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.
I want an honest option, I am really thinking about a 3rd party, the ____________ party, I like what _____________ has to say about the issues I care about. I disagree with him on a few issues, but they are not a matter that have been strong enough to destroy thinking about him. But on the other hand I live in a swing state. I am leaning towards the lesser of 2 evils, but then when I think of that, I get something inside my head saying "for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."* I would like some honest thoughts, and please no "if you vote third party you are throwing away your vote" or "a vote for a third party is really a vote for (insert one of the 2 major party candidates here)" because I just don't believe that. Also I am posting anonymously so you can not find out who I am think about or that so it can not influence your response.
*2 points for any one that can name who that quote is from.
Also moderators please save your mod points for the respondents of this question, instead of this question it self, besides there is no point in moding up or down an AC.
I live in Massachusetts, where the outcome is more or less predetermined (we are sort of a wacky state that's solidly Democratic, and has a history of electing Republican governors. Don't let that fool you, though, Kerry will landslide here). So I've decided to vote Libertarian. While I don't agree with everything Badnarik stands for (free market can't solve everything), I am using my vote to try to put a spotlight on election reform. Anyone else in the same boat?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything.
------------------(Joseph Stalin)
why is this the most important election of our lifetime(s)?
because the next president will appoint 3, possibly 4, supreme court justices. now, the court is pretty balanced with a good mix of conservative and liberal judges. the next president will have the power to either keep and disrupt the balance.
got biv?
I look forward to voting tomorrow. One thing I am thankful for is that I can demand a paper ballot instead of the standard electronic (Diebold) one. I urge everyone who votes tomorrow to ask for a paper ballot, even if they are not available just to make a statement.
Even if you live in a state that is clearly going to one candidate or another, your voice will help add to how strong your state's voice is.
Also don't forget all the local items, where your voice typically is much louder.
And finally, remember that you're not just voting for a candidate, but for all their support staff. For example, a vote for Bush is also a vote for Michael Powell, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and all the other people that come along for the ride. Not to mention that the next president will likely select one or more supreme court justices.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
But Badnarik is a bloody nutcase.
Blowing up the UN within a week of taking office? How does that work with the strong property rights stance of the Libertarian party? "We're all for the government respecting your property, unless we don't like you, then we'll confiscate it and blow it up?" His plan isn't legal, let alone practical or within his authority as President
The Federal Income Tax is illegal? Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy? Has he read the constitution? Does he understand that the President doesn't wield this kind of power?
Based on his tendancy to advocate this kind of crap, my only conclusion is that Badnarik has even less respect for the whole of the constitution than the two major party's candidates.
Recommend the link if you would like (or don't mind) votes transferred from Bush to Peroutka (Constitution Party).
Unfortunately, because the reporters on TV can't ask good questions, all I know about this issue is that Kerry won't appoint anyone who says they are pro-life and Bush doesn't have a yes/no test but tries to pick Justices who interpret the Constitution strictly.
So basically, we don't know anything useful about what's almost definately the most important issue long term. Anyone have any useful links they can post?
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Call me cynical, but if the next president appoints 3-4 supreme court justices, I don't think either one will attempt to "keep" the balance. Of course, if Kerry is elected, and the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, he will have a much harder time getting his ideal candidates on the bench. In fact, I suspect that future nominations will make the Bork and Thomas nominations look tame.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I wouldn't say the tax itself is illegal, but some of the methods the IRS has used in its collection definitely are.
That's nice, but we're not here to discuss you're beliefs on the Federal Income Tax. It is Badnarik's position that the constitution does not provide sufficient basis for a Federal Income Tax, which stands in stark defiance of the constitution as written and the intended ability of the Supreme Court as ultimate interpreter of it. It's one thing to run on a platform of repealing the 16th ammendmant as a means of scrapping the income tax, but I don't see how running on a platform of "The parts of the constitution I don't agree with I will ignore" is any better than the crap we're getting right now from the major parties.
Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?
I'd prefer a President who was capable of respecting the constitution.
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 fail to see why that justifies Badnarik's (apparent) belief that the executive should weild even more power than it does now, let alone why libertarians everywhere should flock to vote for a man whose platform contradicts not only basic libertarian ideals, but also the constitution itself.
