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

Remember!

[Leroy_Brown242]

Vote early! Vote Often!

Ob.

[mcmonkey]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

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?

Re:Voting for Badnarik

[LMCBoy]

If the decision was in doubt, I'd certainly vote Kerry

You should vote Kerry then, because AZ is in play. I'm in AZ too; voter turnout can make the difference here.

A Thought

[TheMeuge]

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

Please....

[Solder Fumes]

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.

Re:Please....

[I'm Spartacus!]

if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.

Unless they told you to vote against Bush. Then it's OK!

Re:Please....

[Luciq]

I agree. This is essentially letting others get multiple votes through you, which is obviously unfair when phrased as such. My sister, for example, is wholly clueless when it comes to politics "I don't even pay attention to that stuff..."

But is she voting? Yes!

For who? Bush!

And why??? "I just vote for whoever Dad tells me to vote for."


Sweet succulent Jesus save us all...

Wrong candidates

[supun]

Can I vote for the judges who will decide this election instead?

Re:Who does OBL want in power?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

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.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Rei]

Don't worry. All of these stories will go away after the election and subsequent four-week recount and 2 month healing period. :P

Should you vote?

[chill]

And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.

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 /.? 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?

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Frymaster]

it's a shame you can't just go and create your own website that meets your demanding personal requirements...

oh wait, you can.

That's business

[NitsujTPU]

Yeah, I'm sad to see the direction that /. has taken on many fronts.

I moved over to K5 a few years ago, and the same thing happened, only quicker.

Then I started reading /. again, because at least it hadn't gone as far as K5 had.

That said, the reason for all of this is the expanded readership of /. 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.

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, /. gets to make their cash, and you get a nifty flag to supress this garbage.

Re:That's business

[stromthurman]

And after just double checking to make sure the preference still didn't work, I discovered, it now does. So kindly disregard this message.

And to the mods, if you want to mod something informative, mod this post so people know the option is again available. My parent post is completely wrong now. (Except for getting cheap thrills from twisted panties)

Re:An Honest Question

[eln]

The best way to build up your party is to vote for them in local elections where they are more likely to be noticed, and maybe even win the election. You can also support them by championing their ideas in newspaper letters to the editor, op-eds, protests, and other such things. If the goal is really to push an agenda rather than to put a certain group of people in power, your best bet may be to try to influence one of the major parties to listen to your point of view, and maybe get them to adopt one of your pet issues as part of their platform.

Remember that in the end, all politics are local. You may have a better chance of your party's platform actually influencing your day to day life if you can manage to get them elected to a state or local office. If your party manages to gain control of a locality, and the quality of life in that locality improves, that will be a far more valuable PR tool then voting for them in a national election where they are only likely to get .01% of the vote anyway.

Politics of Slashdot

[slumpy]

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.

I just hate to read the politics section because I learn nothing, and gain no insight. I love the rest of /. though.

Re:Politics of Slashdot

[lifes a cluster]

Well, the total lack of a fruitful discussion about politics goes much further than just slashdot. You have your right wing / left wing nutbags (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) who will use any forum possible to bash the other side without admitting the faults of their own side. It's crazy, really.

I've had to pretty much stop watching the network news channels as of late, because it would seem that every time I turn to them, there's a liberal and conservative trying to talk over each other. It's just a nuisance!

I for one just can't wait for this election to be over. Of course I feel this way during every election. It seems that the politicians here just make the entire elections process a complete pain in the ass for the average American - just the entire thing of having to listen to others spout off at the mouth - often not even having a clue about what they're saying - is enough to make a normal person want to puke!

I say vote if you have conviction. Don't vote just because some moron media whore tells you to. Vote because YOU think you're doing the right thing.

Voting for the lesser of the two evils is a standard here in the US - I think that's due to the inherent evilness in the political system. Maybe if we were to get smart and have a voting system which allows us to rank candidates, something like:

1 - Yeah!!!
2 - I guess so
3 - ok
4 - damn.. better than nothing
5 - I'd rather eat the oppositions solid waste

that would make things a little better. Then you cast your ballot ranking the rank candidates in the order in which they least make you want to puke. Hell, maybe a third party candidate would have a chance this way. Who knows.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Jucius Maximus]

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

Re:Bush all the way...

[xutopia]

you should read the omissions made by CNN and Al Jahzeera in the transcripts! :)

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.

Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[LordZardoz]

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

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:Be patient...

[RazzleFrog]

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.

Re:Be patient...

[PostScience]

why is this the most important election of our lifetime(s)?

Of course we don't know what will happen in the future, but this election is important because:

• One candidate is a radical, whereas in past elections, both candidates were more or less moderate. (In 2000, most people thought Bush was a moderate)
• The winner will likely decide the composition of the Supreme Court for the next 20+ years.
• If Bush wins, Republicans will likely control all 3 branches of goverment, allowing for the most extreme changes since FDR.
• Military commitments made during the next 4 years could easily last decades.

Just my $0.02

Re:This "story" is click bait

[KilobyteKnight]

I agree. I would mod you up but I am only voting once this week.

Only once? You obviosuly aren't up on current voting techniques.

Re:Be patient...

[el_gordo101]

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.

And while you're out there

[meganthom]

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.

Well said

[TopShelf]

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...

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

Analysis of discussion so far

[HarveyBirdman]

Instances:

- 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.

Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils"

[Hooptie]

is voting for evil!

Regardless of how you try to justify your vote, a vote for a major candidate is a statement that you:

• Approve of that candidate
• Endorse that candidate's position(s)
• Want that candidate to be the next President of the United States!

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

2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry)

[Tangential]

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?

Re:This "story" is click bait

[torstenvl]

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.

George Bush ignores the way of Christ

[Larthallor]

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.

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 ... helping the poor?

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.

Re:Be patient...

[YrWrstNtmr]

How many "wartime elections" do you honestly think you'll be alive to participate in?

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.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[LSD-OBS]

Actually, I checked up on Foo Goo (id #98336) and he actually died 6 years ago

Re:An Honest Question

[micromoog]

Look at the issue in more than a black & white sense. Many people have the following two goals, in order of priority:

1. Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected.
2. Get Bush out of office.

In reality, voting for the 3rd party candidate contributes to the failure of both goals (goal 1 is already at 100% failure). Voting for Kerry leaves goal 1 at its predetermined failure state, but actually does something towards goal 2.

If you really don't care whether Bush or Kerry wins (keep in mind, one of the two is definitely going to), then this doesn't apply to you. But if you have any preference at all, it arguably makes sense to vote along that preference.