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.
Vote early! Vote Often!
Pretty Pictures!
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'll just be glad when this whole stupid thing is over. I'm so sick of all of the election coverage.
I look forward to seeing who won the election sometime in late December.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
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."
Let's do some unscientific polling.
P e)routka
B )rowne di
Introducing 'Geek Code Election 2004'.
VOTE
(Bu)ush
(Ke)erry
(Bk)dnarik
(Na)der
(
PARTY AFFILIATION
(R)epublican
(D)emocrat
(G)reen
(
(C)onstitution
(L)ibertarian
(W)hig
(J)
You work it out, I don't know.
CONFIDENCE
++ Like candidate a lot
+ Like candidate
X Neutral about candidate
- Don't like candidate, but voting for them
-- Really don't like candidate, but voting for them
# Better than incumbent.
and state. Group multiple elements in parens.
I'm a Ke(X#)DVA.
REMEMBER TO YANNO, VOTE TOMORROW ALSO, SLASHDOT DOESN'T COUNT
Even while in France last week.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything.
------------------(Joseph Stalin)
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.
Can I vote for the judges who will decide this election instead?
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).
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?
Yeah, I'm sad to see the direction that /. has taken on many fronts.
/. again, because at least it hadn't gone as far as K5 had.
/. The only reason that politics is such a popular topic here is because the demographic changed. /. didn't change their ideals so much (any site that becomes a business is there to make money guys), the readership changed and obviously wants these stories.
/. gets to make their cash, and you get a nifty flag to supress this garbage.
I moved over to K5 a few years ago, and the same thing happened, only quicker.
Then I started reading
That said, the reason for all of this is the expanded readership of
By modifying your preferences, however, you can remove all of the politics stories from your front page. Think about it, by having a politics section,
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.
Not many people are going to even comment except rabid liberals, rabid conservatives, and rabid liberterians. And they are going to argue and argue and argue to try to turn the other to their side (which is impossible).
Of course, there will be some jokes, but those will drown in a poll of foaming at the mouth arguments when this story hits about 2k comments.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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.
These days it seems that more and more people can't be bother to even contact their representative or mayor to voice an opinion on issues that really matter. (examples in DC include lack of voting representation, gun ban repeal, stadium taxes, bad schools, etc). Instead they rely on a vocal minority who *sometimes* do the talking for them. This is the sort of apathy that leads to the atrophying of our civil liberties. When you can't be bothered to protest the Patriot Act (or even pay attention to it) you are basically giving your right to complain without being hypocritical. In the best scenario somebody fights for you, in the worst somebody will suffer trying to regain those liberties later on.
With corporations spending millions of dollars to trump your opinion, a single vote is a powerful thing. Think of it as your way of spending millions in one afternoon. I hope that everyone who votes tomorrow will become more involved in the political process and write your representative about the issues that may matter to you.
I can't vote (not a US citizen) but basing your idea solely on the purported "fact" that Bin Laden supports Kerry you may shoot yourself in the foot.
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
Recommend the link if you would like (or don't mind) votes transferred from Bush to Peroutka (Constitution Party).
I'm right. You're Wrong.
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)
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
Not for Supreme Court Justices, we can't. They are appointed for life. 3 (or 4) appointements could mean 20-30 years worth of left or right leaning influence in the highest court, depending on the winner of this election.
TODO: Insert witty sig
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.
You might want to follow these tips outlined by electoral-vote:
Find out today where your polling place is by calling your county clerk or checking mypollingplace.com
Alternatively, call 1-866-MYVOTE1 to find your polling place.
Check the hours the polls are open with your city or county clerk.
Print the League of Women Voters' card in English or Spanish and put it in your wallet or purse.
Bring a government-issued picture ID like a driver's license or passport when you vote. Some states require it but if there are problems, you will certainly need it. If you have a cell phone, take it to call for help if need be.
As you enter the polls, note if there is an Election Protection person outside the polling place.
