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.
First Vote!
For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
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!
Finally, something to distract me. I want some extreme polazation in this thread people!!!
..it is also obvious that Slashdot has an international readership. Would there be any way to re-run the poll restricting it to US bound IP address to see if the race isn't so runaway for Kerry from the slashdot side?
That being said, I'm all for Kerry to win. But I live in a pretty red state. Though while standing in line to feed my paper ballot marked with a pen into some thing I saw that the few people in front of me had all voted for Kerry/Edwards which I found interesting, considering how little either party has paid attention to North Carolina this year.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I forgot what it was like to turn on the TV or drive 2 blocks without being flooded with political ads. Yay! Finally back to real life. :)
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
Submitted this, but in case it gets rejected, Matt Drudge is reporting that about 2,000 votes were "planted" in Philadelphia-area voting machines before the polling places opened this morning. I guess it would be un-Drudgelike to mention which candidate the votes favored, but regardless, here's the abstract as of thirty seconds ago:
Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the city... One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500... A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day... INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.; INCIDENT: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa... A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and surrounded the location... Developing...
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.
I hope it's all decided quickly, so the Canadian who sits next to me at work can stop bitching about the election all day every day. I swear she cares more deeply about this than I do.
And, to her, no, I still won't watch F.9/11, thank you very much. I don't need any extra propoganda in my life.
Put identity in the browser.
don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Finally, an slashdot story that is non-American-centric!
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Remember to vote, or P. Diddy will kill you.
They were touch screen devices that were named "WinVote". The first thing I saw was a blue screen. Man was I scared.
On a side note, I don't remember seeing voter turnout like this before, but the only elections I was involved with in this state were strictly senatorial or congressional. Those times I was in line for a good 10 minutes, this morning was a little over an hour. There was a great turnout and just about everyone in line seemed pretty excited. The folks at the polls who weren't election officials (people from the different parties) did a good job of helping people out without bugging the hell out of us (handing out copies of the ballots, walking the old people to the building and through the line - BUT not to the voting machines).
All in all it was a good experience, and I hope it works like this across the whole country.
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.
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.
Looks like the early polls are favoring kerry 53/46/1 overall and 300/270ish electorally.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The polls are swamped in fairfax. The procedure is as follows:
1) Stand in line to get your id checked. If you are registered you get a blue index card.
2) Stand in a different line with your card and wait for a winvote machine to open up.
3) When it is your turn you present your card to the election worker that supervises the terminal that just opened up. She takes your blue card and unlocks the machine.
4) You vote.
Note that thing differentiating a random person that walked up to the machine and a registered, approved voter is posession of the blue card. Multiple people left after receiving their blue cards, saying they couldn't wait another hour and that they would return later. There is nothing stopping these people from reproducing the cards and returning multiple times. The voting places are an absolute packed madhouse, NO ONE would notice if someone just walked up to the second line with a blue card.
Did anyone else see any other glaring holes in their election procedures?
<high-level position here>
<name of stupid small company here>
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.
In the rest of the democratic world, as far as I know, this is illegal. It seems to us that it goes against having a fair election. And yet in America it is normal practice. Why?
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
No. They are talking about old mechanical voting machines. They probably weren't properly zeroed after the last election. This happens all the time, which is why all the machines are checked on election day before the voting begins. Drudge is trying to make an affair out of nothing.
I leaned in and looked at the book (breaking every rule in the book by looking at the book) and saw my name and pointed to it. The attendant looked at my name and stated, "but your drivers license says 2950 Ridge Rd, but in my book it says 2951 Ridge Rd" (an address which does not exist)
She spent 20 minutes on the phone with the board of elections trying to figure out what it is she was supposed to do.
Despite having a drivers license with 2950, a voter registration card with 2950, she was bound and determined not to let me vote because her book said 2951. I asked what paperwork I would need to fill out if I wanted to claim that I had moved. She explained that I could fill out the paperwork, but my vote would not be counted until the paperwork cleared. Figuring that would mean my vote would only be counted in a disputed recount situation (if even then) this wasn't acceptable to me either.
Finally another attendant called the Board of Elections (because I was starting to get very agitated) and discovered I could fill out the change of address forms with me, vote, and then turn the forms into the board of elections today.
