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.
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.
Don't worry. All of these stories will go away after the election and subsequent four-week recount and 2 month healing period. :P
POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
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.
oh wait, you can.
2 1337 4 u!
You can see the ads on Slashdot? You must be new here.
Join the Free Software Foundation
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.
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
I agree. I would mod you up but I am only voting once this week.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
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.
the reason they added a politics section is so you could add it to your filter list
love is just extroverted narcissism
Or perhaps political and technical issues are so intertwined that political discussion is valid on this site. Wiretapping. Copyright. DMCA. P2P. VoIP. Fair use. WiFi Security. Anti-spam/spyware laws. I think that debating and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each choice is important in the process of democracy. Geeks are as much subject to the US Government as anyone else.
- Not an American
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
Only once? You obviosuly aren't up on current voting techniques.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
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
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.
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
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.
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
Since when are law and politics not geek subjects? The Geek code includes a code for Jurisprudence. In addition, many political things have a lot to do with technology, par exemple, DMCA and Check 21, not to mention export laws that would basically outlaw Pentium 4s outside the U.S. without a specific munitions export license.
(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.
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.
You know, I figure those ads keep Slashdot going, so I let them through. If it was widely known that 95% of ads on Slashdot didn't make it to the screens of their intended audience, then advertisers wouldn't send their dollars here, ultimately making it really, really difficult for you to RTFA.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Actually, I checked up on Foo Goo (id #98336) and he actually died 6 years ago
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
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.
Out of curiosity, how does one go about doing that and supporting it without some sort of ad revenue coming in?
Faith about your skills and will to do things you require, young jedi. Do not let the dark side of profit descend upon you!You don't even have an user ID!!! you must be a terrorist!
"I think this line is mostly filler"
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
I bet Ballmer lives in the most expensive van by the river.
Now on related news, people should go out and vote, but not for a president, that part we are isolated by the electoral college, if you live in a prodimnantly republican state, your vote for a president does not matter.
However, you should vote on state and local issues, this is where your vote counts.
Also, remember that up to 4 supreme court justices are expected to retire in the next 4 years, which gives the next president a lot of clout over legal issues handled by the supreme court for the next 10-15 years (depending on justices that will be assigned by the president). At this point the supreme court is split with 1 judge leaning them towards more liberal views. With republicans you can expect conservative right wing nominations that will challange civil liberties and keep science down in favor of religion. Democrats will leans towards liberal judges that will allow stem cell research, medicinal marijuana, and such. The choice is yours as to which direction you want the country to go, but if we fall behind in scientific research, another country can take the lead and that tends to have a domino effect that affects our economy.
Think and vote.
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.
It's documented in many places that this administration & his Gang-o-thugs have wanted to go into Iraq for quite some time.
For example, just recently:
Info from Bush Ghost Writer (misleader.org)
Other articles to look at:
in 2000, Bush wanted to invade Iraq if elected
Neoconservative plan for global dominance
US Dollar vs the Euro: Another reason for the invasion of Iraq
US Rejected Peace offerings from Iraq and Afghanistan
Report Proves Bush Knew He Was Lying About Iraq
There are more, you just have to go look, and look beyond the distortion of facts that gets in the media and in the ads. (Neither party seems to care about real facts this election).
The only way you can believe that only liberal judges "legislate from the bench" is if you only call it legislating when a ruling goes against your political agenda.
Conservative judges don't have a lock on "strict constructionism." Rather, they simply have a different idea of which areas the government should be butting its nose into.
It wasn't the liberals in the Department of Justice who eroded states rights by deciding that California couldn't have its own medical marijuana laws. It's not liberal judges who are blithely ignoring the spirit and letter of the Constitution by allowing the administration to detain prisoners without bringing them to trial. It wasn't a liberal Supreme Court which stepped in and stopped the Florida recounts.
As far as I'm concerned, when a Republican starts griping about "activist judges," they mean "judges whose rulings come down on the liberal side of the aisle."
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!