlike Kerry, Bush doesn't have any "litmus test" that he's going to apply to the justices that he nominates. All he requires is that they not be "activist" judges. I.e., that they don't disagree with him on what is the correct way to interpret the law.<\sarcasm>
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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
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.
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