I'm still not convinced my vote will get counted. I was given an "I Voted" sticker, and wondered if I did or not.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
My head just exploded.
You don't think Kerry is the better man, but you think he's better than the other man?
Are you sure you're not one of those undecided voter?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
All around the world, we're watching you today. We love America, we want you to lead and inspire and show us what democracy and freedom and technology can do. But right now we're feeling scared, confused, and angry about what your President has lead you to do over the past three years.
Please, give us back the America we admire and believe in. Don't turn yourselves into a religious state. Don't turn your back on the UN and the other peoples of the world - in the end we are people first, American or French or Iraqi or Chinese second. Give us back the America that went to the moon and carried out the Berlin airlift and brought us the IT revolution. Give us back the America of Kennedy's vision and MLK's dream.
And please, don't let the world's most successful democracy be reduced to a joke with a repeat of last election's Floridan antics.
Read Pynchon.
doosh? what is that? oh, you meant...
douche Pronunciation (dsh)
(Medicine)
n.
1.
a. A stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes.
b. A stream of air applied in a similar way.
2. The application of a douche.
3. An instrument for applying a douche.
Noun 1. douche bag - a small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas
and also
Douche Bag http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do
Main Entry: douche bag
Pronunciation: 'düsh 'bAg
Function: noun
Date: circa 1963
slang : 1 One with an undescribeable fucked up-ness hence stupidity, poor idea of what's cool, possibly an arrogance about them. 2 One with an intolerable personality.
Other Forms: Douche, Douchey
Meat heads are douche bags.
Dude, stop being a douche bag.
Dude, stop being a douche.
Dude, that was a douchey move.
* why yes, I have nothing better to do today having already voted for the doosh bag
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
No Diebold in Dupage County, IL, I'm glad to say. :) We have the "fill in the oval, let the Scantron machine scan it" setup. I guess when your county is 90% Republican you don't feel the need to rig the election with a bogus computer voting system. ;)
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
The BBC has a pretty cool Flash election map - presumably it'll get updated with results as they come in, but for a European like me there's lots of historical information too.
:-)
Want to find out how states voted in the past? Or read potted summaries of previous candidates and so on? I've learned quite a lot already.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
A year ago, my wife and I moved from an apartment to our house.
A week later, we went and got our drivers licenses changed, and both registered.
I registered Green, she registered Republican.
A few months later, we both received our registration cards.
She voted this morning.
When I tried to vote, after waiting for two hours I was told that I wasn't on the rolls. 20 minutes later of me refusing to leave, especially since I had my voter registeration card, they told me that I was registered at my old address.
Which is garbage, because I _never_ registered to vote at my old address.
Evidently, this is pretty common. Now i'm expected to say "Gosh, i'm not going to wait another two hours to vote. I have to get to work."
Well fuck them, i'm voting after work today. I don't care if i'm there for 6 hours.
I'm still disenfranchised, as I cannot vote for my local representatives.
They should mark voters thumb nails with a marker pen once they've voted. That'll fix it.
I personally do not think that everyone should be voting. In fact I think a lot of people SHOULDN'T be voting!
Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda.
The Cato Institute published a report which is here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-525es.html [Cato.org] and it details its findings on the study of voter ignorance. Here is an excerpt:
"Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information," writes Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, in "When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy."
"Most of the time," Somin notes," only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."
Overall, voters tend to be "abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information... the sheer depth of most individual voters' ignorance is shocking to observers not familiar with the research."
A few examples from many in the report:
* The Patriot Act? What's that? Three-fourths of Americans say they know little or nothing about it. 58 percent say they've heard "nothing" or "not much" about it.
* Seventy percent don't know about the $500 billion new drug benefit added this year to Medicare, which Somin describes as "probably the most significant domestic legislation passed during the Bush administration."
* A majority cannot make even a rough estimate of how many Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
* 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of U.S. jobs in 2004.
* Over 60 per cent don't know that, during President Bush's term, there has been an explosion in domestic spending (about 25 percent above previous levels) that has enormously increased the national debt.
* Last year, 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.
And such voter ignorance is, alas, nothing new:
* In 1964, at the height of Cold War tensions, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.
* In 1994, after Republicans took control of Congress under the highly-publicized leadership of Rep. Newt Gingrich, 57 percent of Americans said they'd never heard of Gingrich, despite the avalanche of press coverage.