If you are not listed as a registered voter, try to register on the spot. Some states allow that. Otherwise, talk to the Election Protection person if there is one or call 1-866-OUR-VOTE for instructions. If neither of these helps, ask for a provisional ballot, but you will need a picture ID to get one.
According to Democracy Now, voting tricks abound in states like Florida and Ohio, so try to arm yourself (against both sides) if you live in one of these states.
Live free or die
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.
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
www.votepair.org
(depending on who you think is less evil...)
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Bush has done more to roll back our constitutional rights than any president in history.
It might pay to know a little bit of history before you spout off your ignorant blather. Anything that Bush has supposedly done pales in comparison to what Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) actually did during WWII. Look up United States Executive Order 9066 and read about the over 112,000 American Citizens that were detained during the Japanese American Internment.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
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?
- Mindless slogans: 93,451
- Ideological smog: 878,102
- Lies: 200,289
- Conspiracy theories: 1,623,933
- Trying to reduce the mind-numbing complexity of the modern world into a two step process for global utopia: 890,105
- Urban myths: 115,936
- Party line mantras: 278,102
- Thoughtful content: 3
- Snotty instance analysis: 1
Here's a better way to vote. Those of you supporting Kerry slit your wrists. Those of you supporting Bush shoot yourselves in the head. We'll count the classify the corpses accurately. Honestly. We will. Really.
Reason magazine had the best cover. It showed a picture of Bush and one of Kerry. The cover said, "Good news. One of these guys is going to lose. Bad news. One of these guys is going to win."
Keep drinking the Kool-aid, folks. Hopefully the ELE asteroid is coming soon to put an end to all this.
Go ahead. Mod me flamebait while marking the "BushKerry is a poopiehead who wants to eat my baby/kitten/grandma" posts as +99 Insightful.
--- Ban humanity.
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
Personally I think the politics section, or at least its implementation, was a mistake. It's become painfully obvious that the majority of slashdot readers are left leaning. That in itself would not be a problem, but what ends up happening in every discussion is that people mod based on their political beliefs and not on the logic they are supposed to mod by. Further, the original topics also lean very left. It's impossible to have a fair discussion on slashdot without sifting through many more messages than you would in most other sections of the site, due to the slanted moderation.
:(
And most importantly to me, this is "News for Nerds". Too many of the political news posts have nothing to do with technology, IT, or nerd culture. If the politics section just covered things like the DMCA and CANSPAM act, it'd be different (even if it was still totally leftist).
It just feels like more and more slashdot is moving away from "News for Nerds" in the more general sense, and I don't like it. If I wanted regular news I'd go to a regular news site, not slashdot. And especially not a section of slashdot where "BUSH IS DUMB !" gets +5 insightful.
AC because no one will read this anyway and they'll just mark it -1 Troll.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
Why vote for a lesser evil?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
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.
Sadly, for the last 60 years, most of them.
2004 - Iraq
2000 -
1996 - Kuwait/Iraq/Bosnia
1992 - Desert Storm
1988 - Panama & Iran/Iraq
1984 - Grenada
1980 - Iran hostages
1976 -
1972 - Vietnam
1968 - Vietnam
1964 - Vietnam
1960 - Cuban takeover by Castro
1956 - Suez
1952 - Korea
1948 - Berlin airlift and WWII aftermath
1944 - WWII
Not all on the scale of the one we have now, but all significant military actions quite near the election.
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?
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
From what I have seen, this site is about 80/20 in favor of removing Bush and maybe 60/40 in favor of Kerry, at best. OK, so let's assume Bush wins, or at least is declared winner in time for January 20th. What are you going to do?
The usual post-60's liberal "progressive" answer is ... well, nothing. Is that what you are planning? Come on now, at least 40% of the country is actively against Bush. What would happen if 5 million people showed up on the Mall for the inaguration ceremony? To protest, to stop it, to prevent Bush from taking office? Are there no liberal progressives out there with any stomach for what they believe in? Or, is this all a fantasy Internet game where everyone goes home after the election with "well, we tried." and forgets about it until Hillary runs in 2008?
