Slashdot Mirror
How Can Nerds Make a Difference In November?
Scott Aaronson offers an intriguing call for ideas on how nerds can supercharge the political process this year. He's clearly an Obama admirer and phrases his challenge this way: "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" But the question itself is not inherently partisan. The analogy Aaronson gives is to the Nadertrading idea in 2000 (which we discussed at the time). What's the Nadertrading for 2008? "The sorts of ideas I'm looking for are ones that (1) exploit nerds' nerdiness, (2) go outside the normal channels of influence, (3) increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude, (4) are legal, (5) target critical swing states, and (6) can be done as a hobby."
Get a programming job at Diebold.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Or is that obvious?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
... should be smart enough to see that neither party works and would start their own.
OK, flame away. :P
Game the search results on the candidates. Especially for sites in the swing states.
Oh, that's right he said it has to be legal...
blow the hog hard
Hack the voting machines?
This guy's the limit!
I don't care who wins the election. Just to get that out of the way.
I think that people who spend a lot of time on the internet build up a false sense of community size and influence. If one were spending a lot of time on Digg last year, they were probably surprised by how poorly Ron Paul did.
What percentage of Americans are regularly active on the internet? What percentage watch hours of t.v. a day?
I'm all for people getting out and doing something they believe in but the fact that this is compared to something involving Nader illustrates my point perfectly. It is a small group of people taking fringe actions what will not increase voting power by orders of magnitude.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
According to the criteria, I would say contributing labor to key "political" software projects such as GPG or TOR would be best. It can be done as a hobby, definitely exploits our nerdiness, and absolutely goes outside the normal channels of influence.
Granted, this has nothing to do with getting a politician elected, but that's exactly the point. Taking direct action to solve the problems of privacy and government surveillance increases our "effective voting power" many times over, because we don't have to hope that whatever shmuck we put in office will do what we elected him to do. In a certain sense it makes us even more powerful than the president.
I guess my point is that the most powerful things nerds have done to change the political landscape haven't had anything to do (directly) with elections. Because our power and potential is bigger than any politician.
I'm Canadian, but I do hope Obama wins, In the recent weeks, I've been working on getting work in the US, I think it would be nice to expand my computer consulting horizons. As I've been following US politics for the last 10 yrs, I do think Obama is indeed going to be a great president. I would consider moving to the US if a president like Obama was elected!
But really, the problem with Obama, like anything else, are the myths propagated by others, or the misinformation about him. I say that anyone who wishes to help Obama (nerds included), only need to ensure that the facts are made clear to anyone willing to listen.
Nerds and the web, can obviously create ads for Obama such as "did you know" blurbs on their websites for example.
It's not about tricking people into voting for Obama, but about ensuring he's clearly understood by people. So, anyone who can clearly explain who Obama is, what he stands for and most of all, get his message across, is obviously going to help!
... should be smart enough to see that neither party works and would start their own.
OK, flame away. :P
1. Vote third party.
2. If not third party, vote AGAINST the incumbent.
3. If incumbent is unchallenged, abstain in protest.
I'd run myself, but if I'm asked about my Christian Faith, I'd have to lie. I'm a shitty liar. I'm in the Bible belt here, so it comes up.
Get a job as a journalist/reporter and write pro-obama articles. Oh, wait, that's already being done.
But you could blog (ugh) about actual issues, using actual facts and actual research. tv/print news is generally superficial and simplified. Much of the web is smears and juvenile, but you could improve that.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
How can that question be anything but partisan when it specifically mentions helping a specific party?
That is a VERY partisan question. Maybe the submitter doesn't understand the word partisan, so let me make it simple: If a question or statement singles out a particular party or candidate, then said question or statement is partisan.
An inherently non-partisan question would be "What non-obvious things can nerds do to improve voter turnout and the election process in general?"
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
"What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" But the question itself is not inherently partisan.
You and I seem to have different ideas of what 'partisan' means.
Honestly, the best thing a nerd can do during an election is spread information. Not slanted information but stuff like the folks over at factcheck.org are doing. Another thing is discussing various differences in the voting process like trying to build a grassroots movement to move back to the popular vote or opening up discussions on runoff voting. There's plenty of ways to inform the public, possibly the most important and least rewarded job--in my mind anyhow. I find it humorous when Democrat workers go around alienating Republican voters and vice versa.
If you approach me with the mindset that I need to be voting for your candidate I'm probably not going to react well to it.
My work here is dung.
I would be surprised if you guys haven't noticed, but "democracy" in the states are delegated. It gives the rulers an idea what the general public wants. However when it comes down to it, the public only elect delegates, and those delegates have no obligation in going through with voting the person they say they are going to vote for. Therefore, it is none obvious way to actually make a significant impact on an election.
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
Hack Diebold?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Throw our own Boston Tea Party and dump all the un-auditable, papertrail-less voting machines into the nearest river/lake/car compactor.
Of course, if you use this option, remember that the last armed revolt in America was over voting issues.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
the RON PAUL people seemed to know what they were doing ;-)
If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.
It doesn't matter if you vote for Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or Alan Keyes.
People need to start demanding that these 3rd party candidates get air time and in the debates. I'm really hoping that google or someone else has a debate with some of these candidates.
The best thing you can do to make real change and a difference is to take over your local government and work up. Get some friends and like minded people and start running for city council, judges, etc....
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Lets say you are pulling for Obama. Go into Call of Duty 4 and change your name to "McCain 2008" and run around with the shotgun. Or go play Counter-strike and change your name to "McCain Roxors" and camp in a dark corner with a sniper rifle.
You can also go into people's skype channels and spam your love for the candidate that you do not want to win. People will be so put-off by your actions that you may just swing an independent in the opposite direction!
Hack the Gibson.
Probably the best thing to do is explain your stance on technology and why you feel it's important. It seems as though there are a lot of people who single issue vote on gun control or abortion so it might not be too difficult to get them to pick up another issue that they care about.
There are also plenty of people who really haven't decided who to vote for yet, so explaining your views on technology and answering their questions might help to influence their choice just a little bit.
As an added bonus if they take the information in and do a little research of their own they might continue to be interested in some technology issues and base their voting in local or state elections on a candidate's tech platform in addition to other areas as well.
Even if you only talk to your parents you've spread the message. For most people this shouldn't be too difficult as they're only upstairs.
The most effective thing a geek can do in November is cast an educated, confident vote.
This means that each and ever geek needs to do his or her civic duty and research the candidates using information from a wide variety of sources and people. Personality of the candidates is not as big of a factor as the media makes it out to be. Look at the policies each candidate would like to establish or disestablish, and ponder how if affects you, your family, and your neighbors and friends. Ponder how it affects people in other countries and our soldiers abroad.
Study the history, study the sociological reports, and study the hypothetical fiction which extrapolates these policies.
Considering these policies, think of what is best for you and your family but still fair to other people and their families. This is called liberty, and it should be every geek's goal.
Consider this the most important thing that any geek can do up to November 4: educate him- or herself, and educate others. It's a heavy burden, but we geeks are mentally prepared for the vast knowledge it takes to cast an educated vote.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Call me old fashion, but the one person - one vote system still appeals to me. Trying to increase ones effective voting power feels more like Jim Crow rational: "We're the good guys, so we should have disproportionate power."
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
"(6) can be done as a hobby"
Affecting a political outcome and changing the policies of your government is NOT a fucking hobby. If you want change you need to put forth commitment and while this might not be a full-time job, it is a second job at the very least. This is not another fucking coding project you can fork if you don't like the way things are going, you can't call others noobs, and you actually have to learn something about social interaction if you want others to listen to your ideas. If you treat this like another OSS project then it will languish in code hell, a perpetual alpha with the occasional vulture picking at the carcass every now and then.
In these days of sloppy journalism and down right bias on mainstream channels in the US then surely the most "effective" is to learn from the real scum of the political process the people who do the anonymous negative campaigning, shooting malicious falsehoods out into the world via leaflets and other approaches.
Nerds could go hugely further than this by creating fake sites, bombarding social networking sites and editing wikipedia to spread these rumours and even create "verifiable" sources. Low quality videos suggesting illegal or immoral behaviour could be uploaded onto YouTube and main stream news channels could be bombarded with votes/emails/text pushing an agenda, view or revelation.
Oh or did you mean what nerds could do on their own rather than what they will be paid to do in this campaign?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
You don't think both parties aren't already bought and paid for by the same paymasters?
Deleted
How Can Nerds Make a Difference In November?
- Explode the Parliament on the 5th. Oh wait...
Here is a radical idea, how about don't vote? I originally posted this in various posts on RevLeft (my "homepage"), and in that context. However, most of the messages in here count for everyone. In short: your vote doesn't count, and when you vote you are telling "the system" that you support the person and everything they stand for.
------
Basically, it doesn't matter who *you* vote for, your vote doesn't count. It is one vote out of thousands, and with the shitty system (first past the post in most places, along with the electoral college), it doesn't mean shit.
OK, so assuming you *do* vote (for whatever fucked up reason you justify to yourself), and you vote for "Obama". You just endorsed capitalism, the state, Christianity, and a whole lot more bullshit. You just supported all Obama's of policies on every single issue. Even if you didn't mean to (the USA presidential system democratic? Not even the term "representative democracy" makes sense in this case).
OK, so don't vote, and the politicians say, people are happy with the status quo. However, we all know that is bullshit, especially in this case where the present president cannot be re-elected. The reasoning behind the claim is totally flawed. To not vote, does not endorse the status quo, because the status quo is changing! OK, what about not voting as "accepting the system"? Yeah, if you vote you are endorsing the system and whomever gets elected, and by not voting the same... Actually, only the first is the case. Not voting depends on your motivation, and when I don't vote I'm objecting (even if only close friends and family know that I don't vote and the reason why).
OK, lets examine burning a tire on the hireway. What does it do? Well, it might rate a mention in the local paper, and it is possible that it might be linked to anti-voting activity (anti-system). But it isn't about to bring about a revolution (but it will do a shit load more then [i]voting[/i] for any of the candidates, whether "socialist" or not). But, it could be fun, and it might cost the state a bit of cash.
But when since is voting fun? Especially when it means that (whether your vote is counted or not, and we all know how many votes aren't counted, whether because you are black or from a Democratic county, or because you foolishly used (or didn't have a choice in using) Diabold machines (regularly giving votes to Republicans and losing Democratic votes, every time) endorsing (tacitly and implicitly, even if not explicitly) a system that you are fundamentally against.
So yeah, if you are against the present system of exploitation etc., then use bullets, the ballots aren't going to change the system.
-----
The lesser of two evils is... evil.
If you are going to vote for evil, vote for Cthulhu, the greater evil.
-----
The rich will always be "the #1 heard voice in America", because they can buy access to politicians, to media, to judges whatever they want. Their vote is worth twice or more of yours.
[About Nader] Another old rich white heterosexual male. Have fun with that.
-----
From an old essay of mine http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-presidential-elections-t21651/index.html
I wank in the shower.
Stop DailyKos by Any Means Necessary.
Any legal issues can be resoved by a Presidential pardon after the election
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Nerds should be able to estimate the voter turnout in their state here and calculate the probability that their one vote will swing the election in that state. Obviously the closeness of the race plays a huge role too, but there's no way to know how close the race is until after the elections (margin of error is +/- 3%, and the race will be won by less than 3%).
If you've done all this, you will see that the chance of your vote making a difference is extremely remote. Your entire trip to the voting booth is wasted. You're giving away time and money for nothing.
If tons of people stop voting and a single vote becomes meaningful, then it will be time to start voting again.
May not change things in November, but this shithole of SlashKosian socialism and equally poor technical analysis does not deserve the pageviews.
You mean the guy who voted for telco immunity? The guy whose vice-presidential nominee is a MAFIAA crony?
Remind me why I should support either him *OR* the equally scummy McCain?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The other one is an EMP blast.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Well, assuming you are a nerd (read: person of above avg intelligence), you should realize that the past 8 years of the Bush administration have made a difference in our personal lives. We are paying directly for the policies of this administration, and sure, this is my partisan opinion, but there is no doubt that the nation financially "challenged", to put it mildly, right now. It's not by accident that we have reached this point--it is by the decisions made by those in power.
What happens in Washington affects us directly, and who is in the White House sets the tone. If you do not see the difference between the two choices we have, because "it won't make a difference anyway", you might want to remember how it was before Bozo got into office.
So.. you should care.
BitWorksMusic.com -- odd tunes for odd times
One thing you can do is stop associating nerds with an effeminate/liberal/bleeding heart/socialist/Marxist/ political party.