* In 1996, 67 percent couldn't name their congressman, and only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms.
* In the 2002 elections, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House.
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Mass ignorance is easy to exploit and sway opinions based on nothing more than emotions.
And in conclusion I say that if you do not truly understand the issues, have a good concept of how the government and the world works, and grasp the ideals and principles of what this government was founded on and it's history - then stay the hell out of the voting booth!
Libertas in infinitum
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.
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
This is the best interactive electorial college map I found on the Internet. Clicking on the button 'Electorial votes' changes the proportions of the states to reflect the electorial college. Lot of stats and fun to play with too.
As of now, I believe after reading this that the states are going to be voting almost exactly as the did in 2000, and it will come down to Florida making the call, yet again!
I tried to write-in a vote for Nader in Illinois and was told by my precinct captain that my balot would not be "signed" and counted.
Apparantly, we actually do not have the right to vote for whomever we choose. It is actually up to the states to decide for whom we are allowed to vote.
It really sucks to be told for whom you are allowed to vote.
Down in southwestern VA, we get to use the old mechanical systems one more time. I love it. The tactile response of the levers and visuals of the little "x" next to the candidate/decision of your choice. But, really, it's the ratcheting and ka-chung! as you pull the lever to record your vote. It just _feels_ like you're inflicting justice with that pull.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Stop spreading disinformation. According to all major news sources (CNN just did a piece on the Philadelphia story), the votes on the machines in question are from previous elections and have no bearing on the votes for this election. They are just resident in memory.
The GOP are the ones who are trying to get these machines replaced -- not the Democrats.
has determined that George W. Bush has won, with 2% of the East Coast results tabulated (Bush - 56% // Kerry - 49%).
George W. Bush heartily thanks his allies
at Diebold for their assistance in bringing
these latest poll figures.
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...
No, no, no, no. Get out and vote EVEN IF YOU CAN'T.
;-)
I agree with the sentiment about everyone voting, but I'm finding rather difficult to vote for the US presidency this side of the Atlantic.
Anyone got any recommendations as to how I can do so?
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
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"?
Two lawsuits have been filed in connection with the malfunctioning machine.
The Republican National Committee is charging that many of the votes present before the polls opened were from convicted felons and illegal immigrants, and wants those thrown out. They say the others should be kept - it's not the voters' fault their ballots wound up in a malfunctioning machine.
The DNC also filed suit, charging the RNC with trying to disenfranchise the alleged felons and immigrants, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic, according to Census data. They want a corresponding number of overseas absentee ballots to be thrown out, to make it fair.
Libertarian Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb protested outside the courthouse, asking why there were no ballots on the machine for either of them and demanding equal access to the machines before the polls opened next election.
sigs, as if you care.
If Turd Sandwitch wins, that'll be 'Freedom Rinse' to you.
It's a real pathological thing we have going here. We vote for the "lesser of two evils," then act all surprised when we get . . . evil.
We really need something like instant runoff voting or one of the Condorcet methods. As it stands we get the second most objectionable candidate. We need a system where we can choose the least objectionable candidate.
In the mean time, how do you justify voting for someone who is terrible? Given the choice between two highly objectionable candidates, I'll vote for one who "can't win."
-Peter
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent article today about how the election results are going to play out, hour by hour. He tells you what states are going to close their polls at what time, and discusses what are the key races and key factors in the election around the country. Great read.
(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
Moderators: The Dupe is because I hit submit before I added my html tags. Sorry amigos.
.. 5.7 billion people in the world. ... and on and on.
One half trillion dollars will be spent in Iraq according to the Congressional Budget Office. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate we have 100,000 dead Iraqis on our hands. 16.7% of our soldiers will bare this incredible burden in psych wards according to The New England Journal of Medicine, assuming theyre not dead. And today, 1,122 Americans will not vote because they couldnt escape the American torture chamber that is Iraq. Tomorrow a few more will die and several more will be added to the 7,532 people that were serious injured in Iraq, so do not forget this when you vote.
Kerry's not my favorite, but today he represents everything the republican party would offer traditionally and more!
(1) He's fiscally conservative
(2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!)
(3) He's environmentally friendly
(4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other
(5) He's actually aware of national security
Now, let the flame war begin!
