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.

Comments

Voting for Badnarik

[Liselle]

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?

A Thought

[TheMeuge]

Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything.
------------------(Joseph Stalin)

Re:Be patient...

[the morgawr]

The election is important because Supreme Court Nominations come in batches. So whoever is president is going to get to appoint a batch of new justices which will impact the legal system and our basic rights for years to come. This issue is more likely to affect life then anything about health care, socicial security, or the war on terrorism.

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?

Re:Well said

[Slime-dogg]

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:

• Should the US take an isolationist foriegn policy? What defines isolationist? Should it be that way, or exclusionist, or completely open?
• Where is the line between governmental power and the rights of the citizen? What should it be?
• What is the responsibility that every man has to everyone else? Why should it be this way? Should the government have any responsibility for taking care of it's citizens? How would the proposed answer be possible, and why?
• What is the individual's responsibility to the environment? Is it something individuals should be concerned with, or is it something that only the government should deal with?

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