More of us than you think, are level headed and conservative and actually love this country.
Wasn't that borderline illegal and entirely ineffective? Come on, that's not a nerd's signature.
This election needs Nerd help the old fashioned way. LEARN! Learn about your candidate, everything there is to know, learn his strengths and weaknesses. The next step is outside the Nerd repertoire, but I think we should give it a try anyway...
Evangelize! Get out and talk about your candidate, defend their position when you are challenged by a detractor. Avoid hyperbole (hard in politics, I know) and don't be afraid to make someone look dumb if their argument is flawed.
This is how election tides are turned. Enough strong-willed people out there converting the unwashed masses of lackadaisical voters. The Nerd challenge should be to convince the other 50% of eligible voters to get off their butts and show up at the polls in November.
Now where did I put my soapbox...
They've been going on and on for at least 15 years about "the youth vote", but election after election, statistically the youth vote is a non even. Most of them are too wrapped up in school, work, and partying to involve themselves in the political process.
Very good point. I think this gets to the root of why those MTV "Rock the Vote!" style campaigns get on my nerves.
I'm all for people making the effort to learn what's going on in politics, and then being able to make an informed decision.
But at the same time, some people are simply apathetic. If you prod them to go out and vote (by selling the idea as trendy and "cool", applying peer-pressure, etc.), you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons. EG. I just like candidate X because he looks better on TV. The other guys look too old and ugly!
All things considered, I think we'd do just as well to have them opt out of the whole process, if that's all the effort they're going to put into it.
At the same time though? I *really* wish the people who don't like either of the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool, screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too, which tells me a LOT about them.
That's why I'm going to cast a vote for Bob Barr. Frankly, the guy's kind of a "tool". He's just trying to ride the coat-tails of Ron Paul, and his V.P. already was heard admitting that he's really only running because he hopes it'll boost his popularity so he can get a book deal or radio show program in the future. But that's not the point. The point is, a vote for him is a protest vote the other guys can CLEARLY see they didn't earn.
At this point, armed insurrection is the only way for anybody to change anything. The voting process has been defunct since before the Union was established due to gerrymandering, for several decades due to both major parties being crypto-fascist, and recently due to rigged machines. It is true that anyone who dares to physically oppose the US government is almost certain to die, but with enough numbers, change can still be effected. If a thousand men with rifles marched to Washington and got as much politico blood on their hands as they could, that number is too high for them to kill us without consequences. A thousand US citizens' lives can't be swept under the rug in the way even a hundred could be.
He's got NO experience. Just writing fiction isn't enough to do the job.
Hack the social network :
* Create several facebook profiles, several myspaces and whatever is hype these days.
* Create fictitious profiles that will seem attractive to different demographics that contain a lot of swing voters. Typically, people who claim to not care much about politics.
* Locate "opinion leaders". That doesn't mean people who have 200+ friends, that means people who could make 10 of their friends change their minds if you manage to change their.
* Concentrate on these, become "friends" and make them change their mind.
Optional : Form a group of several people totalizing a lot of fictitious profiles that could give the illusion of a very lively network.
I think that by treating this as a serious hobby, you could get around 100+ votes in your direction. Note that this is just an online analogy of what politicians usually do.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I'd run myself, but if I'm asked about my Christian Faith, I'd have to lie. I'm a shitty liar. I'm in the Bible belt here, so it comes up.
American Christians take a very simplistic approach to their religion, which makes it very easy to fake Christianity if one is willing to make the effort. You don't have to be C.S. Lewis to convince the average American fundie that you're a believer. In fact, most fundies would probably find C.S. Lewis' brand of Christianity beyond their intellectual grasp.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
The sorts of ideas I'm looking for are ones that (1) exploit nerds' nerdiness, (2) go outside the normal channels of influence, (3) increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude, (4) are legal, (5) target critical swing states, and (6) can be done as a hobby.
If not for (4), it would have been obvious that he calles for breaking in to the appropriate computers. I'm inclined to think (4) is a measurement error! :-)
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Like "refactoring" from DOS 2.1 to include all the support for all the advancements in the technology since 1983 till now, while still being able to run on the 1983. computers - with exactly the same performance like today's computers.
There ARE times when you should just say "OK, let us start from scratch".
You know... what Microsoft should have done with Windows instead of Vista.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
...the chance that this piece of bacon will put me over the tipping point and give me a heart attack is so tiny that I should just eat all the bacon I want! So what if my vote has a tiny chance of mattering? The differences, when you consider the vast impact of American elections, are enormous. Just think of the impact that a handful of votes made in electing Bush over Gore. You are a citizen of a goddamn democracy. This caries obligations which you should man up to already. I don't care if a couple hours of your time seems like an unfair trade for living in a free and (fairly) fair society, the chance of the world being a lot less screwed up because you voted is too important to pass on. The needs of the many versus the few and whatnot.
People you know are more likely to care what you think. Provided you convincingly appear to care what they think. The easiest way to appear so is to take an interest for real. Don't dump a lot of ready-made propaganda on them. Get them interested and explain in fresh, conversational words why you will vote, and why that vote will be what it will. Make sure you know the answers to both. Listen to their opinions and objections. Answer in a measured and respectful way. Make it a personal goal to truly understand why other people think the way they do; this will help you. Don't get snooty or dismissive. Work on not resenting the opposition, even if you believe they are misguided. Steer the discussion towards objectives, policies, and political ideals, not the candidates' personality, personal life, silly little mistakes, or characteristics of their voters. Listen. Make sure you notice and focus on objectives and policies your subject is interested in, not the ones you enjoy shooting off about. Target the undecided and the stay-at-homers. The "other side" may be more interesting and invigorating to argue with, but you are unlikely to sway them. Listen. When you disagree, explain what is wrong with the point, don't tell people _they_ are wrong, or how smart _you_are. Observe your subject and their reactions. Alter your behavior accordingly. Know when to stop; boring people will not help your cause.
sudo ergo sum
The same way any other American can....Vote.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
"What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?"
Write an application that can heal internal divisions that have been present since 1968.
Whose reports? Oh, the government who caused the recession? And they claim things are fine? I'm suuuuure they're right.
Why on earth would you trust government statistics? They love to change how those statistics are calculated so they can manipulate them. If they can't manipulate those statistics easily they just stop printing them, like M3 information.
Visit this website if you want to see how the government manipulates basic economic data.
If you trust politicians, television and the government to tell you what to think, you're in trouble.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Spreading slightly plausible misinformation (about the opposing candidate) is far more effective than telling the truth. That's why people do it. It's just like running negative ads, which everybody bitches about, but which are time and time again shown to be more effective than positive ads. Sure it's slimy, but if you want an answer to the question, there you go.
The sad thing is, it takes time to fact check, and many people don't want to spend the time (or don't know where to look).
At least not for president. The electoral college was originally set up the way it was because the Union was thought more as a tight confederation than a singular government. It's never going to get changed because all the smaller states would have to agree to have their extra voting power taken away from them.
Not to mention the 'battleground state' problem - certain states are so thoroughly committed to voting for one party or another that only a serious scandal would sway them. So the same dozen-or-so states are the 'important' ones for presidential election purposes - face it, the vote from a Republican in New York and a Democrat in West Virginia isn't as important as the vote of an independent in Ohio or Florida.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
By producing, directing and acting in the future movie "Revenge of the Nerds 10".
One of my C++ programmer friends wrote a program to spam Sanjaya Malakar's votes last year. He used to spam the votes in favor of Sanjaya, no wonder Sanjaya went upto the last rounds!
Maybe our nerds can do something like this :)
slashdot rocks
Convince the uninformed, which is most people, not to vote. You've got an uphill battle though, since the media has spent years trying to convince these uninformed voters that they must vote or they are not patriotic. So we must now elect our representatives based purely on superficialities like party affiliation, appearance / personality or vapid populist rhetoric, which is all that the uninformed use to make their choices. It should be considered unpatriotic to make an uninformed vote.
All of the interesting IT work has been done; now it's pure voter ID and GOTV [get out the vote].
But the action is just beginning at local races. Get yourself involved in a state rep or state senate race. The budgets are tiny, so your free skills are incredibly valuable, be it for OS, database, webserver/site, even just setting up the computers, phones, and fax machines in the office.
It's true that the power of state legislators is orders of magnitude less than POTUS, but it's also true that the odds of your effort making a tangible difference in the probability of your candidate winning are orders of magnitude higher.
Keep in mind that state legislatures are the "minor leagues" for the US Congress, and that often states are the testing grounds for national legislation. More legislators of your political persuasion in your state is good for your governing philosophy over the long term, and your skills will be much more meaningful and appreciated by the local campaign.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
The day Obama flat out ignored 25,000 of his supporters, the largest group on his
web site at the time by voting yes for FISA he lost my vote right then and there. Do
you really want the govt in charge of your health care system? Think about it, what
program does the govt run now successfully? Way to radical....
Now I guess it is possible to get some sheep to vote one way or the other based on some
sort of project of this nature but I highly doubt the effectiveness. I would say
a vast majority of the thinking/voting public has already sided with a candidate.
Got Code?
1. Organize in secret, over the internet, anonymously.
2. Join Republican party. Easier to pretend that you are one of them and more fun. Just be a dick.
3. Get as many "agents" as high up as you can.
4. Sabotage the party from inside.
Use everything, from voting against the majority, through putting sugar in their gas tanks during the conventions, to spreading STDs.
5. When there are more of "you" then there is of "them" - change everything.
Fuck... Have a dress code that requires wearing of clown shoes and red noses that go Beep! when you press them if you want to.
Or just keep the party as it is and vote for the "right things" regardless of the party proposing it instead of what party demands of you.
Might be a tad problematic agreeing on what exactly "the right thing" is, but I guess things like torturing prisoners and nuking other countries or treating your own citizens as prisoners in a Giant-Fuckin'-PrisonTM most definitely are NOT the "right things".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Obama's nothing more than a half-decent speech READER. He has no original ideas. He (and all the other democrats for that matter) is spewing the DNC party buzz phrases word-for-word. If elected, he will be nothing more than a puppet for Howard Dean, Pelosi, and Harry Reid. If it looks like he's going to win in November, sell off your portfolio now before you get hit with double the capital gains tax.
Heck, not just digg. If you were paying any attention to the fundraising numbers you were probably surprised by how poorly he did.
Or, for that matter, if you saw the crowds he drew whenever he spoke, you were probably surprised by how poorly he did.
Heck, even if you counted yard signs or just talked to your local Republican-on-the-street, you were probably surprised by how poorly he did.
In fact, I'd bet only the people who get most of their news from corporate media knew how badly he would do at the polls, but most of them probably don't know why*.
--MarkusQ
* Diebold / Premiere finally admitted that their machines drop some votes. And they've previously admitted that they also add votes. And they've famously expressed strong preferences over who should when an election.
Just ask China's latest political prisoner James Powderly (of GRL fame.)
His recommendation probably goes something like this.
We can cast our God given vote and follow it with 11 Diebold given votes.
I got this message below from the folks at Black Box Voting, who've done a lot of good work in shedding light on how unsecure electronic voting machines are. They're urging interested citizens to apply for temporary tech jobs around election time to help keep an eye out for any irregularities... http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
-jj
--------
Widest possible distribution needed. Please do spread this in blogs, etc:
This post will no doubt produce howls of objection for the vendors that read it. Black Box Voting is encouraging all individuals with a technical background to search and apply for temporary tech ELECTION SUPPORT jobs for the November 2008 election.
Hiring is underway for temporary technicians to help with voting machines this fall. Vendor dependence is undermining the structure of US elections, as described here in the new report by VotersUnite.org:
http://www.votersunite.org/info/ReclaimElections.pdf
We want to see You, the People, enter into the vendor mix directly.
HOW TO FIND TEMPORARY ELECTION TECH POSITIONS:
In a presidential election year, voting machine vendors will hire and train thousands of technicians staffed around the country. For example, anywhere that Election Systems & Software has a machine, they are under contract to provide an on-site support tech. Hart Intercivic, Premier (Diebold), and Sequoia also use Election Day support technicians.
Temporary election tech support jobs have been spotted on hotjobs.com, rollouts.com, and local tech temp firms like (in 2006) DecisionOne. The tech services firm may be a subcontractor for the big four voting machine companies. Sometimes you'll find the positions advertised by your local county.
Sites like Rollouts.com have you register in their E-tech database. They search for techs based on skill set and area. There isn't much in the way of a skill set needed for the election projects.
QUIETLY APPLY FOR THE JOBS
Anyone with tech skills interested in safeguarding the November election is encouraged to register at technical recruiting sites and apply for any election-related projects.
