Slashdot Mirror
Election Day Discussion
With the polls now already open in most of the country, this is the official on-topic place for all Slashdot readers to discuss the election itself. And get out and vote if you can. Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election. I'm off to vote in a couple hours. Wonder if we'll have Diebolds in my district.
A place to talk politics that will start off intelligently, and end in a bloodbath where only the extreme sides remain.
And no one will change their mind, regardless.
WHAT FUN!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
May whatever forces that keep us moving toward whateverness please please please put Kerry into office. Not because I think he's a better man, but he's hella better than Bush.
Adian
It can't be said enough times: Americans! Please go vote! Voting is a right you get to keep by the very act of exercising it.
don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years
vodka, straight up, thank you!
i think not. I'm all for 3rd partys and everything, but the they are much more effective at the local level where they can have an impact.
Mikey
I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
I've been wanting to get this off my chest for a while now, and what better forum for this than slashdot.
We have an election system here in the US that attempts to count every vote. At some point they stop counting and announce the final results.
Anyway, we learned 4 years ago (and are learning this time too) that the vote is not accurate. It is error prone and sometimes subjective. But I haven't seen anyone attempt to quantify the level of error in the voting process? Why hasn't there been some academic or impartial attempt to measure the margin of error in our polling.
Why is this important? Because if you don't know the margin of error, then you don't know what the outcome is. Period. If Bush reports 51% to Kerry 49% and the margin of error is 5%, then we don't know who won the election. It's a statistical tie and anyone who announces a winner is at best foolish.
> For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Someone said to me that, if you are living in an area where the vote is more or less decided (such as a very strong Bush locale, or a very strong Kerry locale), especially if you are voting the other way from the general populus, then don't waste your vote on either the Bush or Kerry side. Instead, vote for one of the smaller parties - if they receive 5% of the vote, then their funding is increased, and they may be able to work on something good in your area.
This doesn't follow in all counties, just in those that are very very strongly Bush or Kerry, and you are voting the other way. 'Cos if you vote the other way, you vote will more or less be lost.
Finally, no matter which way you are thinking of voting, go out and vote. If you don't know who to vote for, then vote for a 3rd party. But cast your vote!
T.
If you have any problems at your polling place, call the Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683). This is not the time for complaisance.
to all the candidates who are running today. I sincerely hope that the "best" candidate wins.
One of my even greater hopes is that whoever loses will concede and allow the victor to take the publicly appointed position. Especially in the presidential race. I feel that this country should unite under the leadership of the president regardless of who they voted for, but whoever was elected. The electoral college, given power by the people, gets to decide who the president of the United States will be for the next four years, for good or ill. I hope and pray that whoever wins will have the courage and fortitude to lead us in the next few years. I also hope and pray the "loser" will have the courage to admit defeat and let the country move forward.
We may not particularly like the choices, but let's be the best people we can be and progress from there. Best of luck/karma!!!
This gets moderated as 0, Troll? What exactly is wrong this opinion? While I do think Libertarians tend to be closet-anarchist nut jobs, this isn't a troll. It's just an expression of a political opinion, which is what this thread is about, isn't it? I mean, it's not like he was saying "For meaningful change, the only choice is GNAA Lysol!" That would have been a troll, but I don't see how this is.
Signature.
Just look at all the machines that had hundreds of votes in them even before voting started. These elections are a complete fraud, they are thoroughly corrupted.
Why bother voting? Just get out there and riot.
Oh great, another rumor from Matt whatever-gets-hits Drudge.
Yes I voted, but I honestly don't understand why I bothered. I live in a state that is as far from battleground as possible and voted for the 'other guy' When the electoral college takes over and casts their lot with the overwhelming majority here my vote will be thrown on the floor. Ignored.
I don't see how I am not being disenfranchised here. Yes I know slashdot leans toward the liberal side, but it can't be that hard to understand how I feel... Voting Republican in New York is the same as voting Democratic in Texas. You don't count. When it's all said and done, you simply don't count. I can't be the only person who feels this way. Why is my voice meaningless simply due to some silly boundary drawn on a map? Can anybody give me a good reason why we don't use the popular vote... aside from the fact that politicians will no longer be able to ignore those of us in states that aren't 'battleground' ones?
and SHAME on Colorado for turning down that bill that would split their EC votes based on the popular vote. Give yourself a voice people!
I can't be the only person who feels this way.
Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?
Yes, indeed, which is why Badnarik is the only logical choice. Kerry certainly isn't a logical choice because:
So, again, for meaningful change, the only choice is Badnarik.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
I don't like Bush very much, he seems too willing to sell my freedom in the name of security (and being one of the "he who would surrender freedom for security deserves neither" crowd, it's a sticking point for me. I don't like Kerry, either; I think he's promised too much this election. I do want to see the things he's proposed come to fruition (better education/healthcare, decreasing the defecit), but I doubt whether it can really be done. But more than that, I distrust a single-party goverment. The House and Senate will go to the Republicans--the system so strongly favors incumbants that it's only likely to shift a few seats. Pair that with a Bush presidency, and you've got two thirds of government covered. On top of that, at least 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices are likely to retire, and with a willing legislature, Bush can act carte blanche in his appointment of the most extremely conservative judges he's able to find. That's the entire federal government dominated by the right. Put Kerry in instead, watch what happens: Congress and the President will have to fight for every inch on their agendas and when Supreme Court appointments come around, Kerry will have to look more toward the middle for his judges, belaying fears about him appointing from the far left. If it works, it works great. If it doesn't work, it's deadlock. But I'd rather have deadlock than giving my government over to the agenda of a single party, left or right.