That's very interesting considering the lists released by the Clinton administration don't even show Arafat as ever having stayed at the White House. For reference:
First term list of guests
Guests from 1999 through August 2000 (you'll have to click the link in the article to see the list)
Your source to back your claim?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Are you sure you're not one of those undecided voter?
So, what's wrong with undecided voters?
It's so easy to make that blanket statement and fail to properly identify the classifications of undecided voters (UVs).
You were probably referring to the Apathetic UV who couldn't care less about anything but simply fufilling their civic duty and pulling some levers. Some wouldn't even care if they decided their vote based on a coin toss, only to have discovered later that someone slipped them a double headed coin.
Then there's the UVs which listen to all the rhetoric coming from the candidates, looking for consistencies in their campaign speeches, in order to make the the most informed decision as they can under the circumstances. "The lesser of two evils" is their motto. Most of these UVs reject candidate statements more often than a Slashdot moderator does with submitted stories. The remaining statements are mulled over day and night until they arrive at the voting booth on election day between 7PM and 8PM.
The thing with UVs is that they aren't really counted on pre election polls. This makes party hardliners, or "decided" voters, a little wary of the outcome.
Got this message from a tailgating friend in Florida about his wife:
I thought you all would be interested to know what just happened in the past 30 minutes (It is 9:20AM here).
My wife went to the polls. I voted at the same precinct early this morning with no problems. However, when she went to vote, she was not allowed because they said a) she had changed her address one month ago and b) she had voted absentee. Obviously, neither is true.
She is now standing in line at the County Election office who told her they had the absentee records on file for her to review once she shows proof of ID.
It will be fascinating to find out "who" filed a change of address and absentee ballot "in her name". It was obviously intentional (fraudulent) and obviously targeted at a registered Republican.
Get ready for a rocky ride folks.
---
Anyone hear about anything like this happening before?
Wait a minute... something just occurred to me!
If some insidious government officials were to approve the installation an easily-corruptible voting system in order to co-opt the election according to their agenda, and if the mass media then convinced the masses that the election is really close and could go either way, then it wouldn't be quite so transparent when the election was rigged in favor of one candidate!
Holy crap!
Party representatives are allowed to touch the Ballots???
Here in Canada, the only people allowed to touch the Ballots are the Deputy Returning Officer (who is sworn to be non-partisan) and the Voter. The DRO isn't allowed to touch the voter list, that's the Poll Clerk's job.
The scrutineers and the candidate's representative (who oversees the scrutineers for their party) aren't allowed to touch anything. They also aren't allowed to talk about politics or have any signs or material which might identify their party etc. asside from their scrutineer badge (which has their name and party).
The election before last, I went up to the table to vote and the Poll Clerk, DRO, and scrutineer were telling me who to vote for. They turned absolutely white when right after putting my ballot in the box I walked over to the candidate's rep (for a different party) handed him my paperwork and got my scrutineer badge. They stopped telling people how to vote after that (I was assigned to their table).
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
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.
This site does not represent all Iraqis. It's just a site set up by an American guy called Steven Moore (he worked for the American occupation administration). He clearly if not pro-Bush agenda, then clear job description as a USA-paid PR guy. So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts.
Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org".
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
An update:
After an hour in the county election office, my wife was allowed to vote. They confirmed to her that someone fraudulently switched her address and voted absentee for her. They obviously don't know who it is, but they do know the address of where they are located (where the absentee ballot was mailed). All they could promise her was that the county sherriff would be investigating immediately and that the duplicate absentee ballot would be invalid.
In addition, the Hindi news channel was carrying a very detailed analysis of the two candidates. Also, they had a pannel of people give their opinion about what the effects of either candidates foreign policies would be on India. I'd guess that most nation's media are carrying similar analysis and what-is-in-store for me analysis.
I live in the Philly suburbs, and when we showed up to vote this morning there was an "extra" person who didn't seem to be official, but checked a computer printout. He didn't find our name, and when we told him that we had been voting there for over 20 years, he kept mumbling "you're not on this list". He went outside to talk to the local sleaze-ball republican politician who is there every year.
The official folks said there was no problem, since we were in the official book (the old-fashioned paper type). I'm wondering how many other Democratic names were "accidentally" lost from the list. I'm also wondering how a first-time voter might react to not being on the list.