CONSIDER ASKING FOR TIME OFF ON YOUR FULL TIME JOB TO DO THIS. This November, there may be no better way to watch the behind-the-scenes process than to be a stagehand, so to speak.
It is not the vendor, and not the government, that has the right to elections information, it is the PUBLIC. Citizens have inalienable rights to sovereignty over the government they created and pay for. These rights cannot be honored without mechanisms to see all information related to elections, and ultimately, to have control processes that honor citizen sovereignty.
That said, it ain't gonna happen this November. Therefore it is entirely appropriate, patriotic, and important, for citizens to apply for temporary positions as voting machine technicians to provide inside public oversight for the process.
There will be nondisclosure agreements, which are not appropriate at all for public elections, but it's a reality now that vendors are trespassing on citizen right to know. There may be issues that arise which the public clearly has a right to know. When that happens, a decision must be made.
YOU WON'T BE THE FIRST
We have already been in communications with other patriotic volunteers who have successfully obtained these positions in the past, and are doing this for November.
THERE ARE ALWAYS WAYS TO DEAL WITH IMPORTANT ISSUES IF THEY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC GOOD. You, the People, are needed on the inside of the elections industry this November.
This is a public service bulletin from Black Box Voting.
Black Box Voting Tool Kit 2008 - free download here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf
Empower more election watchdog actions:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057
he's a mongrel.
Sorry, I'm just pissed off at the micro-issue morons. Gun control, telco immunity, abortion rights, etc. These "micro-issues' distract from the whole.
You aren't going to EVER get someone with whom you agree with 100% all the time unless its you.
Weigh the pros and cons of the two candidates, CAREFULLY, and think about who will best serve the country as a whole. Weigh the VP choice as well, McCain is old enough to die or become incapacitated and Obama is black, I can imagine the KKK or some white supremacy group trying to off him ASAP. Those guys are scary crazy, if you think islamic terrorists are crazy, you haven't seen the KKK. They'll kill a black man with no remorse, they enjoy it. (It isn't a racist troll and don't tell me you haven't heard it before. I'm just an engineer looking at the potential issues.)
Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.
This election is IMPORTANT. Don't screw around and take your citizenship and right to vote seriously. Vote for the best all around package, knowing full well that there are no perfect people, and they will disagree with you on various issues, but *mostly* represent you.
As for the micro-issues:
Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo. If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.
RIAA, well that's the courts and congress. We need to fight it there.
Eight years ago your post would be: "These two candidates are the same guy! I'm voting for Nader!"
Do you honestly thing Gore would have run things just like Bush?
Now, do you honestly thing McCain would run things just like Obama?
Enough with the protest voting, we should mobilize people and teach them to vote for their best interests, not teaching them to be cynical and become protest voters.
you know the rest
Plenty of partisan nutjobs cast their votes for reasons less substantial than 'he looks better on TV'.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
'"What can nerds do to help the Democrats win in November?" But the question itself is not inherently partisan.' Seriously, Slashdot, do you think anyone would fall for this?
No, such a man, if that is Obama, might become the "Leader of the Free World" in five months. Where was this idiot in civics class? Does he think a president elect moves into the White House in November? Do we really want people like this voting, much less having his vote magnified though what he plans?
Now to differing views. Does he really think we need an identity-confused president wracked by self-doubt in this time of world-wide conflict?
Clinton cheers him up? This man has no doubt. He knows what he wants, power and pussy.
Colbert has had several episodes now about this: "Get up from your couch, and sit down at your computer chair - and make your opponents wish they had NEVER visited your blog."
The #1 thing nerds can do to make a difference this election year is get out of the house. Go to places where nerds congregate and register people to vote. Go to places where environmental nerds congregate like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods or net neutrality nerds like OsCon etc and register people to vote. Go door to door with your party's kit (they both offer them, they're free, and it works). But above all leave the house!
Go vote and tell your friends and family to do the same.
And don't bitch if you don't bother to go and do it.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Young people are piling onto one candidate because his team makes great use of modern tools like social networking software and email. When I ask about what the candidates specific policies are and why they are better than the opposition, most of these young people are speechless. All the more kudos to the candidate who can effectively obtain votes this way. But I still shudder from the ignorance of the masses - not really democracy.
I just keep reminding people that there are more than two parties; more than two candidates. I remind them that they need to stop complaining about selecting from two bad choices and that they should look at the others -- most everyone can find a platform they can support if they look beyond the big two.
Why don't USAians just stop holding the elections in all the states except those so called "swing states" or purple states or whatever the term may be today?
It would be a whole lot cheaper.
I mean... why not?
Its not like that the system currently in use can be called democratic with votes counting more or less depending on location.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'll be on the ballot for the US House of Representatives for Florida's 15th Congressional district.
http://lowing08.com/
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
> Did you know Obama lied about the source of a negative ad about himself and attributed it McCain instead of the third party source who actually created the ad?
Riiiight. Because the people who created the Kerry swift-boat ads have NOTHING to do with the Republican party. They're merely independent folks who want what's best for America?
Technology Workers of America Together!
T.W.A.T Union
They're using their grammar skills there.
. . . way back in 1972.
What?
I'll be a first time voter in this presidential election. I didn't just get my green card or just turn 18 (I'm 27), I've just been too lazy to vote.
I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. If nerds want to make a difference, getting off our collective asses and voting is probably the most effective thing we can do.
Also...just got an SSD...completely changed the way I feel about restarts...15 seconds is not a long time to wait.
Oh yeah, also...anyone know a good place to register? It's been almost a decade since I've done that.
You do realize that a big part of refactoring is discarding things, right? And that there were multiple steps along the way to Vista?
It made a lot of sense to keep DOS when moving to Windows initially because there was a huge base of existing software. Should MS have completely given up that market just to have a pure design that would satisfy someone like yourself?
Just because they did the refactoring wrong, or didn't do it all the way when it needed it, doesn't mean that refactoring wasn't the right thing.
If only common sense was more common.
Voting may be the hardest way (as a group) to make a difference because it requires a lot of people to do it and mostly on the same day.
But it's the only thing that will make a difference. You can voluteer as a poll worker, speak out locally against faulty voting technology, join advocacy groups on issues that matter to you.
When the usual bunch of idiots win at the end of the day, all your efforts will be for naught.
The one upside to historically low voter turnout in the USA is, you can sway an election without getting a large number of current voters to change their mind--if you can get enough non-voters to show up on Tuesday.
Worked for Bush in 2000 and 2004 by getting the evangelicals to vote in large numbers.
So vote. Vote. Vote. I'm sure there are many other very good suggestions in this thread. But they won't have any results if folks do not vote.
Vote.
If tons of people stop voting and a single vote becomes meaningful, then it will be time to start voting again.
THAT never happens.
What DOES happen is that party members just vote for themselves. Bigger party - more votes.
So, the average man is unimportant - only party members are important enough to be considered. For everything.
From job positions through health care to education.
What you SHOULD do is vote.
Vote against the one you hate the most/who will do most damage.
If all equal - write "I have no one to vote for in this election" on the ballot.
Incorrectly marked ballots ARE counted.
Nobody cares about people that don't go to elections.
People that go to elections and purposely stand in lines to vote just so that they could say that they don't want to vote for either side - now that is a untapped vote-force.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It's not just young people. Older people vote based on what they read in the paper, what they're told by talk radio, and what they see on TV (or just what someone said down at the barbershop/hair stylist or the bingo hall).
Mass ignorance is the reason that the US democracy was set up to eliminate votes from the system, starting by preventing people from voting for all sorts of reasons (though race and sex were part of it, there were also issues of land ownership, literacy, and other items eliminated previously).
Since we've decided that everyone's vote must count, we have to deal with this issue by attempting to educate people, not by bemoaning their ignorance. At least some of these uses of modern tools are trying to educate people, though obviously in a self-serving manner wherever possible.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
As people used to say in Russia after the Democratic revolution and before the Bolshevik Coup-de-Etat, people they like to "protest" with their votes are just what is called "useful innocents".
Or you vote to DECIDE, or you don't vote. The other options will just give ammunition to the groups that want to perpetuate themselves in power.
Anyone with a minimum understanding knows that Democracy is a fallacy. Real democracy existed only in old Greece. Nowadays, Democracy is just a form for the lobbyist group in power to get a blanket of legitimacy, while they screw the other lobbyists and the public in general.
Stay home, write open source software.
That's a much better use of your time than casting a ballot.
There's no chance that your ballot is going to affect the result, and even if it did, the candidates will do pretty much the same things. They like to pretend they're different, and they insist on the differences during the campaign, but they're really not.
Even if you believe each vote matters, then consider abstention matters as well. It shows you're not naive enough to believe in the political process, it shows you believe problems are solved through voluntary cooperation and not political force. Staying home is the most moral vote you can cast.
\u262D = \u5350
It lets bad people do bad things with little resistance.
Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler stirred the emotions of the people, and the people followed them almost without question to disastrous results. We need a president who will try to convince us he is right and follow him, not one who will be assumed right because everybody loves him.
There's the problem with feeling instead of thinking. The Republican Congress ended the recession with sound fiscal policy, aided by the dot com boom. Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.
Democratic leadership is just itching for their turn at the helm of the war machine.
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Those weren't Republican Presidents who entered us into those wars. You're sadly mistaken if you think the Democrats want less war. What the Democratic leadership wants their own wars that benefit them financially and benefit them politically. They've said they had enough of Bush's war only because it doesn't help them. Have you not noticed how the all powerful Democrats in the house and senate, and Pelosi made promises of getting the U.S. out of the Iraq situation....have faded away?
Democrats know just like they've always known, war is profitable, war can help you win elections....and they're pissed of that the Republicans have stolen this page out of their playbook.
Just face it. You're a goddamn sheep, who believe the kumbaya song the Dems are singing is real.
It's not. It never has been.
One thing that is overlooked, is that in the tech and engineering fields, Libertarianism is far more visible than in other demographics. Those folks tend to think Obama and other Dems are socialists and would sooner vote for imperialistic war mongers than someone who the feel will take their money and give it to welfare cases who refuse to work. Mobilizing that demographic will probably (speculation) have more of an adverse effect on Obama's chances than increasing it.
1. Somehow get women to expose their breasts.
2. ???
3. No restraining orders?
I drank what? -- Socrates
Some internet advertising is paid for on a quota; an ad might get 100,000 hits before being replaced with somebody else's.
You could just hit the republican link on your PC 100,000 times and wipe it away for everybody :)
How about you fucking kill yourself because it's worthless partisan hacks such as yourself who ruin politics for everyone?
You need to reread those reports. They were restated to show that things are not as bad as originally thought due to exports. And those were mainly due to the weak dollar internationally. Since the dollar is getting stronger, that bump from exports will go away. Many experts have wondered about the validity of the official data as well since it does not seem to match what they are seeing happening.
Some have suggested you are right about him having a major recession when he takes office, but only because his administration will find that the current one has been cooking the books.
Yea, because voting for someone other than democrat or republican is a waste of time, even if you don't agree with the democratic or republican political platforms.
I hate printers.
Presuming you want a Democratic victory, the thing that would most effectively increase a nerds voting power is "not voting".
The only reason that Republicans have won any elections in the last hundred years is because people whose socio-economic circumstances make them more likely to benefit from the Democratic Party's control of government, i.e. poor people, blue-collar workers, unemployed, union members, minorities, etc., have become too cynical about the political process to bother voting. If the majority of people voted in U.S. elections, Republicans would never win any of them.
Now if you want to make an activity (like voting) more popular rather than less popular. Then it would be better if nerds are not seen doing it. Think of a popular dance move from an earlier era. Do you know why no one does that any more? Because the instant everyone saw nerds trying to do it, it just didn't seem very cool anymore.
So just stay home on election day, unless you're a Republican nerd. In that case I urge you to vote and campaign vigorously for John McCain. Be sure and tell everyone how you think he's really nifty.
And maybe some bullshit to add some substance to his empty ramblings.
Ralph Nader got us George W. Bush, which was the worst thing to happen to America since WWII. Oh, yeah, and without the benefit of a decisive victory, and a net loss, rather than gain, in world prestige.
Ralph Nader shares the blame for the damage to America that George Bush has wrought.
I piss off bigots.
I am not going to lie. I didn't vote in 2004. Reason? Kerry wasn't going to do shit to change America. It was better if Bush won and continued his reign of terrible. However, this contest is markedly different
.
.