Drudge is NOT a reliable source of news, information, links, ANYTHING.
He's very much right wing. That and he's a closet case (read Blinded by the Right by David Brock).
If you think you are informed when you read Drudge, you are dead wrong.
KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE
They know the true costs of war. And they realize when it's really neccessary.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And you really think things are that different with Kerry? He comes from the same background and are even cousins, albeit quite a few branches apart. Hell, they are even frat brothers (if you consider the skulls a fraternity). No, this election truly is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
That's interesting, considering that there are only 529 electoral votes to be won.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Sure, us non-Americans care more deeply. We can't change it! We're scared shitless that the American people are going to do the same as last time and vote in a moral-free, low-IQ weasel, just bcos he says he's a "wartime president" - when the only war on is Iraq and HE created it!
Grab.
How is it possible to see what people in front of you vote? Certainly here in Ireland, and I had assumed in most other democracies, one secretly marks one's ballot in a screened off area, and then places it folded up into a ballot box. I.E. it's a secret ballot.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
The government can now hold you indefinitely without trial. Rich people are richer, the deficit is skyrocketing, we've invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 Iraqis...
Or did you mean POSITIVE, meaningful change?
I'm voting Kerry. I like his lies better.
paintball
While we're on the topic of comedians' opinions, check this out (links to a webcomic with bad words, if that matters to you).
You'll already recognize this if you read SSDD, but if not, I think that he hits the nail right on the head. Think about why you're voting for your guy when you go vote. Think if your vote is "thrown away" if you live in a swing state and you vote for a 3rd party. Think about what you'll think of how you voted in 10 years. Get informed and get to the polls, ensure that they do everything properly at the polling place and if not, there's a number to call about it! Hope you don't have to use a Diebold machine, and lastly, remember that half the people will be upset no matter who wins the election but life will go on.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
No
If you are a member of a democracy you should always make your opinion heard.
Tell your President, Prime minister, governor premier mayor, MP, MEP, MPP, senator congressman, alderman, councillor etc what you want.
Their job is to represent you, and work in the best interest of their consitiuents and the area as a whole.
To do this they MUST know your opinions.
If you were them and lots of people write/tell you what they want, don't you think that might influence your stance on issues?
If the politicians really thought they wouldn't get re-elected if they voted for the invasion of Iraq, they wouldn't have authorized it.
With recall legislation becoming more popular this is even more important.
Even Bush would get a little nervous if people started recalling their Republican Governors to replace them with Democrats.
FWIW I emailed my MP (Federal representative) about a do not call registry, his assistant emailed back the letter my MP had previously sent requesting such legislation.
Get your country back.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Badnairk is badass...
Badnarik has good credentials as a geek, and I'd probably hire him for a programming or systems administration job, but he has no political experience whatsoever. Hell, he wasn't even able to get himself elected to the TEXAS House of Representives. If he (and the Libertarian party in general) are serious about getting into the White House, they need to set their sights a little lower at first: GET PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. *ANY* OFFICE. Local level, state level, whatever. School boards, town/county council, state legislatures, judgeships, etc. This serves two purposes: it shows people that Libertarians actually *can* work with the system and it gives the office-holders actual EXPERIENCE to run for higher office.
Even more importantly, if and when they are actually able run a serious Gubenatorial or Presidential candidate, that person when elected will actually have a BASE OF SUPPORT in the legislative and judicial branches. You can't change the system from the top-down; you have to work from the bottom up.
IMHO the most effective place for the LP to start is getting some Libertarian Judges elected. Judgeships are usually not as highly disputed as Legislative or Executive offices, but they hold a LOT of power. A Libertarian-controlled judiciary would be in the position to check the worst execesses perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
"SWVFT"
Why do you think these guys are exclusively right-wing? You don't think that members of both parties from Vietnam hate John Kerry for painting them as baby-killing war criminals? Some of what SBVFT is true, a lot of it is lie or stretching the truth. But I think it stems from a hatred of John Kerry's characterization of them. I mean really, John Kerry's own "band of brothers" photo that he used early in his campaign is composed almost entirely of SBVFT members.
"Diebold"
What does this have to do with the right?
"and this"
You mean preventing people who might be double-voting from voting twice? The "get out the vote" rallies of ACORN and ACT have produced tens or hundreds of thousands of bad voter registrations.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Which takes a lot of air out of the theory that the major parties will make substantial changes to appeal to independents. Some of these independents are forever going to say "So the two major parties are running Mother Teresa and Stalin? They're just the same, lesser of two evils. That's not a choice! My candidate is the only real choice!"
It's hard to imagine two more completely opposite candidates than Bush and Kerry. If you don't find this a meaningful choice, you will not find any election a meaningful choice- so there is absolutely no reason for the parties to try to get your vote.
This is when normally virulent assholes on either side can make themselves feel better by saying such crap as "it doesn't matter as long as you vote" and similar bromides. It's the equivalent of the Southern-US "bless your heart", where if you tack it onto the worst insult, it cancels out. "Bush? He's an asshole, bless his heart." "Kerry? He's an unabashed socialist, bless his heart."
I say to all of you rabid, two-party-endorsing, Statist votemongers: Fuck you. YOU'RE trying to perpetuate the myth that there's any kind of control over the system, to prolong the amount of time you can crow on your dungheap.
I say to everyone still with some shred of independent thought: Shrug. Don't vote. Don't pay a dime more in taxes, voluntary welfare contributions or government sleeze than you have to without threat to your person. Don't let them pretend that we all agree that today is a wonderfully warm fuckfest.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I guess facts aren't really important when you're just trying to fan flames, though.