...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...
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"?
Meaning Bush has some sense of reality, unlike Kerry the career politician and money-marrier.
What evidence do you have that Bush is a "puppet"? Further, the idea that the President is solely responsible for his entire policy is a joke...he has experts in various narrow fields to advise him. Being President is a management job, and delegation is key.
Bush has done a good job in several respects. His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11. Two million new jobs this year. No attacks on mainland America since 9/11. Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
Granted Iraq is not an ideal situation right now. However, it is also ridiculous to call it a failure. We had a valid reason to go to war - Saddam's failure to account for his WMDs. We've accomplished far more than we ever did in Vietnam, at the cost of around 1,100 American lives - as opposed to 50,000 lost in Vietnam. (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.) There is a good chance (if Kerry doesn't win) that Iraq will be transformed into a stable democracy, which would be a tremendous achievement. It could be the start of major, positive change in the Middle East. There is also something to be said for the idea of fighting terror over there rather than here in the streets of America.
I think the majority of Americans are smart enough to sort all this out, and we'll see the result tonight - a solid Bush win.
Now, let's consider the downsides of Kerry.
First of all, we have no idea what he'll do if by some mischance he's elected. His positions have changed constantly during the campaign, no one knows what he'd ultimately decide to do. It's easy to claim you have a "better plan" when you don't actually have to produce any results.
His track record is weak on defense, high on taxation - a classic New England liberal. His behavior in the Vietnam era was inexcusable. He is disliked by the military, and morale will suffer terribly if he's elected. He is ultra-rich yet claiming to speak for the common man. (The Kerry's paid around 15% taxes on $5 million income last year, the Bush's paid around 30% on their income.) Kerry will do nothing differently than Bush on the issue of offshoring, they are both globalists. In fact, he is probably more likely to bump the number of H1-B visas, just as Clinton did when President.
I don't believe Bush is perfect, I don't like the USAPA as currently implemented, and I detest Ashcroft. However, Kerry is such a poor excuse for a candidate, and has such a poor public record, that I have no choice but to support Bush. Sometimes in life we have to make tough decisions. Kerry is simply unacceptable as President.
It boggles my mind that the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate. The two party system seems a bad idea about now...
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The upshot is that, in California, one does not have to feel like one is at the mercy of the paperless election system. Go, Kevin!
Yeah, I'd like to hear what Iraqis think about this. But the link you provided does NOT point to what Iraqis think; it points to a partisan outfit that is interested in peddling its own "truth" (somewhat like the "Swift Boat veterans for truth"). You want to know the "truth about Iraq"? How about you look at Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The children that Jim Hake cites were "killed under Saddam" ? They were killed by the UN sanctions. Before GW-1, Iraq was a pretty decent country. The Iran-Iraq war sent it on a downward spiral, but the GW-1 and sanctions prevented it from ever coming back up.
I'm sure none of this will make any difference to you because your colored glasses won't make you see any different. But remember this: Iraq was the only secular regime in that region! Today, the muslim mullahs run the place.
It was a place where women and minorities had equal rights. Women could fucking DRIVE in IRAQ! Something they cannot do even today in Saudi Arabia, your "ally". Women held high positions of power. Remember Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi PM? He was a Christian! Imagine, that: a Christian PM in a 95% Muslim country! Let me know if you find such a thing ever again in the Middle East.
Regarding your "good reasons" for invading Iraq: your cherry-picking of the facts leaves much to be desired. In isolation: yes, Saddam was a bad man. But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Just because their leaders were shrewd enough to hoodwink Bush into thinking they're his "allies"?? While you point to the passports, etc. as evidence of Iraqi hand in terrorism, you conveniently ignore the fact that countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been openly funding and training terrorists for decades! Almost every single terrorist of the past decade got training and support in Pakistan.
There are a dozen countries out there that have been international pariahs for decades (while Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam), but the US never chose to invade them. Countries like Syria have given shelter for terrorists since the 60s; and yet Colin Powell prefers to talk to them.
Your "good reasons" are nothing more than a poor attempt at justification after the fact.
It reminds me of the old fable of the wolf and the lamb. Both are drinking from a stream. The lamb is downstream from the wolf, but the wolf has designs on it. The wolf accuses him of polluting the water he's drinking. "But, I'm downstream", bleats the lamb. "How could I be polluting your water?". The wolf thinks about this for a second, and then says "Your mother insulted me the other day" and promptly proceeds to eat him.