(yes, I really do believe that a sufficient number of people in this country are fanatical enough to do those things)
the point is this - no matter who wins (or appears to win, or is chosen), the country is still in a mess. our economy is a disaster with massive government deficits that drastically increase our effective tax rate (because so much of our taxes are spend on interest on the debt) and huge growing trade deficits. we're fighting an expensive, unwinnable war that has killed over a hundred thousand people so far, with no end in sight. by doing so we've turned most of the world against us, which will surely have repercussions in trade and other areas eventually. if we back out of this war the result could be a civil war in Iraq which might spread to other countries in the region.
during this election, a huge portion of our own citizens have demonstrated a startling inability to evaluate input and reason intelligently about it. we are a nation of addicts - to consumption of consumer goods, to petroleum, to carbohydrates, to meaningless stimulation of various kinds, to alcohol and drugs, to the idea that we're superior to other people. our mainstream press has become essentially useless at informing our choices as voters and citizens. our elected officials are almost universally corrupt - sacrificing our interests to those of wealthy benefactors, and our processes for electing them are highly vulnerable to manipulation through various means.
what, if anything, can we do about these problems?
I've often been criticised by fellow liberals when I espouse the idea that you should have to take a test before being allowed to vote. A simple fact based test e.g.
Amendment x will do which of the following:
a - change the wording of the state constitution regarding property tax
b - require me to sign over my firstborn child
c - change the wording of the state constitution regarding employment rules
If they can't get that right, they don't get to vote on that issue, move on to the next one.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
After reading your reply, I'm reminded of a Fake Campaign ad where they parody what the Bush Administration would say about Jesus if he were running for president against G.W. Bush:
link
I think it covers what you said in your reply almost word for word.
And kudos for you for standing up for what YOU believe in, not what they tell you to.
I'm a Republican in Arizona. All the Republicans in my office, my family, and immediate friends are voting against Bush. I don't anticipate Arizona going Blue this election, but I am very curious to see how the numbers come out.
For the record, I work in financial software, and most of our employees are software engineers or have advanced degrees in Economics. The office was universally for Bush in 2000 and against in 2004.
It's the economy. There is no issue more pressing.
As someone commented earlier around the watercooler, we'll have plenty of time to discuss gay-marriage and stem-cell research when we're a third-world nation.
-Hope
It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views.
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?
I don't believe that the first quote really could ever mean "don't talk about politics." You missed the point, totally. The parent poster said that it's important that you don't get stupid when you talk about politics.
Your blustering is a good example of stupid political discussion. Everyone knows why we should talk politics, but everyone should know that it should be discussed intelligently. There should be acceptance of all viewpoints. There should not be the mud slinging that occurs in the media. The discussion should revolve around actual political concepts, not news postings, he-said-she-said stuff, people dying, or any of that, since that only serves to raise an emotional and typically irrational response.
Instead of talking about 1,000 troops dying in the middle east and asia, the discussion should be foriegn policy. Instead of homosexual marriage / union, there should be a discussion of civil rights and separation of church and state. It's more important that we resolve what we want to happen, then finding a way to make that happen. This can really only be approached on a conceptual basis, not by hollow posturing on how much a certain detail sucks, or by yelling and screaming about how more brain-dead one candidate is over the other.
Here are a few suggestions for good conversation:
There's a whole lot more topics to talk about, but those are general enough to get something started. They also manage to fall outside the bounds of partisan thinking, which should invite intelligent thought instead of red-faced finger waving.
That's just my $.02
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Thought experiment. A device for the artificial insemination of an egg has been set up. This device has been setup to perform its function in one hour. The effectiveness of the device is complete: allowing the device to run unhindered will bring about the inevitable result that a human egg is fertilized and embryo is created. Using the bizarro rules of logic that infect your reality, what is the status of the device as its timer ticks towards zero? Is it an "unborn person"? Does the inevitability constructed result in personhood of any form? What are the moral implications of a person stopping the device before the timer expires?
What have you to say about your "abortion == murder" argument?
XML causes global warming.