(Before I get into it, I agree with what you say about the whole base of support. In this election, there are over 1,000 other LP candidates running for local, state, and national offices around the country.)
According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:
Not having held office before has nothing to do with being a good president. Perhaps the reason nothing changes is because we keep electing people who are already acclimated to "the system." While Badnarik might lack political experience, he far exceeds both baBush and Kerry in constitutional scholarship. (I think you would agree that Bush doesn't know crap about the Constitution, and Kerry isn't much better, having voted for the PATRIOT Act.)
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
North Carolina is not yet decided. Almost every Bush state is up in the air, depending on the turnout of America's youth. I'm 21 and living in Wilmington. It pains me to see the elderly voting to send us young people off to war, but if my peers decide to show up this year, we can decide our futures for ourselves.
While I am by no means accusing your of any wrongdoing, I understand how even what seems like such a minor detail or error on someones part (transcribing a 0 to a 1) may be used for vote fraud:
Consider an unscrupulous individual who wishes commit fraud. That person could register to vote using 10 differnt permutations on his legitimate address. Thus to anyone cross-checking the registration rolls, it might slip by in that the names are the same but the addresses are all different. On election day, this idividual might be able to go to each of the different precincts that he registered in, pull out a perfectly form of ID and and in each case make the argument that there must have been a mistake. I don't think this would be easy to pull-off, and it isn't exactly what you describe (your address was correct on your voter registration card) but it is at least conceivable...
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
the way I see it, I'm not voting for a governor of New York. Why should I be lumped in together with the others voting here? I'm not voting with issues like Upstate vs NYC development or Thruway upkeep on my mind. I'm voting with things like Stem Cell research, Iraqi Policy, and national economy in mind.
when you get to the votes that COUNT, mine is gone. My vote is thrown away in an unnecessary granularity switch.
If you intend to cast a paper ballot today, please be ready for an adventure. This morning in Santa Clara, Vickie and I signed in the way we always do and requested paper ballots. Hilarity ensued: attempting to vote on paper caused a flurry of activity: oh-no-you're-not, you-have-to-vote-with-the-machine, what's-your-major-malfunction-mister, and other clucking noises. (Cory Doctorow had something about this in BoingBoing on October 18th, which was dead on.)
There was no "votamatic" machine for paper ballots any longer; we had to enter a plain brown cardboard voting station that looked exactly like a refrigerator carton and mark our ballots with a pen. (Pen not supplied; bring your own.) I was first in line; after marking my ballot I approached the desk and asked the Nice Lady on the end if I should put it into the box. She nodded and smiled at me, so in it went.
Then I turned to look at Vickie and the rest of the line and noticed they all had big pink envelopes to put their ballots into when they were done. A tiny peanut-sized bulb flickered to life inside my brain. I went to the stack and checked, and sure enough: the big pink envelope said PROVISIONAL BALLOT on it. It had several choices to check: you had no ID, you had moved after the registration deadline, or were Otherwise Unclean. The Other Nice Lady--the one who had her act together--was making everybody who voted on paper seal it inside the provisional ballot envelope, even though there was no "I HAVE BEEN REGISTERED VOTER IN THIS PRECINCT SINCE 1987 AND I AM CHOOSING TO VOTE ON PAPER DAMMIT" box to check.
Further hilarity ensued: Vickie is a lawyer with a long history of political activism, so there was much back-and-forth between her and the Other Nice Lady, who then got on the phone with Headquarters and came back with the following ruling: we were all to mark our paper ballots, seal them in pink envelopes, and don't worry about filling out our names and addresses on the envelopes. Somehow--the nebulous theory goes--the election workers will be able to magically detect the paper ballots filled out by properly identified voters and pull them out to be counted tonight.
We left the station feeling VERY unsure that our votes would be counted.
If I was a busy election worker tonight, I'd just grab all those pink envelopes and heave them into the Provisional stack. And if I was the guy at the Provisional Counting Station, I'd have to seriously consider trashing all those envelopes without names and addresses filled in on the form on the outside. That's the point of a provisional ballot envelope, after all: to make it possible for them to verify your right to vote.
Random 500 and 503 errors notwithstanding, I don't know about that, in a sense. Regardless of who's elected today, the country will continue to muddle through. We always have before, and I don't sense a sea change in that respect - there is a fairly sizeable contingent of folks in this country who aren't quaking in their boots at the thought of either man inhabiting the White House, something that partisans on both sides tend to forget in their relentless drive to demonize the other fellow.
For whatever reason, there were a ton of people just staring at that one placard. Noone demonstrating, saying anything, but just staring and thinking.
Wow. Wish I was there.
Stay safe.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well. Iraq is being a terrorist training ground and numerous caches of weapons remain ungaurded by US troops. The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries.
I would urge you to look at what you have written and ask yourself if the war in Iraq has helped counter your points, or if it has made them worse. I think a truly honest look will show you that we are worse off for actions.
One final note is that, as Bin Laden himself said in the most recent videotape, one of Al-Qaeda's goals is to suck resources from the US. Bush's policies have furthered that aim far better than Al-Qaeda could have dreamed. The constantly changing terror alerts and efforts to protect every nook and cranny are draining State, Local, and Federal coffers at a prodigious rate. That coupled with the constant fear mongering has also led to a hampered economy.
Even if you believe starting the war was justified, surely you would agree that we ought to start fighting it smarter?
"But right now we're feeling scared, confused, and angry about what your President has lead you to do over the past three years."
You think you're scared? I feel like I've been strapped into the back seat of an out of control taxi driven by a madman, helplessly watching him mow down people on the sidewalk.
Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.
Thank you, Watson. Of course, since Kerry's own voting record says he voted for the war, I will trust that instead.