It is quite surprising that you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet you look away when innocents are being slaughtered. Where's your religion? Where are your teachings? Oh right! They don't apply to Muslims! That must be it.
According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.
relevent links:
Salon War Room Report
Gallup Poll original data (I think this is the correct data set)
USA Today story
All news stories merely mention this in passing.....
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
(Deep breath. I'm about to do something totally insane--try to present a rational, factual explanation of a political subject on SlashDot. Maybe its because I've been eating nothing but red M&Ms all day....)
IAMPAEO--BIHBO
I Am Not Presently An Election Official--But I Have Been One. And I can promise you, with all sincerity, that the margin of error is effectively zero. We count every single ballot, whether on the voting machines or in absentee ballots, regardless of how late we have to stay up to do it. The people in your county registrar's office total up all of the ballots from the polling places, and keep checking and re-checking until they have it right. The math is done in front of representatives from all political parties, as well as any candidate-appointed watchers that are present as well. When the election results are certified, the results are correct--with an error rate of zero.
Oh, c'mon. What about...
I have been an election official for more than fifteen years--and I have been involved in counting votes on Election night in heavily Democratic wards, and in heavily Republican wards. It does not matter--we get the vote total correct, and we turn it in to the county. Then the county re-checks our work--and they carefully preserve the voting machines until they're convinced we have done the work correctly. (One year, back in the 1980s, the county had questions about one of our voting machines and called the officials back in later in the week to make sure they understood what we'd done.)
Don't confuse the results announced on TV with the certified election
I have also done consulting work with the Elections Unit of a major TV network. They have an entirely different agenda: their goal is to "call" the election for one candidate or the other before any other media outlet. They are basing their "calls" on exit-polling data ("pardon me, ma'am, but could you tell me who you voted for?") in a handful of selected precincts across a state. They will report preliminary totals ("And we now see Governor Bloviate leading with 1,424,325 votes with 21% of precincts reporting...") without explaining the context (are those Bloviate's strong precincts? Who says the numbers are correct?) They're out to report fast, accuracy be damned. (Sorry, Charlie, but that's the way it really is.)
The real story, the real vote total, comes when the election is certified. And the "chaos" that we all saw in Florida was the actual process of certifying an election. There were flaws (the biggest: they hadn't defined any rules for how to count votes)--but they eventually arrived at a standard, and used that standard to count votes. They ended up with a total. That's the final number.
All that said....
The total vote count will be determined with a level of error of zero. What will not be determined--and what I fear will be rampant in this election, on both sides--is how many votes were fraudulent, due to duplicate registrations, absentee ballot fraud, etc.
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.
Our own Corporation for National and Commmunity Service "provides opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their communities and country through three programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. Members and volunteers serve with national and community nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and local agencies to help meet community needs in education, the environment, public safety, homeland security, and other critical areas."
And is not another name for the draft. Anyway, back to the page you linked to, if you read just a little further down you would have seen this:
So why didn't CNN link to the Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech? Perhaps because CNN is still desperately trying to spin a story they didn't fully report on in the first place.
And what makes you think this? Have you ever seen how many Americans (and 100x that many innocent Iraqis) have been killed since "Mission Accomplished" ?
You have to start somewhere..... The hope is that after Iraq becomes stable, in 15-30 years it will help stabilize the whole region. That might not be true, but forgive me if I have a little hope for the world.
Just 'hoping' without some common sense is sheer idiocy. Have you read the history of this region? Do you know that while you are preaching "democracy" right now, for decades the US has gone out of its way to prop up totalitarian and brutal regimes? Even today, who is the biggest supporter of the Saudis? Yeah, you got it right: the US. The same Saudis who refuse to shut down the pipeline of funding for "charities" (which are a front for terrorists). Where 100s of little schoolgirls were allowed to burn to death in a shool fire because they weren't suitably covered up when trying to escape from the flames! And don't forget: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
Of course, if you disagreed w/ Saddam, he'd cut off your hands
ROTFLMAO... you dimwit. The same system of "justice" is practiced in many Islamic countries. Look at the number of beheadings that are done in Saudi Arabia.