Firstly lets get this in the open, yes Obama has voted for this which I would personally never allow (telecoms,allowing the Patriot act, our general loss of certain freedoms we are granted by the constitution). But if you chose to use this as why you are not voting for him, or admiting to voting to vote for someone else in protest, sir or mam your logic is terrible and your argument is not valid.
This seems to be you arguement
1.My vote should be cast for the canidate who will affect the changes I want to see.
2. I will choose a canidate iff they propose to accomplish what I want
3.If I invest value in my vote, I care about where it goes towards.
4. Canidate A and Canidate B do not do everything I want.
Conlusion I must not vote for either canidate.
This is not a valid argument. You would have to insist on premise 2 that the canidate must do everything I want. This is an unrealistic expectation to make of anything in reality. It is impossible to control the contents of the universe and expect that they work for you, in the way you want. We just can't know everything
Furthermore if you value you vote, throwing it away does not follow premise 3. By willingly investing it nothing, you are like the rich man who buries his gold in the yard
Our economy is terrible, our place in the world is diminishing. Education is harder to come by. People die unecessarily when we have the technology and resources to provide health care. If you turn away from these things, fine. But don't act like you you really care about what happens and you are not voting on moral grounds. Turning away from helping others isn't moral at all.
Continue to fail in basic economics. Convert others to a Rousseauian view on life. Bury whatever information about Ayers that has the Obama Campaign pissing its pants. Delete everything on Rezko accessible from the web. DDOS one McCain supporting website, then DDOS multiple Obama sites to make it seem like retaliation. Force your children to work more than 50 hours a year 'volunteering' for govt. run programs to set an example. That's a good enough start I would think.
GASP!!!! Did he just say THAT? Yes, and here's why.. one party rule is the worst thing for America. It doesn't matter which party, there are no exceptions.
Frankly I like the idea of a Republican President having to work with a Democratic Congress and vice versa. If Republicans controlled the Congress I'd vote for Obama.
If you take away the hot button issues of flag burning, prayer in schools, abortion and gay rights, they're all the same crooks. You just have to keep enough on each side to keep the other side honest.
The term 'nerd' is just plain insulting. I can't see how anyone would want to be called this. Nerd: an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits Geek: an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity See the difference?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Nonsense. This rumor was created like most others by the republican smear machine, a group of slime merchants who like mercinaries work for the opportunity to feed heavily at the trough. If you look a list of contractors on "projects" in Iraq and match it to a list of republican operatives you will find a great many matches. Should we also be surprised that more than 14 BILLION dollars remains unaccounted for concerning Iraq contracts by the admission of the Bush administration? Wake up, lest you find a republican operative has strangled you in your sleep.
The answer as I see it is simple. If all of us who are sick of the 2-party system we've become stuck with, and we can all agree that regardless of which 34rd-party we vote for we will still have either a Democrat of a Republican in office next year, then the solution is for all of us to somehow pick the one 3rd-party candidate (perhaps a /. poll?) to show support for.
Since we all agree they wouldn't have a shot at winning anyway, it shouldn't matter which candidate is chosen. It would just be a way to show the rest of the country that "hey, this candidate actually got a decent set of the population, maybe next election voting for them won't be like throwing my vote away."
Together, we can make the election process feel the /. effect!
Expound the virtues of instant runoff voting. Help implement it in schools and local elections for minor posts, to help people get used to the idea.
We could all influence the election with starting to link to campaign sites we think give relevant information. People in San Diego could start linking to http://www.changesandiego.org/
It could be worse - he could have been giving arms & equipment to Al Qaeda. Man, I'm glad we've never had any presidents who were stupid enough to do that...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/the-bush-jobs-record/
Hmm, 5 million jobs added under Bush's tenure, OK.
Wait, 23 million (!) jobs added under Clinton's tenure.
Yeah, those tax cuts for the rich sure do "keep jobs in America" (to quote McCain).
Bush happens to have the worst record on jobs created since 1961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms). Yeah, give me some more of that!
Notice how well "trickle down" economics worked when Reagan tried them, too.
1. Use a deniable encryption scheme to encode a document which has multiple plaintexts, each describing your intent to rig the election in favour of a different candidate.
2. Send the encrypted multiple-plaintext document to the news media.
3. After the election, send along the appropriate key.
4. Singlehandedly psycho-disenfranchise the electorate without ever doing anything illegal. Good job, you anti-democracy terrorist, you!
EG. I just like candidate X because he looks better on TV. The other guys look too old and ugly!
We WANT that. Obama looks so much better.
But if these people don't vote, who will vote for them?
Voter turnout is historically the lowest for middle and lower income people, so if the well-to-do merely vote their pocket books and can dupe enough other people through flag-waving, we could easily get another Gilded age.
Oh wait...it's already here?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
I feel like an Obama LAN party is in order, donation-based with proceeds going to the campaign.
(OK, so it could be a McCain LAN party, or more appropriately, a computers-and-wires party.)
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Get out of my mind!
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Stimmt.
Except that it had nothing to do with the internet, which was the point you were explicitly making and I was rebutting. You can't lay something on Digg if the whole thing is played out in meat space--with real bodies, real money, etc. Nor can you lay it off on Nerds if most of the participants are non-nerds, which I believe is the case here as well.
If you're trying to dilute your point to something that would cover all the data, you'll wind up with something like "members of groups with strong beliefs tend to discount the beliefs of non-members and inflate the importance of their own" I'd have to agree with you. But then so what?
Also, as to your large point, that small groups of people never change anything, I'd have to disagree. While most small groups never accomplish anything lasting, there are a huge number of "small groups" out there, and the small percentage of them that do manage to bring about lasting change still account for the vast majority of human progress. While playing on the fringe is unlikely to bring about purposeful change, blindly hugging the status quo can't by definition.
--MarkusQ
I think that the right response to 'Rock the Vote' is to say: "If you don't vote, you must live under whatever regime other people have picked for you".
I am voting for Obama for mass extinction, punctuated equilibrium, and the acceleration of evolutionary processes (and/or the Second Coming of Jesus).
In 2000, I traded my vote with a New York University professor. He voted for Nader for me in the safe state of New York, and I voted for Gore for him the swing state of Missouri.
Since I'm voting for Obama this year regardless, I have decided to "trade" my vote again only to trick someone in a safe state into voting for Nader.
Last election Nader wasn't on the Missouri ballot. So when I went in to vote, I decided to accept the argument that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and I wrote in Ralph Nader's name. I tell people I voted for Bush last election for mass extinction and the Second Coming. So I got two votes in one where everybody else only got one vote.
I figure Democrats bake a nice big wedding cake with thick layers of frosting, they give us eat a big slice and we eat that shit up. Only when we get to the last few bites of our slice do we realize that it's all bloody -- it's a cake of death. The Republicans don't even bother baking cakes -- they make a cream pie of death and throw it your face! At least with the Republicans it's in-your-face, you know what's going on, you can take your Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy towel and wipe that shit off and figure out how to move on. But with the Democrats you ingest your entire helping and now the problem is systemic rather than topical!
VOTE CREATIVELY!
VOTING IS DIRECT ACTION! VOTE FOR PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!
Also: Break Shit At Night!
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
...he would alleviate the responsibility of small businesses to pay "capital gains" taxes. There were cheers, so obviously no accountants amongst that throng of zombies. I'm no CPA, but small businesses don't pay capital gains; they pay income taxes - which he is admittedly dedicated to increasing.
What a novel, change-oriented approach to stimulating the economy: tax the hell out of the ones who create 70+% of the jobs. No way a company would pass its higher operating costs (read: increased tax rate) on to product or service cost; much less consider lowering wages to reduce tax liability.
Now *that's* change we can believe in, b/c i bet my lunch he'll get elected. Expect a 16% tax hike at minimum.
Anybody that would vote for Obama and then inflict that viewpoint on others through nerdiness, is neither a thinker or a good person.
> Older people vote based on what they
> read in the paper, what they're told
> by talk radio, and what they see on TV
That's called, "being informed."
Which is different from being influenced by the sexiness of the delivery channel.
The medium is NOT the message.
They are the ones who are hindering innovation.
1) DMCA
2) FISA
3) ACTA
4) You list the rest.
Sure, it sounds old fashioned, but maybe you should at least go out and vote?
Every year, when we get close to the election, tons of people come out of the woodwork and say, "Both candidates are evil, I've lost my will to vote, I'll vote third party. Why can't they ever nominate someone good?"
If you recall, tons of people said "Both Al Gore and George Bush are lame politicians" in 1999. Many of those people didn't vote. And simply because Al Gore seemed dull, we lost out on the chance to have a politician who really cared about environmental issues and who would have applied some moderation to the response to terrorism instead of going cowboy.
The trouble is, people, in general, are flawed. The sheer number of decisions a person has to make each and every day means that some of them will be wrong. It's simply not possible to find "a good candidate," because every human being has made a mistake in the past. Part of the reason Senators don't usually become Presidents is that they have a solid, visible voting record and lots of conflicting demands on their votes, so that anyone can point to and say "Haha! This one decision was wrong! You can't be trusted!" By contrast, Governors and Generals seem to have less visible records, so people can't play the "gotcha" game as often.
Please stop thinking that an election is a chance to find a perfect person and vote for him or her. That's not the way elections work; if you keep waiting for a perfect candidate you'll never vote. Elections work by presenting you with candidates, and you get to judge which of them you think will do the best job.
I'll confess this: in 1999, I listened to the candidates and decided that I would be a John McCain supporter. I decided to support him because I looked at Bill Bradley, Al Gore, George Bush, and him, and I decided McCain seemed like the best leader. Unfortunately, after the election, everything I learned about McCain gradually turned negative and everything I learned about Al Gore reinforced his solid reputation. In this campaign, I know a little about Obama and (I think) a fair amount about McCain. Both of them have had to abandon their key supporters to reach across the aisle and compromise with others, but I find McCain's decisions more wrong than Obama's.
Obama showed great courage not backing a junkie's-quick-fix approach to gasoline prices.
McCain supports creationism / intelligent design in schools.
McCain sponsored an amendment to ban torture, and then meekly backed away when George Bush announced that he'd ignore the law.
I'm voting for Obama. I may not agree with everything he does, but I think he's the best person to repair the damage that Bush has done to our country.
Why would any nerd vote for barak "eliminate freedom, make everybody dependent on the government for everything" hussein obama?
I've made a couple groups on facebook... mostly geared around embracing our kleptocratic/republican overloards with hugs.
...is to become a multi-millionaire so you can purchase favors from elected officials. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Advice: on VPS providers
Removing wrong moderation.
Remind all your friends that not voting, or a vote for anyone but Obama, is the exact same as a vote for McCain.
stuff |
One thing you can do that isn't blindingly partisan is to volunteer as an election judge. Election staff are in short supply in many places in the country, and as new (insecure) equipment has been purchased by states, a lot of older staff have retired from the process, overwhelmed by the march of technology. Being a geek is a good fit for this problem.
More staff at the polls makes things run more smoothly, and that encourages turnout in future elections, and even in current ones when people who stayed away hear on Election Day that the line moved quickly, and decide to head in and vote after all. Bigger turnout generally favors Democrats, so if you want to help Obama this is a good thing to do.
But even if you support McCain or someone else, it's a fun, interesting experience, and you'll be helping the country express itself. A lot of staff positions at the polls require a member of each major party, so both Republicans and Democrats are needed to staff the polls sufficiently.
Voting is how we buy in to the government we end up with; even when we vote the loser, we participate in the process and that makes us stakeholders. When you become part of the election process, you facilitate this for your community.
Our votes technically don't count for anything. Wiki
"in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates" they can vote for whoever they feel like so our votes aren't worth driving down to the nearest polling station, at least not for me.
I think it's all rigged anyhow but maybe thats just me being a conspiracy theorist...
...lesser of evils, I'll stay Peter Pan.
Besides, if you're going to appeal to moral duty in an argument, you should know that any argument can fly.
Also, you should make sure that the person you're arguing with accepts the same moral standards you do. You won't get far if you try to convince an egoist to accept altruism.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Well, a more shocking arrangement of the facts...
Sort that chart of jobs created during each president's term by the Average Annual Increase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Job_creation_by_term
(Notice that the built-in sorting algorithm is textual - you have to mentally move the top two entries to the bottom to get the real numeric sort.)
The sort neatly puts ALL democrats at the top of the chart, and ALL republicans at the bottom, with one exception (Roosevelt/Truman).
That's right, since 1929, the second worst democratic record of job creation beats the best republican record. Now, some of that is luck, but the evidence is astoundingly strong that having a democratic president is simply much better for the economy than having a republican president.