If Kerry didn't want the president to go to war, then he shouldn't have voted to give the president unilateral power to make war. Kerry's argument that he voted "only for war as a last resort" is like saying he cut a branch off a tree, but he didn't make it fall to the ground.
Good argument: "Everybody else did it too!" And so what if the GOP labeled people as "unpatriotic"? Do you really want somebody voting for an unnecessary war because they were taunted?!?!
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Drudge is a propagandist, not a journalist. When the Democrats began sqwuaking about GOP-backed voter fraud, his headline was "Democrats to push voter fraud, whether or not it exists!" Spin, pure and simple.
1. Partisan politics aside, how can such an inane comment get modded +5? Once you're able to actually decipher the grammar and spelling (hella?! Don't they make lights?), you realize that absolutely nothing was said.
2. Why is it that 90 percent of people who "support" Kerry cite their primary reason for their support as "I don't like Bush"? Whatever happened to a candidate running on their OWN record? What is it about KERRY that you DO support? Do you even know? Bush isn't above reproach here either, by any means. Thanks to Cheney, I'd be scared to vote for Kerry otherwise we could have terrorists overrunning our country. The whole thing just makes me sad and tired. If you're going to exercise your "right" to vote, please at least do so with some modicum of information beyond a vague yet undefined antipathy towards the current president. BTW Adian, this isn't all directed at you personally but more at the attitude in general so many people hold.
3. This, as I see it, is one of the fundamental flaws of Democracy, or at least Democracy as Americans define it. We have a bunch of people who know very little about the issues or the candidates making decisions about who will become the next president. As long as you're an American, 18+ and not a felon, you get to vote. That's great, but as I alluded above, if you're going to make the effort to vote, perhaps it's worth making the effort to place an INFORMED vote.
Disclaimer: As you may notice from my .sig, I'm a Canadian, yes. So I can't vote in this election. I've lived in the US now for 8+ years and I feel in many ways like this is "my" country. Which is why I feel so much frustration about what I see around me. Finally, for the record, between Bush & Kerry I'd vote for Bush every time. However, between all the options, I'm pretty sure if I could vote, I'd vote for neither. There has to be a better candidate on the ballot SOMEWHERE. However, since I can't vote anyway I haven't taken the time to look.
www.clarke.ca
Any idea why?
I've seen some OP-ED stuff that talked about states deciding to go the winner-take-all route to increase their own "importance" or to get more "attention" from candidates. But I think history shows that election-year attention does not translate to legislative attention in any meaningful way. IMHO, proportional vote allocation more accurately represents the will of the people, which is what the Electoral College is supposed to do in the first place.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Kerry didn't have political connections which made it easy for him to slack off and swindle money during his youth, Kerry is not a drunk, Kerry is not a bible-thumping Jesus-freak who forces his "faith" on others. Kerry volunteered to go to war..
Please don't vote Bush.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
In Ohio at least, when you get to the table to get your ballot, they check off your name and next to it is your signature. You must sign and they check to see that it is your signiture. Once that is done, you can't vote again. So there is already a "challenge" inside the building. There is no need for people outside to be challenging people, especially not people who are strongly tied to a party. The real reason the Republicans want to do this is voter intimidation.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Why not rig the machines? We go about screwing with the election in every other possible way as well. Forgive me, but I believe that our elections are one of the most embarassing things about this country. Aside from hanging chads, it's all a farce.
In Ohio, the Republicans are trying to put white lawyers into predominately black areas to "make sure" their voter registrations are valid.
In many states, the Democrats were trying hard to get Ralph Nader off the ballots despite his signature collection.
All over, Republicans and Democrats are frantically trying to register indigents and get them to vote for their guy.
Republicans and Democrats are paying millions to air ads that come as close as possible to lying about the opposition without actually lying.
In some state, the Democrats went to court to say that a Catholic bishop was tampering with the election because he said "you're not a Catholic if you vote for Kerry". Dude may be a crackpot, but that's about it.
Lawyers on both sides are poised to rush into court to contest the aspects of the vote that they feel best help themselves.
Why can't we just have an open, honest election? If we are the shining example to the world, where's the shine? We complain every four years about low voter turnout, but system is disenfranchising people. Nobody makes me want to vote for them. They all make me want them to be removed from power, but I've nobody left to replace them with.
I agree that the Libertarians you hear about the most tend to be closet anarchist nut jobs.
However, there is a bit of revolt in the ranks against the kooks. They've had way too much exposure for too long. For example, One local LP chapter actually rejected the National LP Platform and replaced it with their own.
I know that if the Libertarian Party doesn't reinvent itself soon and become a genuine political party instead of being more like a philosophical debate club, I (and a lot of people like me) will be leaving it.
...would have had the poll listing the following options:
() Bush
() Kerry
() Other
() Would vote Bush if I could
() Would vote Kerry if I could
() Would vote Other if I could
That way everyone could have voiced their opinions properly. The results would have been much more interesting too...
Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.
If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might fit in a little better.
The girlfriend finally voted after a two and a half hour wait.
While the recent appeals court decision does allow democratic and republican challangers, she didn't see any at our polling place.
So turnout around here is HUGE; perhaps even higher than the 70% expected.
I'm waiting to see if everyone votes early, thus reducing the crowding at the polls. Unless there is a crowd from the "vote often" set =p
A Human Right
I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Being ELIGIBLE for something does not automatically mean you are QUALIFIED to do it. I have a BS in Computer Engineering, therefore I'm ELIGIBLE for any job which requires that degree. However, there are a lot of jobs for which I'm ELIGIBLE that I'm not QUALIFIED to perform because my experience is in a different specialty.