No, they were killed because Saddam didn't use Oil-for-Food to get food, he used it to bribe leaders, support Al-Qaeda, and other things.
Ha.. I knew you'd trot out the Party line. Your critical thinking skills are as close to zero as I've ever seen anywhere. The 9/11 commission itself said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Just to show how ignorant you are, let me tell you one more thing. Did you know that the head of Pakistani Intelligence wired $100K to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, a few weeks before 9/11 ?? Here's a fucking smoking gun proof that points to Pakistani state sponsorship of the 9/11 hijackers. And what does your messiah W do?? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Please don't think I'm angry at you. I feel pity for you: for, one should pity the fool that knows not, and knows not that he knows not. And you are one big fool who knows not.
"Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]"
Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.
Sorry, but that's not entirely true. The numbers on IraqBodyCount.net are fully-backed media documented numbers about specific incidents with specific casualties. That means that, out of the thousands of civillians killed during the war in Iraq, we have hard and fast proof about that many, right now, with zero additional time spent gathering information.
The 100,000+ number is a reasonable guesss about the actual numbers of casualties, inclulding those who didn't specifically make the fscking international news.
Sheesh.
I don't know if a 6:1 ratio of casualties to media-reported specific casualties is correct, but it seems reasonable. It seems a whole lot more reasonable than a 1:1 ratio which is, I believe, what you're choosing to go with.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
When I went to vote this morning we had the Diebold system. This is Montclair, CA.
They handed me a smart card, and I put card in and made my selections.
When came to the end I went to select the "cast ballot" button it returned a message "Are you sure you want to proceed, you haven't made all the selections you are entitled to."
OK?? So I went back and double checked everything. I definatly had voted on everything there was to vote on. Spent about 10 Minutes in all checking and rechecking.
I had to hit the "Cast Ballot" to finish and return my card.
So when I finished I complain to the manager there, and they said it's seems to happen every so often, we don't know what's the reason.
They really didn't know anything about these system, or what they could do about errors or problems.
So I walked away wondering if some of my votes were just dropped or something.
I mean as a programmer this system really made me feel incredably unconfortable as to it's reliablity, accuracy and security.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
I'm a first time voter and I asked how to do a write-in on the machines here. The first poll worker asked me if I was voting for Mickey Mouse, told me it messes everything up, and that I didn't want to do it. The next told me she didn't know and would have to get the book out and start reading. Fortunately there happened to be an election official from the county present, who showed me how to do it, and even comforted me by saying that there are a lot of write ins today. He also gave me his number so he could personally replace my voter registration card, which the poll workers had "lost."
Dear poll workers, sorry about "messing everything up," and fuck you.
I am confident that my write in vote will not be counted unless that election official is hanging over their heads.
Horray for the republic?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
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.
You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession.
Of course it was the Clinton recession. The stock market crashed before Bush's policies could possibly have had any effect.
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.
Not true. The current deficits are a lower percentage of GDP than at other points historically.
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.
I disagree. The elections in Afghanistan were a stunning success. I find it amusing that liberals such as yourself heap scorn on something that did so much to advance traditional liberal values such as freedom and women's rights.
There was already a culture of rabid anti-American hate in both of those countries. It now has a chance of getting better, and I assure you that there are strong pro-American factions in both countries now.
(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.
Yeah, it was "only" 3,000 (three times as many as the troops we've lost, eh?). However, it could easily have been 30,000 or more if the terrorists had planned a bit better. Not to be callous, but it was equally bad that a major part of our financial infrastructure was taken out. Together, these events caused $1 trillion in damage to the US economy.
The bigger concern is terrorists of whatever ilk coming up with NBC weapons that would take out millions instead of thousands. I think that makes the war against terrorism justifiable in it's present form.
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.
He went, he fought (to some extent, how well or bravely is very open to question). He most likely injured himself for at least one of the Purple Hearts. Then, when he returned, he committed the truly inexcusable act of lying about supposed atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. This gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and directly hurt American POWs in prison. That alone should disqualify him from being Commander in Chief.
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.
Once again, Kerry has paid lip service to something he thinks might get him a few votes. We'll see what happens if he actually gets into a position to do something about it. His wife's company outsources as much as any.
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.
Of course not. That's why the plan, over time, is to
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
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