The 2000 election was decided by less than 600 votes in Florida. About 90,000 Floridians voted for Nader that year. If only 1% of those Nader voters could see what the future held.
Seriously. Don't vote for the candidate who merely claims to serve your interests. Vote for the one who will lay the cultural groundwork for the change you wish to see in your country.
It's up to you to be that change, regardless of who wins.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
There was a really extreme campaign in Florida where Republicans discouraged blacks, Hispanics, and other traditionally Democratic voters from going to the polls
I lived in Florida for five years. There are so many Hispanics there that there are places there you can't buy a pack of cigarettes without knowing how to speak Spanish. However, the Hispanic population is so Republican I doubt seriously you could find a hundred Hispanic Democrats in the whole state. If the Republicans were asking "proof of citizenship" in Floride, they would have shot themselves in the foot.
Methinks they understand Florida quite a bit better than you do.
As to the question "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" I'd like to know why the submitter thinks that nerds as a whole will be voting Democrat?
I've split my vote on every election, as I imagine most of my fellow nerds do, since by definition nerds are too smart to fall for partisan politics.
This election on the one hand you have a doddering old fool who supports the current clusterfuck of an administration. On the other hand you have a wholly inexperienced political hack from the most corrupt city in the nation, in the most corrupt state in the Union (mine). Here in Illinois we're so patriotic even being dead doen't keep us from voting. Our last Governor is in Prison, our current governor may be there next because of his ties to convicted felon Tony Rezko, who Obama has ties to as well (the Rezko sleazeball has ties to politicians of both Democrat and Republican arms of the Corporate Party).
I'll be voting "none of the above" (Libertarian, Green, or Constitution) this election, as I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who is beholden to nobody but the corporations again. The DMCA, Bono Act, FISA, PATRIOT act, all were voted in with almost 100% vote from both arms of the Corporate Party. Why should I vote for a person or party who almost always votes against my interest on bills? A pox on both their houses.
If you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican, I don't think you're smart enough to be a nerd. Sorry, that's my opinion. Real nerds don't fall for Jedi mind tricks.
Whoever wins, I fear that the present Preseident has fuX0red things up so badly that if you vote for the winner, you vote for Herbert Hoover.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I still won't have any respect for you.
And only vote for candidates in the Whig party.
Just make a huge (fake) announcement saying that the "insert notorious group here" is in full support of "insert candidate you want to lose here". Followed by believable fluff, and a bunch of pictures (maybe shopped pics of supporters) or something for added credibility.
now bear with me: you should still vote, the same way you shouldn't throw cans on the road. it's a "civic duty" in the sense that while one person voting or picking up litter doesn't matter, we're better off if everybody does those things.
because of this, it doesn't matter what party you vote for; chances are you live in a state where the winner's margin of victory was in the millions. Gee, you sure made a millionth of a difference.
Vote honestly; treat it as an opinion poll.
Just as small health issues can be symptomatic of a hideous medical problem, so can "micro-issues" be signs of a politician's hideous flaws.
The USA is ostensively a nation under the rule of law, with equality under the law. (While anyone with any time at all to spend on a brief review of the law/justice system in the US, along with a pair of brain cells to rub together can see that this is no longer the case and has not been for some time, that common mis-belief is still what holds this country together as a mostly-functioning society.)
Under the current government, the law still recognizes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, with any contradictory lower law being "void", as if it had never existed (as explicitly stated in Marbury vs Madison in ... 1803, IIRC), without even requiring such recognition by an official body.
In reading the writings of the people involved in establishing the new government, it is completely clear that government, even the newly-created one, was to be viewed with suspicion and kept on a short leash. To that very specific end, as written in the Declaration of Independence, the right of revolution (and by extension, secession) is reserved to the individual people from which any governmental power is derived in the first place. The means to exercise such rights is explicitly protected from government meddling at any level by the Second Amendment, which does indeed forbid government at any level from denying any free individual from purchasing and/or keeping their own handgun, rifle, shotgun, body armor, sound suppressor, grenade launcher/RPG, armored vehicle, tank (complete with functional main gun), fighter jet, battleship, submarine, carrier group, and/or atomic bomb. (If anyone disagrees, please explain away the Letters of Marquee issued to private civilians.)
During my time "growing up", I have had many core beliefs shattered, among those being the still-common fallacy that government (including local police, etc.) exists to serve the people, and does so. All levels of government exist to serve only itself - nothing else. This is why taking responsibility for one's own self is important (because no one else is obligated to: see the court case Warren vs DC), as well as having the means to be able to act on that responsibility.
Keeping that reality in mind, all the paper in the world, covered in language describing freedoms, liberties, and promises will do absolutely nothing to prevent armed, masked men from breaking down your door in the middle of the night and having their way with your and your family, should they so wish, regardless of which group those men belong to. What will prevent such is having ready access to equal force to counter force, should reason fail to prevail. In the end, those are the only two options available to anyone wishing to impose their will upon others: reason and force.
That is why "gun control" is not a "micro-issue". "Gun control" is about consolidating a monopoly of force in the hands of a government who is explicitly, by their own highest law, forbidden from doing so, and when anyone seeking office in such a government fails to recognize and acknowledge this, they demonstrate their lack of suitability for such office in clear and concise terms.
(This isn't merely directed at Obama: the same general reasoning applies to McCain, as demonstrated by his TOTAL disregard for the supreme law of the land by working for and completing the passing of his treasonous "McCain-Feingold Act", showing defiance in the face of "Congress shall make no law". In fact, very few, if any, federal politicians are worthy of office.)
Yes, elections are important. This is apparently why they have been subverted by, among others, the Republican party leadership (I assume the same of the Democrats, but do not have first-hand knowledge) who ram-rods their desires through regardless of the wishes of the voters, and in direct violation of their own party laws. The solution is painful
I'm not willing to exploit a broken system to slightly improve the chances for a politician who I don't support. There is a far greater chance that I will die on my way to the polls than there is of the election being "won" by my vote. If you're looking out for your best interests, stay home. If you're idealistic and selfless enough to risk your life, then can't you go just a little bit further and vote the way you really feel?
"The sorts of ideas I'm looking for are ones that (1) exploit nerds' nerdiness, (2) go outside the normal channels of influence, (3) increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude, (4) are legal, (5) target critical swing states, and (6) can be done as a hobby."
I would also like a Tickle-Me Elmo, a copy of Absolute Watchmen, and a pony. Thank you.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
You seem to think that liberty for yourself and others is a good thing. What is your idea of liberty? Can it be achieved without law? How can it be guaranteed?
I like to think that my idea of liberty is fairly simple: I own my life. I own my mind and body. I own my thoughts and the products of my labor. It is likewise for you. I am free if others do not violate my self-ownership. You are free if others do not violate your self-ownership. I do not know if it can be achieved without law; I only know that law makes it easier to systematically violate liberty. As for how to guarantee liberty, I know of only two ways: I can reason with others, or I can kill them when and if they attempt to violate my rights.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Link them to sites that display Things That Matter, like voting records and policy positions.
Link them to sites that debunk the misinformation that is also being emailed around.
For best results, don't link to partisan sources and don't present an opinion in the email - people will automatically write it off if they don't agree with your message.
If you receive a mass email that is SPREADING misinformation, don';t stand for it! Write a well written response with specific examples and links to back you up.
I don't know, maybe the same old thing - get out and talk to people. I mean, that's really outside the channel for most "nerds" isn't it? Yes, it means you'll have to stop preaching to the converted on your blogs, and come out of Mom's basement, and actually go talk to people... in person!!! It's OK, most of them don't bite - many of them will actually be friendly! And don't worry about that big round burny thing up in the sky - it won't kill you if you remember to wear your +50 ointment of protection (your Mom calls it "sunscreen"). If enough of you nerds go out and do this, I think that it will have a big impact - maybe not on the election, but on you... And, frankly, that's probably a good thing.
That is all.
Criteria 4, 1, and 3 are mutually incompatible. The things it takes to increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude are either illegal (various technological vote-rigging schemes) or are incompatible with nerdiness because they depend on charisma and extremely well-developed social skills.
I saw this headline on the rss feed and thought 'what, are we all supposed to do NaNoWriMo this year?'
"How Can Nerds Make a Difference In November?"
By rooting for MC Cain. No other way they can help Obama, or anyone for that matter.
Just spam news outlets with anonymous encrypted documents, and never give them the key. When someone tries to "prove" they did something by giving the key to an encrypted document, it will be assumed that they did the following:
1. Send two copies of encrypted documents to each media outlet, one claiming to have rigged the election for candidate A, the other for candidate B.
2. Wait until election results are tallied and candidate A is announced the winner.
3. Send media outlets the key for document saying you rigged the election for candidate A. Delete the other key.
The fact that the anonymous source and format of the two documents are different won't matter. It will be assumed that anyone trying to pull off this scam would deliberately try to make them look different, to make you think they're only sending one document. If they looked the same, it would be obvious that it was a scam.
Kang: "You have to vote for one of us, it's a two party system"
Random Voter (Lenny?): "Well, I believe I'll vote for a third party"
Kodos: "Go ahead, throw away your vote"
How's this for spreading information?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internetâ(TM)s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.
If you recall, tons of people said "Both Al Gore and George Bush are lame politicians" in 1999.
That's exactly how I felt in 2000. Tweedle Dee Vs. Tweedle Dum. Republicrat vs. Demopublican. Boy was I wrong. I was Demopublican vs. Fascist. I thought W was gonna be like his Dad, which wasn't a good thing, I didn't expect him to be a wannabe Mussolini or Franco.
Actually in response to the original question, the best thing that people in general could do would be to recapture the Republican party from the crazy neoconservatives, and return it to it's conservative roots.
-- QED
...lesser of evils, I'll stay Peter Pan.
That is a childish perspective, progress is made in steps. Is there one candidate who you think is any better than the other, even by a little bit?
If you don't think so, you are a fool. There are many differences in these candidates and I can't believe they could be seen as "equally bad."
So, you lose the opportunity to affect the outcome to make it less worse.
Maturity is patience. The old people keep winning because they know patience wins, the young people keep losing because they think they can change things over night.
But partisan nutjobs tend to fall at both ends of the political spectrum, and on average cancel each other out. A group of people voting based on who looks better on TV are much more likely to vote for the same candidate.
They're both Pro-
War
Big Government
PATRIOT Act
Domestic Spying
Corruption
"Free Trade" Agreements
Israel
American Empire
Federal Reserve
-- QED
The Senators represent the majority in your State because that's the way the system was designed. It's counterbalanced by your Representative in the House representing your district in upstate NY.
The OP was talking about the electoral college, where the State's electoral votes go to whomever the majority in your State wants for President. It is counterbalanced by nothing.
Look, I was there under Clinton's terms. Of those 23 million jobs created? 6 of them were mine. Yes, 6 times I lost my job due to cutbacks by companies under Clinton's watch. Since Bush? I got a job just before he took office, and you know what? I'm still here.
Clinton had Y2K hiring people out the wazoo, but they were all consulting jobs. They all went away in the summer and fall of 2000. Remember the crash of the internet bubble?
The jobs Bush created are STILL here.
Slashdot, another liberal think tank, nothing to see here, move along.
Well, we don't need a "stupid people" lobby, but rather a "general populous" lobby. Oh, there's some organizations of that sort, but they end up serving their own particular ends when it comes down to it. I like some things the ACLU has done, but not others.
Say, for example, Bill A comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives. It's a FISA or Patriot-Act type bill, and is being supported by every big business out there, and most lobby groups that have called then up. Individuals are ignored on a mass basis yet again, as is usual. While constituent voting has an influence on politicians, it's quickly forgotten mid-term. Lobbyists, as evidenced in this link, overwhelm the politicians' general sensibilities. So, we need a way to remind these politicians who they're representing. My answer is individual lobbyist efforts.
Imagine that a large number of people individually tell their individual representatives that if the Rep votes the correct way, the individual would donate toward that Rep's campaign fund. Also, the individual vows that they will remember the voting record for the individual bill when re-election time comes around. If something like this happens on a large enough scale, then the powerful monopolies would lose quite a bit of power and influence in government.
I'm sure that it could be set up as a classic PAC, with the only goal of forwarding information to and money from individuals as they request it.
People voting for the handsome candidate is the essence of democracy.
DON'T PANIC
... wow it must feel great to be a grown up.
Buh-bye troll.