If the candidate's degree of Constitutional scholarship is the only quality that matters when chosing a President, then I submit that Lawrence Lessig is an infinately more qualified choice for President than Badnarik.
There are probably over 100M US citizens who are eligible to hold the presidency, so by your argument ANY of them is qualified to do the job. I'm sure you could find a homeless illiterate paranoid schizophrenic with multiple felony convictions and substance abuse problems who still meets all the Constitutional eligiblity requirements for the Presidency. Would this person be qualified for the job? I think not.
Hell, *I* am over 35, have lived in the US all my life, and have never been charged with any crime more serious than driving 20mph over the speed limit. I'll wager a week's pay that my knowledge of the Constitution is at least as good as Badnarik's. Therefore, by your standards, I'm as qualified to be President as he is. Vote for Me!
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Its interesting how people get things exactly backwards.
We didn't turn our backs on the UN, the UN turned their backs on US. The "coalition of the bribed and coereced" exactly describes the United Nations, not the nations allied with us in this war. Russia, China and France are up to their ears in kickbacks and graft from our old buddy Saddam. With "friends" like this, we'd damned well better be ready to "go it alone" if the situation calls for it.
And I LOVE that people forget how Ronald Reagan, the greatest champion of freedom in the last 50 years, was portrayed by the media during his tenure.
He was a reckless cowboy loner, willing to push the Soviet Union military (and the US) into bankruptcy, risking Total Nuclear Annihilation for some idiotic notion that he could defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot.
He was villified by "our international friends" and hounded by the Democrats mercilessly. He was regarded as an empty headed, overly simplistic buffoon.
Those famous words "Tear Down This Wall" were almost universally decried as confrontational, dangerous and completely lacking any "nuance" in understanding our relationship with the Kremlin.
But, of course, since the Democrats, the media and the "international community" got it EXACTLY WRONG, you don't hear much about how things actually WERE back in the day. I remember. I was there. I see the parallels with today's situation. I wish that people who's knowledge of history ends with "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree" would just sit the f*ck down and shut up.
People looking from afar don't face the same threats that we face in our own country.
You're right.... they've been facing them for decades.
(I will start this by stating that I am a Canadian citizen who usually votes NDP - a third party of sorts until this year - but who decided to vote Liberal to ensure the PCs didn't win. You can determine how I would vote in the US based on that)
I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.
Don't be ridiculous. If one candidate has been shown to be reckless, destructive and absolutely uninterested in his own citizens, voting him out is not "voting for evil". Your vote is a tool that you have decided not to use, kind of like buying a Hummer to drive your kids to school. Sure it works, but you aren't using it to it's full potential.
Just because you want the 3rd party to succeed doesn't mean that you have to ignore the fact that your incumbent president is a destructive nutjob and refuse to do anything about it. It's your vote; you can shoot yourself and your fellow citizens in the foot/feet with it if you like.
His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11.
You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession. At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.
Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.
(Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)
Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.
And frankly, the Military can "get behind the president" in times of war, whether he's Kerry or Bush, just like they told the civilians to do during the run-up. Their behaviour under Clinton was inexcusable (such as public threats on his life).
His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.
Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.
high on taxation
Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.
And he said what is plan is - more international support. And he'll get it too, all he has to do is give the UN some measure of control of their troops Iraq (after all, after this mess do you really expect French troops to take American orders?) and open up the reconstruction contracts to supporting countries.
I notice you dodge actually listing what Bush's income is. Bush is also very rich, and also claim s to be the common man. How many cowboys own sports teams and oil companies in their carreers (which they run into the ground and fail to see any reprocussions from)?
Kerry's not stupid. Hey has made a major point that he will finish the job in Iraq. If being "strong on defense" means invading a few more coutnries while still holed up on Afghanistan and Iraq, I dare say that the US needs someone a little less "Strong on defense" or it'll just spread itself too thin.
Full text of Economist article at http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =3152936
Dick Cheney, backseat driver par excellence
IN MOST presidential re-election campaigns people don't spare a second thought for the vice-presidential candidate. Nobody voted to re-elect Ronald Reagan because he had George Bush senior on the ticket, or Bill Clinton because he had Al Gore. But this year Americans ought to spare more than a second thought for the man who stepped onto the stage in Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night.
Dick Cheney growled out a speech that was reminiscent of General Secretary Andropov on a bad day. The audience loved him anyway. When he spoke of George Bush never seeking "a permission slip to defend the American people", they burst into chants of "Four more years!". Nobody expected lofty rhetoric from this particular vice-president. Mr Cheney's talent is not for the theatrics of power, but for the mechanics.
He is not only the most powerful vice-president in American history. He is also the most controversial, a man whose decisions have repeatedly given even loyal Republicans pause. Four more years of George W. means four more years of Bush-Cheney: the closest thing to a co-presidency America has ever seen.
For the past four years the two men have been inseparable. Most vice-presidents have to fight for time with their boss; Mr Cheney sees his several times a day. Most vice-presidents spend their days at state funerals; Mr Cheney, more than anyone else, picked the members of the current administration. Thereafter he helped to shape the administration's policies on everything from energy policy to the invasion of Iraq.
The Republicans have repeatedly reminded Americans this week that September 11th 2001 defined this administration. But who was in charge on that terrible day? It was Mr Cheney who took most of the key decisions--from hiding the president to authorising the shooting-down of suspicious aircraft--while Mr Bush was holed up in Nebraska.