Come on, this country has gotten entirely too boring. If Kerry wins I am sure we are going to see some excitement - because Kerry will take a poll before deciding which side of the bed to get out of in the morning and will "defend" against terrorism by saying we would put them on trial if only we could catch them. Absolute prescription for some interesting times.
On the other hand, if Bush wins I will be truely saddened to see all the liberal progressive whiners crawling back into their holes to wait for the next election where "they can make a difference."
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.
"If we're not careful managing the world opinion of our country, the oil market could change from using the dollar to using the euro."
Which Saddam was trying to do... The France/Iraq oil agreements were denominated in euros.
It's also worth noting that the oil market switching from dollars to euros would tend to push other markets from dollars to euros. If that happened, we would lose our trade deficit (the trade deficit is based on our ability to buy foreign goods with dollars because we have the de facto world currency; if we stop having the de facto world currency, then there is no reason for people to accept dollars for their goods). Further, we might have to run a trade surplus, since people would tend to want to switch their old dollars for the new world currency.
Some might argue that it would be good to run a surplus: jobs all around! What they are missing is that the goods we could trade are not the ones in industries where people are out of work. Further, we would have less goods to distribute, so our wages would fall (causing additional layoffs in service industries like retail).
Until 3 years ago, I was a lifelong resident of Massachusetts. Kerry was my senator for 16 years. I cannot remember a single thing he did for the residents of Massachusetts. In fact, my memories of Kerry are exclusively linked to one or another of his political campaigns.
I cannot tell you what Kerry stands for or what he is against. I cannot tell you if he has any sincerely-held beliefs at all. I do believe he feels very strongly about being elected and reelected to political positions.
I voted for Bush in the last election. Now I have the misfortune of living in swing-state Ohio where I am inundated with political ads. It is SO BAD that I could not even have a family party this past weekend without having it interrupted by someone out politicking door-to-door. I could not believe my ears when I took a recent business trip to New York City and heard a commercial by the Ohio Democratic Party soliciting contributions so it could run more ads in Ohio, specifically Cleveland! That is simply outrageous.
I hate a lot of things that have happened in this country since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Although I hate the attacks themselves, it annoys me that anyone who sufered or died in that attack is proclaimed as a "hero." The people who were killed were VICTIMS of MURDERERS. Heros (like the firefighters and police that day) are people who make a choice to act. Most of the victims never had an opportunity to choose. If the mis-labeling were the extent of things, I would be silent now. However, many have changed the label from victim to hero and then used the memory of "heroes" for their own ends. THAT IRKS THE HELL OUT OF ME.
What are those ends? Mostly monetary gain. Also, there is a fair share of power-brokering. How many pieces of legislation (especially pork-barrel appropriations bills) now are promoted as necessary for national security? In the meantime, federal spending is up, costs are up, unemployment is up, freedoms are down.
When Bush signs legislation that erodes fundamental Constitutional Rights like the PATRIOT Act, I get irked as well. Irked to the point of even calling my Congressional Representatives and letting my opinions be known. Sometimes I even wish there was someone else running things who would stop this erosion. Unfortunately, the John Kerry I am used to is not that person.
I think Kerry would make things even worse by increasing federal spending more and raising taxes. Any amount of dislike I have for an incumbent is usually not enough for me to vote for an opponent. Kerry simply has never shown me any reason to be FOR him. At least I know what Bush is likely to do and when it comes to those things I care about, I feel like there is a better alternative in expressing my sentiments about those issues rather than replacing Bush with someone I consider to be a wild card.
Kerry had almost 20 years to show me something. I doubt I would find that something if he had 4 more years in Washington.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
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
Nobody will read this, because there are already over 1700 comments on this story. But there's now an - apparently - complete transcript of the full 16 minutes of bin Laden's recent video available on al-Jazeera's website.
:)
There's some interesting content that doesn't feature in the shorter transcripts. And (more interestingly for me) - this was released at 1pm GMT today. Why are the major media sites not covering it?
(NB: moderators, this is clearly relevant to the US election