Geeks Speak: The Presidential Geek-o-Meter My suggestion is to create a simple page with âoeGeek Metersâ that measure the tech/cyber/inventive/ etc. abilities, proclaimations, ideas, from the two camps. We need to include the geeks who are high in the campaign, who have geek successes, good/bad/ugly. Essentially, a series of measurements (of course subjective, but I have an idea on that) based upon things like: - Years (or days) using email - User skills - Geek-Speak test - Can spell critical infrastructure and Linux in one breath - Tech future ideas/programs: REAL alternative energy not just drill deeper. :-)) Space Program. Back to fundamental research.
I think it would be comparatively easy in a forum to come up with, say 100 geek criteria. We use board members (smart people like Slashdot people, for a vetting, weighting, tech journalists (who will help with major press).
Then we create at the same time a (say (0-5) criteria measurement.
We ask the campaigns to answer the questions. We have a voting system for the on-line folks, and then we have a dashboard with all of the collected data.
We can add/subtract/ etc. additional topics along the way.
At the bottom of the charts, take a total 100% weighting factor, and each candidate will get âoeGeek Vote Confidenceâ based upon the criteria the geek community itself decides.
This is essentially a cooperative (hobby) web site, guerilla marketing, that is unique and allows true geek representation in the forum and space they/we all understand.
this can also bring up serious political issues:
- Believe the military should cyber-defend the U.S. private sector?
- The private sector should defend itself.
- Cyber-vigilantism should be allowed/denied
- Make spammers pay with the death penalty (just kidding, but you get the point.
- Intellectual property protection ideas/beliefs
- Surveillance/cyber etc. rights, and beliefs
THIS COULD BE FRICKING AWESOME if anyone wanted to get behind it with some time. I can make myself available for certain aspects of this. visit my web sites: www.winnschwartau.com, www.thesecurityawarenesscompany.com, www.trustedlearning.com
See if this particular piece of Jello sticks. :-))))
Winn Schwartau
I'm posting AC for obvious reasons...
Follow the advice of the parent post, but...
Use a "plausable deniability" type encryption program to have TWO stories, one for each major candidate, each with separate passwords, in one document.
After the election, provide the media with the password for the candidate that won.
That way, you're covered no matter which one wins.
...progress is made in steps.
Not if the people controlling those steps are walking backwards.
Seriously. Let's make this the primary issue for the November ballot. Get one or both major candidates to declare live on national television that he will issue an executive order to abolish DHS security theater no later than February 1, 2009.
Have you flown recently? It's bad enough that you have to say goodbye to your loved ones at the security checkpoint an hour before boarding, but they also confiscate harmless fingernail clippers, they steal expensive lipstick that's not carried in a plastic bag, and they make arthritic old people bend over and take off their shoes. This farce must end.
The 9/11 incident will never happen again because air travelers know to fight back. We don't need or even want a double plus ungood totalitarian "department of homeland security" at airports.
I want to be allowed to carry my parents' carry-on bags all the way to the gate. I want to be allowed to sit with them until boarding. This November my vote will go to whoever promises the loudest to abolish DHS security theater.
-Anonymous to avoid an unplanned trip to Gitmo; hopefully someone braver than I can help get the word out.
I *really* wish the people who don't like either of the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool, screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too, which tells me a LOT about them.
I've been doing this for the last 8 years. I will go out of my way to not vote for either major party, because "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less."
I'm not going to vote Democrat just because they are anti-Bush policies, because that is just helping support the system. I'm not going to choose the Republican candidate over the corrupt, incompetent Democrat, because that's just supporting the system.
I don't give a damn WHICH third party finally manages to break 10% in a major election. We just need someone to prove that the current system can have more than 2 bad choices. Once we get there, I think this country will get better. And my faith in that happening has me looking at other countries to live in.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Neither Obama or McCain does very well on the issues we care about like Net Neutrality, security theatre by DHS, the Patriot Act, letting the MAFIAA have whatever they want etc. It's too late for this election because what nerds need to do first is make themselves felt as bloc that will fund this candidate or that or votes for this candidate or that based on the things that are important to use.
We also need something like GeekPAC but with a more public image friendly name that actually works to serve as a set of faces politicians learn to associate with these issues. Politicians fear groups like the NRA and AARP. We have the numbers and the dollars to inspire that same sort of respect. It is a matter of leadership.
So you don't like McCain or Obama and don't feel the third parties do anything for you. Fine. Skip those ballot spots. When you go to vote, there will be a BUNCH of other things for you to cast your opinion on. State representatives and senators, district reps, school board folks, various administrative positions, maybe some judges, maybe even a referendum or two. To put it another way, obsessing over ONE item on a 20- or 30-question multiple-mark test to the exclusion of the rest is bad strategy, as any college undergrad can tell you.
Where the heck do you THINK most of these lousy Presidential nominees come from, anyway? Most of them campaigned for, and won, local elections, quite possibly thanks to people not paying any attention to who was running in their district, allowing a very small group of supporters to ramrod them in.
This can be fixed. Wherever you are, find out who's running and where they stand on the issues. Find less objectionable (or even good!) local candidates, and get your friends to vote with you. Unlike the Presidential elections where "your vote doesn't count," you, your friends, and your contacts can make a serious difference locally. Get people in who agree with your politics, whatever those may be, and wait.
Chances are, your candidate's political career won't end after the upcoming term. Maybe they'll retain the office; good, better someone you like than another party-line nut (or someone from the other party). Maybe they'll move sideways out of your district; hey, congratulations, your vote just influenced people outside your voting region! And if they go for a higher seat, congratulations, you've just helped a whole bunch of people to take a step towards better government!
Has anyone actually looked at Obama's and Biden's voting records concerning technology and the internet?
Political speech cannot be regulated by anti-spam laws, because it is political speech. So email away to your hearts content -- and never mind the so-spam lists.
When you need a break from that, you can throw a few eggs at the opposition. Imagine pro-McCain advertising along the lines of, say, "KKK For McCain" or "McCain for Grand Wizard".
Maybe a (variation of) the slashdot system could be use to provide ideas for improved governance, in the day to day to foreign policy, etc.
The Obama campaign is listening to people, but it's hard to filter thousands of suggestions to find the really good stuff.
Maybe the slashdot system is a good start towards a collaborative filtering system that effects a permanent online town hall?
Anyway, I've blogged to that effect on HuffPost.com and also CNN.com and CNN TV.
How about using the same ideas that has worked well for spreading software like Firefox's "Spread*" campaign?
It would be very nerdy to have things like: ...?
- seti@home/boinc projects to calculate a lot of nonesense relating to a given candidate
- screensavers that use RSS feeds to display whatever news or other cool stuff (podcast, etc...)
- de.li.ci.us or any other bookmark sharing
The sky is the limit!
This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
Barack's folks have this technoid /grassroots thing well in hand, so either donate at BarackObama.com, or send money to the DSCC.
Other than that, citizen, the best thing you can do is VOTE.
If you're really interested, there'll be some good theater coming up on October 2 during the first and only Vice Presidential debate. McCain's VP pick, Sarah "Barracuda" Palin, will be attempting to sandbag Joe Biden -- as though Democrats can't or haven't read her profile in the Almanac of American Politics.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
If you're a student, figure out whether your vote matters more in your home state or your college state:
http://apps.facebook.com/becounted/
(They've made it easy.)
Election day is two months plus about a week away. That is the day he thinks Obama would become president.
"Five months from now is ... end of January."
And when did you think inauguration is? It's January 20th, five months minus about a week away. FYI, inauguration day is the day a president elect assumes his office and becomes the "Leader of the Free World."
Wow, somebody who doesn't know the government running to the defense of somebody who doesn't know the government.
Since Diebold^H^H^H^H^H^H^H err Premier... oh whatever they are called now machines are still in use in many places, vote by absentee ballot. AFAIK, in Maryland the machines used are the type with no paper trail and apparently legislation has been passed to change that (don't recall whether it is just to have a paper trail for the machines or some other alternative) but the legislation doesn't mean anything because they won't provide funding to make it work. Or at least that's the last excuse I heard.
Are there enough voting nerds that would make it a significant increase in the number of absentee votes to make headlines? Probably not. Maybe some marketing type could come up with someway of getting say one of the YouTube videos showing how easy it is to hack a Diebold into a 'vote absentee' ad campaign.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
A good chunk of our electorate thinks all of the unconstitutional, oppressive actions Bush has done are A-OK in the name of national security. The Germans value their freedom, too (I lived there for over a decade), but they got suckered in by someone promising they could be a great country again. By the time they realized the oppression it was too late, just as it could be here if we follow the president passionately.
The system here is different that others. Our president is both a head of state (the emotional pick) and the executive, an equal branch of government whose policies definitely affect the country. I don't choose policies based on emotions.
As for Clinton, we were already geared for fighting in the Middle East, and Clinton was more than happy to send troops into Kosovo. He just never felt the need to send them against people who had successfully bombed us at least four times under his watch. The only response was one ineffective cruise missile salvo at one suspected training camp. Al Qaeda was strong and confident enough to launch 9/11 precisely because of Clinton's inaction and lack of desire to send troops to root these people out.
I am not impressed much with Obama. He's a good orator and can whip up the frenzy of the crowd he speaks to, but he has shifted his positions during his campaigns just like other politicians, and still wants to keep fighting a war in the Middle East when he came out initially against it.
Don't like McCain either.
Actually, I think this entire political system sucks and needs to be re-worked from basic principles. So tired of the "majority beat up on the minority" system -- oh, they are calling that "democracy" these days? How is Tyranny of the Majority any different than Tyranny of a Dictator? None, if you are on the short-end of that stick!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
President Jimmy Carter.
Oh, I bet you thought it was Reagan who started that. They don't call the doctrine of us promising to use military force to protect our Persian Gulf interests the "Carter Doctrine" for nothing.
Oh, you probably thought George HW Bush started the idea of invading Middle East countries.
you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons
So what are these "right" reasons to vote? Seriously. I'm not just trying to stir things up. How informed do you have to be? Should we have a proficiency test before voting? You need to be able to list all the candidates for whom you're going to vote? And describe some of their positions?
Yours is basically an elitist attitude, even if you aren't an elitist guy. You consider a certain group of people to be, for lack of a better term, unmotivated dumbasses and you assume that their reasons for voting are less noble than yours, and therefore, desire that they don't vote.
I know I may sound like a jerk here, but what gets on my nerves is you making an assumption about why people don't vote, and another assumption regarding their motivation if they did. Like saying, "If you're not going to approach voting in the same manner I do, you just shouldn't vote at all."
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Absolutely!
The fact is, whoever wins this election is going to do so without even achieving 50% of the "popular vote". Helping get that 3rd. party vote to even 5% or 6% is pretty "significant" in that context.
The people complaining that those 5% or 6% should have "just cast a vote for one of the major 2 candidates instead" COMPLETELY miss the point! Whoever gets elected (or doesn't, by a small percentage) should ask themselves HOW to get some of those 3rd. party votes converted to their side in the future. Hint, it's NOT by complaining that those "stupid 3rd. party voters need to just stop doing that!". It's by taking heed of the fact that some of us are demanding things like smaller government and more individual rights and freedoms.
Don't worry, you'll be deployed overseas (again) by then anyway.
Actually, you've got me pegged all wrong.
I would have never voted for Nader. My political views are very libertarian in nature, and NOT much in alignment with Nader's "Green party".
I *am* voting for my best interests when I cast a vote for the candidate standing closest in viewpoints and "agenda" to what I want for my country.
It just so happens that in THIS election, I consider doing this more of a "protest vote" - because frankly, Ron Paul was the guy I had hoped had a shot at election. (He opted to run as Republican, despite being a libertarian, because he bet on having more success by running under that party label. It worked for him back in 1977 or so, when he became a congressman, at least.)
Since Ron Paul didn't make it past the primaries, I have to look around and see what's left. Bob Barr is the "figurehead" the Libertarian party has chosen to run. There's some question as to whether he truly believes in all of their principles, or if he's just latched onto them recently, because it best suits his personal agenda. Nonetheless, he's the only contender with a "laundry list" of beliefs I'm in alignment with.
If you really want to change everything, vote 3rd party this year! I'm voting for Bob Barr since he's the only one espousing personal responsibility, government doing less (not more like Obama!), and more personal freedom instead of paternalism. Even though Bob probably won't win due to the system being so strong, the real influence of Bob will be to overturn the unconstitutional laws that keep 3rd parties out of the main national debates. Could anything be less democratic than that?
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
I haven't checked into it but can any ordinary person rent a billboard and put some kind of political message on it? There must be some reason we don't see much of that... they are nearly always commercial ads. In some Bible Belt regions you can see religious messages sometimes, but not where I live (Phoenix, AZ).
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
It's definitely true that foreign policy is one of the areas in which the differences between the two parties narrow, despite the popular conceptions.