September 11th was a break from Mr Cheney's normal low-key style. In general, he prefers to direct from behind rather than seize the wheel. From the first, he exploited his boss's penchant for focusing on the big picture in order to control the details. He packed the second tier of the administration with allies such as Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Luti and Stephen Hadley. And he created an axis of influence with Donald Rumsfeld, the man who had given him his first break in national politics, and who shares his no-nonsense view of the world.
Mr Cheney's acceptance speech at last put paid to lively rumours that Mr Bush was planning to dump him from the ticket in favour of somebody who appeals more to swing voters: John McCain, for example. Mr Cheney is clearly a drag on the ticket in purely electoral terms: the latest CNN/Gallup poll finds as many Americans disliking him as liking him. But the rumours, in the end, were hot air. Mr Cheney is so integral to the administration that to dump him would be the equivalent of decapitating it.
The vice-president's unique position raises a serious practical question: what happens if he has another serious heart attack? (He has already had four.) It also raises a serious political question: how well has Mr Cheney used the power he has amassed with such Machiavellian cunning?
In 2000 he was widely seen as the conservative movement's answer to Washington's legendary wise men, such as Dean Acheson and George Kennan. Nobody who studied Mr Cheney's biography, from his hard-right voting record in Congress to his patronage of conservative intellectuals (the famous Laffer curve was first sketched on his napkin), could doubt his ideological bent. But he was one of the most experienced politicians in Washington: the youngest White House chief of staff ever, a congressman for Wyoming and defence secretary. He was careful to wrap his conservatism in the mantle of common sense. Who better to restrain Mr Bush's more gung-ho Texan instincts?
Bush has always supported civil unions. He is pushing for a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. Not civil unions.
When you say don't turn yourselves into a religeous state, you really mean "turn secular".
And watch, everyone, as he quickly sets up his straw man... very deft!
Yeah...like France...and Saddam's Iraq. Great.
And look! Look how he knocks it down! Excellent form!
Nice work putting words in the mouth of the grandparent. Did he say "secular state"? No. He only said the US is, in effect, becoming a theocracy, and in this, I'm not sure I disagree. The government is working very hard to insinuate Christian values into it's workings, from it's policies on abortion and stem cell research (even to the point of releasing disinformation), "faith based initiatives" in place of proper social services, supporting the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, attempting to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman *in the constitution*... I could go on.
The separation of church and state is paramount. As you say, this means the goverment should be completely indifferent on the topic. And in case you didn't realize it, things like "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance fly straight in the face of this doctrine.
The U.N. has proven itself pointless.
Only because the US (and other major powers on the security council) veto anything useful.
We are alot like the America who went after the Nazi's actually. That was unpopular in alot of areas too...for awhile.
Holy shit! This is simply outrageous! Revisionist history, anyone? The US went into WWII only AFTER Hitler started driving his war machine across Europe. This is in absolutely NO WAY at all similar to the US's approach to Iraq, which involved attacking, unilaterally, a country which posed absolutely no threat to anyone!
Sure...Florida sucked last time around, but you people overseas need to understand that you really don't get to decide what happens in someone else's democracy.
Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.
Call The Election Protection Coalition at 866-OUR-VOTE. They can help.
still, it's encouraging to see the U.S. returning to democracy from bushocracy (hipocracy, oilocracy, cheneyocracy, or whatever you prefer)
I know I'm going to be modded up on this
Sure, older people vote that way because when they were young they decided to go major party and not go the way they really felt. My guess, if you continue to always assume it is the "wrong" time to vote third party or you feel it is a wasted vote, when your 60+ you will be voting for a major party too.
Change takes time, and young people, that can still think for themselves, are the key to making that change happen. Voting for any party is NEVER a wasted vote, as long as you believe in the party you are voting for. The only wasted vote is one that is never cast, or one cast for someone you don't fully believe in.
Young people, like yourself, are the key to change, old people RARELY change.
Let me clue your in, the country is already screwed, and the Republican's and Democrat's are equally to blame for it. Voting for them really doesn't solve anything, and oh BTW, neither one of them is going to cause things to get significantly better or worse. Why not vote the way you really feel, and try to make something postive come from it. It won't happen this election, or next and probably not the one after that, but someday, if enough people vote for someone and not against someone, change can and will happen.
Kerry just seems deceptive.
As opposed to Bush, who has had his blatant lies exposed on several occasions?
Maybe you're one of the people mentioned in one of the several studies like this one.
I don't like Kerry either -- but I'd rather have someone that's *probably* worthless than someone who has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is. (unfortunately, I live in a state that's going to go to Bush. So I'm voting for Nader.)
P.S. log in you cowardly shit
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
One could do worse than to watch the Frontline episode Choice 2004.
When, I believe, it was his roomates uncle, who was a highly placed government offical came to Yale to speak about service, duty and honor, Bush was partying it up, didn't attend the talk. When this uncle spoke private with Kerry and his close circle of friends, he impressed upon them just how important it was to serve. Kerry, and his friend ended up volunteering because they were moved to. They were PERSONALLY called to serve. Later would end up dying. And after Kerry's first tour, he signed up for a SECOND. Where he served with some distinction.
Bush and his crew were partying hard enough to make John Belushi blush. One of his friends pulled a stunt that got him kicked out of Yale, was forced to go to Vietnam and he died. That really put the fear of God into them. So they partied a lot, and after college Bush went into the air national guard with help from his father. A trick one of his own friends says he wished he could have duplicated.
Those are some terrible articles, especially the CIA-trained-Osama one (which itself is just a collection of references to other rumors). Frankly, it's all bunk, but I'll leave you with one little tidbit:
If Bush invaded Iraq to diestract from the Saudis, why were the Saudis so deadset against it?