But there's a couple of problems with this thesis. The biggest one I can think of is the radically different nature of the wars on that list. Another one is the fact that the post-Vietnam Era Democratic party was already becoming fairly different from the pre-Vietnam Era Democratic party... and all your examples belong to the earlier period.
Ultimately, though, I think the biggest problematic assumption is that Democratic voters themselves are a bunch of Kumbaya hippies. I'm sure there's some real pacifist contingent that genuinely believes violence is never ever the answer, but my experience suggests that it's not particularly more common among the dems than isolationist philosophies are among the republicans.
Tweet, tweet.
Maybe not
You've missed the point. The two party system is broken. It wouldn't be a protest vote if everyone that felt misrepresented picked a candidate that fit them better. Instead, then it would be a true vote. As you say, they would be voting for their best interests.
It was almost thirty years ago, between 1980 and 1985. I don't remember the street name nor store name.
I try not to respond to trolls/flamebait but I'll make an exception in your case. As to "make myself look important", lay off the crack pipe, son.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Why? There's nothing in the constitution that says we should have a two party system. We're supposed to vote for whoever we think is best, not whoever we think has the best chance of winning. Yes, they may not run things exactly the same, but if you really don't think either will do a good job, you should vote third party. Otherwise, what's to stop the two major parties from merging (hell, if you ask some people, they already have in secret) and turning our government to tyranny?
Vietnam was over 30 years ago and the Democratic involvement was over 40 years ago. The individuals who made those decisions are out of politics or dead. Parties change platforms all the time. A significant example is when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Dems went from being Dixie-crats to progressives.
Look at the polls, Obama is screwed.
The media is in the tank for him, and he can't even get 50%.
The Alaskan governor has more foreign experience than Obama. Alaska has two foreign countries on it's borders. She also understands oil, and geopolitics.
She is also CINC of the Alaskan National Guard.
And she unseated a corrupt Republican to get the job.
She's got more executive branch experience than the other three combined (none).
If you think I am wrong, who would you rather have doing OJT, the POTUS or the VP?
And she's hot.
It's over.
The sheeple follow where the advertising points them. Give them some entertaining and positive adverts for Obama, use all the tricks of the trade to make sure that everyone is sending everyone else links to it (sex, humour, double-entendre, etc.) and make the effort prolific. The more eyeball time your candidate gets, the more likely he's to be elected. People are programmable.
Nadertrading only makes sense if you think Obama is substantially different than McCain. But if you did, you probably wouldn't be wanting to vote for Nader in the first place. I'll be voting Nader and hoping it *will* throw the race to one or the other. Obama demonstrated their essential sameness clearly with his a) lack of push for impeachment, and b) voting for the FISA bill letting AT&T off the hook. Get real-- Obama is nothing more than McCain with a happy-face pasted on. So in protest, I'm throwing my vote away even if it means McCain gets elected and immediately starts bombing Iran and banning abortions. And don't blame me for what whoever wins does, I point to the masses of weak willed sheep who insist on keeping this two-party farce alive-- and a huge chunk of them don't vote at all, less than 50% of the voting-eligible populace voted in the last two elections.
Personally I found Gore to be a monotone money-grubbing holier-than-thou little bitch. I'm pretty sure his involvement in the carbon credit Ponzi scheme and the myriad dishonesty in An Inconviniet Truth bear me out on that.
With Obama in the current race and his special little podium that he used for his speech, along with his plans for mandatory youth 'volunteering' the fact that you're comparing Bush to Mussolini and Franco is fucking hilarious.
He has promised the world to every citizen and says he can do that better than the Repubs. He will fund this with $ from where? Maybe his vast experience with socialist organizations will enable him to do it better than Russia, China, France, Venezuela.....et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
We need to work on rebuilding both parties with honest people.
Any other stupid questions?
Al Gore doesn't give squat about "Global Warming" he is the world's #1 hypocrite. His so called carbon foot print is bigger than many 3rd world countries. Because he knows that "Man made warming" is a myth. All he cares about is money and fame. Remember this is the guy that invented the Internet!!!
The fact that Gore is supporting Obama should be a strong indicator that you cannot trust Obama any more than you can trust Gore. Gore does nothing unless there is something in it for him.
The reason I strongly doubt the 'direct election of the President' system is ever going to go away is such an act would require an ammendment to the Constitution. And an ammendment to the Constitution requires a vote of the majority of the states - and what representative from a small state would vote to lessen their 'extra voting power' when it comes to the Presidency?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The Republicans freed the slaves, and so as a black man I'm going to vote Republican this time around. *rolls eyes*
Please do not put much value on what a given party did historically, but rather what the party's leading candidates are most likely going to do given their own personal history. Yes, the Democrats were in charge as we jumped into a number of wars. However at the moment the Democrats want the support of those who are upset about the whole Iraq thing. Therefore they're playing the anti-war card. It's not that complicated.
There is some merit to your mention of the fact that many of the anti-war claims from the Democrats aren't quite what they were a number of months ago. This is not, however, even remotely related to the fact they were in charge as we went into WWI.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
There is only one answer: vote Libertarian. Or any other 3rd party. Voting Republican or Democrat is not making a difference, its doing the same old thing.
I refuse to vote for either McCain or Obama.
I might vote for Barr. Or I might just stay home.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I hate to admit it, but you're right. 8 years ago I voted for a third party because I didn't care for Gore and really didn't like Bush. The whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing really pissed me off--"What, you think you should automatically get my vote without having to appeal to me??" was my response to that. I was in a red state where my vote had no chance of mattering either way, but I felt like an "express my disappointment with both parties" vote would make a better statement than a "lesser of two evils" vote.
Looking back on that now, I'm humbled by the realization of how wrong I was to equate the two parties. Yes, they both suck--I mean really, REALLY suck--but I now know that one of them is shamelessly happy to screw this country up far beyond what I previously imagined.
> Dude, are you serious? Obama sold us out.
He voted against adding the immunity provision to the bill. He voted for it because it would've passed without him no matter what he did, so he didn't want to put up with the "Obama voted to PROTECT TERRORISTS!!11!" fearmongering advertisements.
McCain supported immunity wholeheartedly.
Mind you, I _HATE_ the immunity. It never should have passed. But I distinguish between those who shoved it down our throats and those who merely swallowed.
You'll find that most of us who are concerned with gun control are concerned with keeping the *entire* Constitution intact. We certainly wouldn't enjoy traipsing around with pistols and say, no Fourth Amendment. I'd like to see the Fourth Amendment repealed before the Second. Good luck.
(1) exploit nerds' nerdiness use technology (2) go outside the normal channels of influence electronic voting machines! (3) increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude. Time to bust out the CF cards with vote tampering firmware. (4) are legal Do it while an employee of Diebold (5) target critical swing states Florida and Ohio only (6) can be done as a hobby if caught "this employee was acting alone on his own time"
McCain broke the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;)
Obama advocates breaking (and has attempted to break) the Second.
These are the most obvious and blatant examples. Any attempt to reach beyond the list of enumerated powers laid out in the founding documentation (i.e., that "supreme law of the land" thing) is an automatic disqualification of suitability for public office.
McCain broke the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;)
How? Which law?
Obama advocates breaking (and has attempted to break) the Second.
Two things about this, (1) It wasn't until 2008 that there was a clear decision what the second amendment really meant. There has been a VERY LONG debate about whether or not it was a personal right or one which was tied with a "well regulated militia" (2) Which law are you talking about?
Lastly, there are no absolute rights, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. There is always an understanding that your "rights" stop when they infringe on the rights of others, best summarized by "your right to swing your fist stops at my face."
as i understand it, the telecom immunity provided by that bill provides only immunity to civil suits. which means criminal suits are fair game. an obama administration might actually do something with that. he does know constitutional law.
[|]
Enough with the protest voting, we should mobilize people and teach them to vote for their best interests, not teaching them to be cynical and become protest voters.
Which naturally begs the question: how?
Secondly, a logical person (yes, thats an assumption, sue me) would only do a protest vote if (s)he thought that the other candidates really don't make a difference w.r.t. things that (s)he cares about.
Do you honestly thing Gore would have run things just like Bush?
No, but that doesn't really mean anything, since there is really only one way to check a counter-factual argument.
Impressive. If you aren't working for a politician somewhere, you've missed your calling.
The Taliban didn't actually form and start taking over until years after the Soviets left. They did it using weapons we supplied to the Mujaheddin for fighting against the Soviets, but we stopped supplying them when there was no more Soviet threat.
That's quite a few years between when we helped a country successfully defend itself (under Carter/Reagan/Bush) and an enemy formed using those weapons (under Clinton, I see a pattern here).
Let's assume for a moment that the leaders of both parties are identical clones of each other. The Democrats would still have to be more war-averse, because otherwise they would alienate their base. They might not fight very hard to keep us out of wars, but I doubt that they'll try very hard to get us into any wars either. That's more than I can say about the Republicans, who have to play to a more hawkish base.
umm are there ANY two people who would run things THE SAME WAY?
Unless you are trying to say something between the lines, you make no sense. But for me to read between the lines, I need to drink you Kool- aid to agree with your implications.
I'd rather not reiterate what I've already posted.
Listed there is the primary failure of McCain to understand the First Amendment, and a critical fact or two which pretty much blows the whole "we really don't know what the Second Amendment means, really, honest!" misdirection out of the water.
Whether he's lying or telling the truth, you're still a douchebag.
Perhaps their best interest is in enough people voting for a third party that it legitimizes having more contending political parties so people don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils?
What do traffic tickets have to do with the color of someone's skin or with one's political affiliation? Are democrats more likely to double park? Are blacks or other "minorities" more likely to make an illegal left-hand turn?
Proof of citizenship should be required to vote.
I live in Arizona where citizens are required to present both their voter registration card and a state-issued ID card when they go to the polls. Arizona is a state where ballot initiatives are common, and that is how this particular regulation was passed.
After it was passed, leftists came out of the woodwork filing lawsuits over it. The excuses that were used for opposing this regulation were absurd. The public were told, and expected to believe, that requiring state issued ID somehow excluded poor people from voting. This of course was complete hogwash. A state issued ID card is cheap. It is also a necessity for everyday life, not to mention a requirement to sign up for welfare benefits.
The real reason why the lefties didn't want the identities and citizenship status of potential voters to be vetted is because it would prevent illegal aliens from illegally voting in US elections, and end the long-time Democratic tactic of having party operatives vote in multiple districts under the identities of dead people. The lefties want illegals to vote because they see them as a group that they can designate as a "victim" class and mobilize to bring about their fabled and long dreamt of "revolution." Its Gramscian Marxism 101.
So don't whine at me about republicans supposedly trying to prevent people from voting, because it just doesn't wash. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is a no-brainer, and parking tickets aren't passed out based on party affiliation.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
They sign people up without ever opting in.
Their means of signing out are both extremely complex and non-functional.
Here is a blog entry that talks about the problem.
Many people I know have had this problem.
We need to get political organizations to no longer be an exemption from the CAN-SPAM act.
One thing you can do is send email to hostmaster@dnc.org -- however, you might want to use a disposable email address, lest you too get signed up for their mailing list.
I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of this yet, but it's just an extension of NaderTrading.
How about VoteBanking? As in, if you vote for Obama this year, I will vote for your candidate in the future year of your choice, in the primary or general election. 1:1 trade. The idea would be that third parties would be able to build up votes over time and then 'unleash' them when they'd reached critical mass. I would trade with the Greens, for example (because I lean that way anyway).
We could also put together a DVD of information and use the Nerd Distribution Network to drop it at houses across the country (I know we're geographically coincident, which is a problem). With some content sponsor a large chunk of folks might even watch it (thinking John Cusack's War, Inc., or something similar, though the studio, I'm sure, would have something to say about it).
Obama HAS LOST the election.
Period.
This is the ONLY chance they have of having "one of their own" up top, and Obama is finished.
He isn't white, he isn't a woman, and he isn't republican.
He cannot even get close to winning, in the US of A the way things are now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/31/uselections2008.barackobama
( republican attack-ad program, and its effectiveness against Obama )
Unless that republican torpedo is countered, Obama is losing ground every day.
Use some social networking, blog, etc, get viral!
If you "go the other way", then do the same thing:
find the most effective Obama method, and torpedo that by using it against them!
You don't appear to believe me. That would mean you think the NRA had the option to cancel, and not canceling so soon after Columbine was not a good thing. Now you're saying they should have canceled out of respect? Now it's not about the gun culture anymore, is it? It's about vilifying them for holding the meeting so soon after Columbine. That is exactly what Moore was doing.