You're putting words into the original author's mouth. The parent never said anything about an intelligence test or that foolish people should be legally prevented from making a vote. That's something I absolutely agree with. I think you make a terrible decision as a human being to participate in a process that you really don't understand, but I definately don't think anyone should legally prevent people from voting on account of 'intelligence.' His statement wasn't a call for legal action to prevent people who don't know what's going on from voting, it was a call to people to stop encouraging everyone to go out and vote. That's something I totally agree with.
That being said, I really don't understand how anyone can possibly claim that getting a bunch of ignorant people to participate in the political process helps anything. I firmly beleive that this world would be a lot better if fewer people voted.
Consider all of the stupid aggravating crap that politicans say and do. Consider all of those stupid attack ads and assinine twisting of records and the way they embellish what they've accomplished while trying to make it look like the other guy is worse than a murderer/rapist. You've got to realize why they do that - it's becuase there are so many people voting who don't pay attention to the issues and are persuaded to vote based on the assinine messages that the politicans send out. If we would stop encouraging mouth breathing morons to vote, the politicans wouldn't have any reason to do all of that bullshit.
Consider this hypothetical situation - there's about 30% of the population that pays close attention to what goes on in politics. And those two groups are more or less evenly divided between two sides. If you're a political candidate in that situation, you're never going to win anything by appealing to the small percentage of the population that actually votes. The only way you can win is by crafting a policy platform that sounds good to people who never bother to vote. You also need to reach out to those people and get your message to them, which means you need a lot of money. So the fact that there are large numbers of uninformed people weilding a lot of power immediately leads to the monetary corrpution of politics, and the creation political policies that are designed not to make sense or work but to appeal to individuals who, by their very nature, don't understand the workings of government.
I am not calling for intelligence tests or restrictions on voting, because I'm no fool myself and I realize how those would easily be abused. I just think If we'd get rid of this idiotic national idea that nonparticipation is bad, and instead everybody agreed that it was better for uniformed people not to vote, that things would work out better for our great country.
My blog
Electoral system reform
The most pressing need, today, is a radical re-examination of voter registration procedures and voting procedures to eliminate vote fraud. I cannot stress this enough--the election today will be stolen; the only question is which side will steal more votes. I deeply regret that statement--but I mean every word of it. The electoral system today is simply a wide-open invitation to several different sorts of vote fraud, and you can be absolutely certain they're happening.
In short--the system is wide open for vote theft. It must be fixed; and there must be a careful scouring of this election to identify where votes have been stolen. And--without fail--those responsible for vote them (duplicate registration, vote theft, etc.) must go to jail. No probation, no community service--bona fide Big House jail time.
The Electoral College
The Electoral College is the most misunderstood feature of American polity. It should not be abolished--to the complete contrary, it should be strengthened; which is to say, it should be restored to how it was originally intended. The problem with the EC in most states is that each state is a "winner takes all" race: win the heavily-populated parts of California, and you can ignore the rest of the state. Win Houston and Dallas, and you can ignore the rest of Texas. Win New York City, and don't waste your time on upstate.
If EC votes were counted for each congressional district, with the winner of the EC votes in the state getting the bonus two "Senate" votes, it would have the immediate effect of taking major media buys out of the campaign. You couldn't run a last-minute attack ad campaign--you wouldn't have flash-in-the-pan candidates like Howard Dean or Jimmy Carter appearing out of the woodwork. You'd have to communicate--and convince--voters in every part of the country, rather than focus on a limited number of media markets in "swing" states. You'd have a lot less noise, and a lot more signal.
There is such a thing as the Law of Unintended Consequences. And one likely consequence of such a thing would be that fewer people would be likely to vote: because there would be less television noise, and because the campaigns would have to persuade, not sloganeer. Most consumers in America respond to ads--not to Op Ed page articles. Political campaigns would tend toward Op Ed types--hopefully that would mean more thoughtful voters.
Whoever wins tomorrow, you will return to your scheduled lives of greed, selfishness and exploitation.
That is who you are, and that is how you think. The danger to the world is not the Republicans, the Democrats or even the Project For The New American Century. It's the mindset of the common American.
Many posts tonight state that people should not vote if they're not intellectual enough, or not caring about who wins or about the issues involved. I'd like to inform everybody of this rebuttal. I'm posting this post anonymous so there's no Karma hoarding:
Everybody should vote in a democracy. There are many reasons, for instance how can a country have faith in somebody elected by 10-20% of the population? Voter turnout is tantamount to the democratic process.
It's also a great way to make people aware of, and care for their country. Everybody should be allowed to vote. It is especially important for minorities to be both politically active and vote. It's a great way to make people interested in the community and widen their horizon to what's going on beyond their own little lives.
You know, people can be intellectual and be 200% wrong on some issues. Just because somebody wins a Nobel prize in chemistry, or is a chess-champion, doesn't mean they are a godhead when it comes to knowing people and international affairs. While others can be very right just based on their gut-feeling. Besides, who are going to decide who gets to vote? Any test and filter would be biased.
We should aim for 100% voter turnout. The numbers have been declining over the years, and that is a real threat to democracy. The only way to ensure democracy and freedom, is to be active and take part in forming your country. Everybody can and should participate, and the process should be as transparent as possible to prevent fraud, corruption and hidden agendas.
This applies to all democratic countries. We should never rest on our laurels and take all we have for granted. That's a sure way to lose it.
I've been asking myself why I've been so preoccupied with reading about this election over the last two weeks or so. The reason why I couldn't initially understand it was because I'm not actually American.
Although I normally have a fairly high degree of interest in international politics, the more I think about it, the more I'm able to figure out why this election in particular holds so much importance for me. My country's current prime minister, John Howard, has tried to collaborate with the Bush administration as closely as possible over the last few years...Not only with Iraq, but also with a number of economic agreements, about which the unnoficial word is that they have generally benefitted the Americans far more than they have us.