You didn't even know the status of the NRA? Thought it was just a good ol' boys club that could do whatever it wanted? The NRA is an incorporated non-profit under New York state law, and as such must abide by the law and its by-laws.
Their required annual meeting was scheduled for May 1st months in advance, giving all members a chance to make their arrangements to attend should they wish to do so. But then Columbine happened on April 20th, 11 days before the scheduled, and legally required, meeting.
That creates a problem. The NRA could reschedule the meeting for somewhere else, but to do so it must give 10 days notice to all members. That's four million members who must be notified in less than a day including the time in the mail. It was a practical impossibility for the NRA to legally cancel the meeting.
Yet the Denver mayor decided to squeeze Columbine for some political gain and called for the NRA to cancel a meeting that it couldn't, even though it had canceled the days of events that were not legally required. Then Moore decided to get some propaganda gain by not mentioning any of the facts of the situation in context.
It's going to be interesting to see how you spin that one.
NEW YORK FUCKING STATE LAW YOU ASSHOLE!
Sir
If you are willing to lower yourself to swearing, rather than addressing a question posed to you, then you have sacrificed all civility and credibility. There is no reason for me to continue talking to you if you feel that this is a reasonable course of action for you to take.
This conversation is over.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Your own blind ideology is what ended the conversation. It is what lead you to swear at me, rather than answer the question I posed to you. The issues you brought up against Moore - which wasn't even how the conversation started - are classic neocon talking points. They have been addressed and you refused to acknowledge that.
If it makes you feel better inside to accuse me of lying, great. Obviously I cannot stop you from being blinded and coerced by your own beliefs.
But to believe that you don't hate Moore, or that you did not approach his films with a prejudice against them, is insanity. More than once you said they were "full of lies". You even went so far as to call them "faux documentaries". Those phrases are in your own comments, go back and read them. Frankly I am surprised you aren't trying to allege him of lying about his own name.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Blind ideology? I can admit that Bush does wrong, which is easy since I'm not Republican and he's not my guy. I can show you where Clinton was wrong, but you can't believe it because your ideology prevents you.
The issues in Moore's films have not been addressed. I have seen what I saw here, distraction from the actual proven factual lies and deceptions in his films.
Notice how you refused to believe the NRA could be required to hold that meeting because they are a private entity. Then when shown they are incorporated and must follow the laws and rules of incorporation, you simply couldn't digest it, asking again what forced them to have the meeting. It is such ideological purity, that hard-headedness to the point of being obtuse in the face of the facts before you, that is annoying enough to make me swear.
How? I am more mad at Moore than conservatives because I feel he betrayed me. The hard-hitting, yet funny producer that I loved turned to blatant lies and misrepresentations in his later films. Moore caused the present hate, not ideological differences, especially since I agree with him on a lot of things.
While the CP and LP have some similarities, they've got radically different core beliefs. The Constitution Party wants to restore the US government to its Biblical roots - it's much more obvious if you read their candidate's literature and not just the party's. The Libertarian Party is aggressively secular, believing in personal freedom and non-initiation of force, and thinks the government should stay out of religion.
I'm religious, and Libertarian, and while there are LPers whose anti-religious positions annoy me, and while the party appears to have been taken over by right-wing lizards recently, it's far far better than supporting a political party that believes in giving government power to enforce religion, and I'm skeptical about the CP's support for free markets and freedom of travel.
But I agree with you on Nixon - GWBush has been the worst president since Roosevelt and probably Lincoln. On the other hand, if you propped up Nixon again, it'd probably be Cheney moving Nixon's mouth and waving his arms the way he did with Bush.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Obama's winning the California electoral votes anyway, so my vote's more productive voting for somebody I want to win than if I have to vote for Obama just to keep McCain from winning. (Too bad the Libertarian Party's been taken over by lizards - I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Barr anyway, and he's better than he was 10 years ago and has some really good positions on privacy and the 4th amendment, but it's not like he really gets Libertarianism yet even though he's joined the party.)
But Bush and Cheney radically transformed American government when they and their cronies got elected - a president who was good as opposed to evil could do that too, though it's tougher, and Bush had it easier since his party had majorities in Congress who were afraid of him. Imagine a President who decided to clean house at the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, DEA, and Homeland Security, making them publish the truth about what they've done over the last N years, let the prisoners out of Gitmo, pardoned people convicted of drug possession, made La Migra do the job the Constitution gives them (which is to naturalize immigrants)... it could be serious change even without the help of Congress.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I can admit that Bush does wrong,
You have said you can do it, but you have not yet done it.
since I'm not Republican
This is absolutely counter to everything you have said so far. I have seen more blind GOP talking points from you than from anyone else in a long time:
Frankly, your conservative streak and temperament at best place you in the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Though the fact that you use your same repetition tactic to try to assert that you are not just another republican actually gives you more resemblance to conservative hack Glenn Beck.
Either way you certainly haven't given any reason to believe your assertion of not being a republican. Though you haven't let the facts get in your way so far, so I guess I wouldn't expect you to start now.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Notice how you refused to believe the NRA could be required to hold that meeting
I never refused it. I asked where this law was that you kept referring to. You never provided it. You eventually could not find it and opted instead to throw expletives at me.
And without knowing what law this is, we have don't know any of the following:
And in the context of this "law", the answer to the first question may be the most important for this situation. Unless you believe that the people responsible for enforcement of this "law" are so hell-bent on making the NRA look bad that they would be unwilling to be flexible with the "law" in light of a nearby tragedy, that is.
In short, I don't have all the information on this. And if you do, you certainly haven't shown it, in spite of my having asked about it numerous times.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The paper, TV, and talk radio are all mediums. The message is going to depend on what paper(s) you read, what channels you watch on TV, and what you listen to on the radio. To the older generations it may not be about the "sexiness of the delivery channel", but it is about their comfort level with the delivery channel. Eventually people move to TV channels, radio programs, and papers that tell them what they want to hear. None of these mediums are less prone to distortion of the truth than the internet, and people that want to find the truth without the distortions at least have a chance to find it on the internet (though they have to actively look for it rather than relying on biased mediums).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Lie #1. I gave him fault for the current recession.
Lie #2. I placed the post dot com recession on Clinton. Bush was not in office long enough to have caused it.
And you ignore the absolute frenzy over Obama.
Documentaries should be truthful, or they are not documentaries. Thus faux documentaries.
And you're the one talking about splitting hairs.
Lie #3, I have seen the movies.
Straight answer given. I guess you aren't smart enough to Google New York state laws and NRA by-laws? You'd have really been stuck if I cited a precedent that's not available freely online, wouldn't you?
In your other response, you appear to be saying the NRA should just ignore the laws governing its incorporation. Sorry, real corporations just don't do that. You're being obtuse again with questions such as this:
"Where does it have jurisdiction?"
Hmmm, I told you the NRA was incorporated under the laws of New York. That would mean any such actions of corporate governance fall under the laws of New York and thus fall under the jurisdiction of New York.
I still see your history. You were proven wrong about the NRA just being a private entity and can't be told to do anything. Now you're stretching as far as you can to rescue yourself since you've been shown they're subject to laws of incorporation.
And I see you've dropped your assertion that Moore didn't support Nader, and with that stopped defending the whole issue of Heston coming into town after that killing. So are you at least willing to admit Moore lied about that, or will your ideology not let you?
Why aren't you on my "freaks" list, troll?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of my comment. Though I wasn't intending to be funny. Mussolini described fascism as the union of state and corporate interests. The current administration has moved us very far in that direction. This would include things like multi-billlion dollar no-bid contracts to favored contractors, privatization of much of the military, an attempt to privatize social security, massive deficit spending, and record growth of the federal government. Additionally they used a terrible disaster to advance an authoritarian agenda. They instituted large scale domestic spying. They removed the restriction on the military operating domestically. They have 'disappeared' people, both domestically and foreign. They torture. They started a major war by invading a country that wasn't a threat, and did so under manufactured pretenses. It sounds a lot like a big move towards fascism, and maybe I missed it, but none of that struck me as very funny.
And I agree that Obama is a bit scary but he is scary in a "misguided policy direction" kind of way. McCain is scary in a "I'm f'n cracked and I have my twitchy finger on the Button" kind of way.
-- QED
start here [findlaw.com].
Did you even read that law?
In particular, this section states that a corporation for that law is a for-profit. The NRA is listed as a non-profit.
Keep trying. I'll keep waiting, though I certainly won't be holding my breath.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I gave you the wrong one, but I'm sure it was difficult to figure out how to click one back on the breadcrumb, click the statutes link and select the non-profit section instead. But you apparently found the NRA listing, so you must be competent enough to do it and thus are again being obtuse in order to distract.
I notice you don't respond to any of the issues of Moore's film. Therefore you are purposely doing a distraction maneuver, tacitly admitting Moore lies in his films, and you either haven't seen them or can't remember enough about them to debate them properly.
Didn't carry the gun out of the bank. LOL!
> At the same time though? I *really* wish the people who don't like either of
> the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather
> than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't
> bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps
> of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool,
> screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed
> ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both
> candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too,
> which tells me a LOT about them.
I will not cast my vote for who I feel doesn't deserve it, no matter how
popular they are. I hate this damn de facto bipartisan system we the people
run, and only perpetuate by telling people to go out and vote, and only vote,
and lack telling them to actually be freaking informed.
I've narrowed my vote to Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney, Charles Jay, and Ralph
Nader so far. I am leaning away from Obama so far because of his pro-gun
control and his taking the fence on too many issues for security right now. So
far the candidate that I like the best is a tie between Jay and Nader. My
complaint with Jay is too few issues he's really solid on, and Nader is
slightly pro-gun control. Issues I have with McKinney are, admitiddely,
superficial since she wants to make e-mail spam a criminal act and the fact she
wants no nuclear power on top of being slightly pro-gun control.
And thank you for telling that Obama voted for extending the Patriot Act. This
is why that 4 hours isn't enough to actually eliminate the top choices of one's
vote by a quick 4-hour research session. Another strike against Obama for me.
However, I'm more concerned about myself with my state and local government.
Right now, I am the most informed about the federal government, and it feels
really crappy on my part. Cram time.
http://sourcemage.org/ - Have fun
You sir are an idiot. Wilson and Roosevelt held us out of the world wars as long as they could. Wilson even ran on that as his campaign platform.
Korea and Vietnam were both reactions to the communist hysteria of the cold war. Republicans wanted into Korea every bit as much as democrats.
Vietnam was a decades long clusterfuck. Our initial involvement started under Eisenhower, a republican. Johnson escalated things with much republican support. By the late sixties, the democrats were significantly more opposed to the war than republicans. Nixon dragged it out another 7 years. To say both parties were equally to blame obscures the facts: neither party knew what they were initially getting into, the conflict increased with broad bipartisan support, and republicans carried it on far past the point of sensible exit.
Calling any of these wars a democrat or republican issue completely misses the point. The politics of these times were very different from today. However, the vast majority of the population supported our involvement when we finally entered these wars. The Iraq war was far more polarizing, with far less general support, under much less compelling circumstances, from the get-go than any of the wars you mention. Saying Democrats are no different because they happened to support some broadly popular wars in the past is criminally stupid.
You are absolutely right in your analysis.
That's why I'm voting for Nader -- again. For the *fourth* time in a row. The change that *I* wish to see is precisely the disenfranchisement of corporations in the political sphere -- the same message that Nader has been consistently putting out for over forty years. Even Libertarians can see that unrestrained corporate power is bad for both the free market and -- especially -- *liberty*.
My guy may not win, but I will have neither buyer's remorse nor voter's disillusionment -- unlike the other 99 million of you. He's right and you know it: you just want to be on the side that's "winning". (Seriously: check out who's funding *your* candidate at www.fec.gov -- you might be surprised!
It's up to you to be that change, regardless of who wins.
Yep. I've been working in the trenches of little political parties for 25 years now. I never developed any illusions about the way the political landscape lay, so I've never had to be disillusioned, and fall into cynicism and despair. Every election, more and more people wake up to the ultimate futility of a bipartisan system that changes only names but never its fundamental anti-human culture -- I've seen it happen many times.
After the election -- and your subsequent mourning or disillusionment -- I invite you to look up one of the little parties (whichever one is best for you) and *join* them. Before you know it, you too will feel empowered by making your own free choice. And four years from now (or maybe even just at the next school board election), you too will find yourself urging your neighbors to think for themselves, and stop being manipulated by politicians. He who stands up for nothing good will ultimately fall for anything that sounds good.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.