It's not just about Iraq to me, though. I read somewhere that in the case of some countries, at least, whatever sociological/criminal trends America experiences, other countries tend to experience 5-10 years later. If that's true in this case, then I fear for Australia...and for the stability of the area in which I live.
What I mean by this is that as much as I've tried to read about the election lately, I've been reading other material as well. Material which really does not cast an appealing light on either Bush or Kerry. In Bush's case, there have been a *lot* of reports about how domestically in the US he is apparently trying to convert the country into a full-blown dictatorship, as well as an equal amount of dark speculation about the idea that this election could be portrayed publically as a stalemate even when it isn't, so that the results can then be manipulated in the courts.
The stuff I've been reading about Kerry though make me think that whoever would try and do that, won't need to in this case. The picture I've developed of Kerry tells me that he isn't really any opposition to Bush at all, in any sense, and that he most likely wouldn't do a thing differently if he got into power. I know most people here would probably wipe off the stuff about Kerry and Bush both having been members of Skull and Bones as just more deranged conspiracy theories...but to me, it honestly is scary.
Here's my overall conspiracy theory about this election though...laugh at it and call me a nutcase if you like, but I think it fits:-
Neither Kerry nor Bush either are or will end up being the genuine rulers of the country. There is a third entity (who, I don't know) who is able to choose the candidates in such a way that no matter who gets elected, the third (ruling) entity are able to continue persuing their interests unhindered. (I'm reminded of Palpatine's maneuvers in Attack of the Clones when I think about this, actually)
I think the reason why the 2000 election happened the way it did was because the Democratic candidate in that race was not one of the ruling entity's people, so they had to use whatever means necessary to make sure he didn't get into power.
But I think in this scenario there genuinely *is* a Palpatine wannabe around somewhere, or possibly a group of them. I think people in the US are going to need to find this individual/group, whoever they are, and get rid of them before they're going to be able to have genuinely free elections.
To me, only being able to choose between a couple of people who've been approved by the proverbial man behind the curtain is not the definition of a genuine democracy...it also isn't likely to guarantee a change in policy with a new administration...because even if the old puppet (Bush) gets voted out, the new one still has the same master at the strings.
Remember also...Just because I might be paranoid, doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. There was a lot of weird stuff about 9/11...things that just didn't fit together and add up if you looked closely at the official story...and I'm not alone in thinking that, either.
I'm possibly going to get replied to by Americans here who will say that I have no business caring about what happens with their election...to which I say th
France has already said it wouldn't send troops to Iraq - period.
...
...), and that should you have a president that cared about the whole world, that respected the UN, we French might be on your side right now in Iraq.
:
Of course, France won't send troops.
Try to understand something : for France (and most other European countries), UN, with all its shortcomings and problems, is considered a great institution, with a great goal, peace.
We sure as hell didn't like the way Bush administration handled the UN. We hate his bullying of inspectors (try to read what Hans Blix has to say about Bush administration, very enlightning), we hate his attitude of saying "fuck the UN, i'll do what I want", we hate some declarations by say Rumsfield, we hate that Bush lied to the whole world to start a war, we hate the corruption the Bush administration shows (Halliburton anyone ?), we hate Bush's declarations of "You're with us or against us" (we can think and make judgements by ourselves, thank you, if you want our support, try to convince us, and don't try to bully us)
My point ? You won't see any French troops going to Iraq, because of Bush.
If the US had allowed the inspectors to continue their job, if the US had presented real arguments about Iraq, if the US had shown respect to the whole world, then we French might have put some troops in Iraq, like we did in Gulf War I.
But Bush has been such an asshole that we (French population) won't allow any troops to risk their lives because Bush administration has fucked everything up in Iraq. No way in hell.
But you should consider that France has a history of following the US (GW1, Afghanistan etc
Put blame where blame is due, and remember : if you're alone (ok you've got Poland, which regrets its support) in Iraq, it is Bush's administration's fault.
Bush has already secured significant international support, and it's not likely we'll get much more.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have significant support. The only support you have is from
1) UK
2) countries that were bullied to follow you, and sent a minimum of non fighting troops with you
Beside UK, no powerful nation followed you in Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China said no way in hell. Aznar tried to engage Spain on your side, but he got kicked out of office because of that (and because of his lying about the ETA of course).
You have to consider something very important : here, in France, after September 11th, every citizen felt sympathy for the US, and every citizen thought our governement should side with the US and helps you. We showed our support. We sent troops with you in Afghanistan, and nobody here even thought about not doing that. It was clear in our mind that we had a duty to help our ally, the USA.
Then Bush talked about Iraq. Then Bush started bullying the UN. Then Bush started bullying Europe. We thought wtf ? Why does America think it has a right to bully the whole world ?
We thought that an open discussion with the US in the UN would make Bush reconsider his position, and presents REAL evidence that Iraq was a threat.
But he didn't. He lied more and more. He bullied more and more.
And then, he started to hurt the UN. And that was the turning point. We felt betrayed. We felt that our support to the USA, our sadness about September 11th, was used to kill a much respected institution. We had the feeling that Bush was using our consideration and our support to promote a new form of imperialism.
And he did.
From that point, we started to hate him as much as we supported the USA after 9/11. We, and 99% of the world, thought that he was a bigger danger to world peace than Saddam or Bin Laden. Not because he's more evil, but because he acts as a bully while leading the world's most powerful nation, not some dozens of terrorist or a third world nation. And the idea that our support might have contributed to this new danger was