I may, but I can't put much faith in our ability to convince either candidate to make a decision that is clearly not in his best interest.
That misses the point, I think. If enough people complain, it becomes in their interest to deal with it, in various ways. Mostly, because if enough people complain, the bad press will follow. Then one of them will leap up to grab the good press, and the other will follow soon after.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The 5% bar is hardly onerous or unreasonable. Anderson and Ross Perot both managed to qualify and were present in the debates.
It's not 5%, it is 15%! Which would exclude Perot in both 92 and 96, and Anderson. Anderson is on the board of the CDC, FWIW.
It also, if applied at the state level, would have prevented Jesse Ventura from becoming governor, as he would not have been included in the debates (pre-debates he was 10%).
And it also means your tax dollars go to candidates (which IS a 5% barrier) whom you're not allowed to hear in the debates.
What is a much bigger issue is who gets to choose the questions. In a true debate the candidates would face off against each other. Instead the US media insists that it get to ask the questions. It would make much more sense to have the candidates question each other.
There is no "true debate," but that said, direct questioning of candidates to each other is one thing many people want. But the candidates negotiate that away, under the CPD. We would have it if the CPD weren't in control. But direct questioning makes candidates look bad, so the CPD and the candidates don't want it.
Re:Remember this past Democratic Primary?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
You're only seeing half the picture. The other half would include a reform of the form of the debates, as well. There are many different ideas of how to accomplish it. Just because the Democrats did it one way doesn't mean anything.
Also, you misunderstand the criteria. Likely, it would be based on a. elgibility (35 years old, born citizen, etc.), b. on enough ballots to win, c. running at least 5% in the polls.
The 5% is a compromise, based on the fact that it is already codified into our laws: if you get 5% of the "popular vote" in one election, you get federal matching funds in the next. The current criterion the CPD uses is 15%, so you have candidates who qualify for federal money (as Perot did in '92), getting federal money (in '96), but not being heard by the people whose money he is getting (because Dole and Clinton would not let him be heard).
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are so many problems they are difficult to enumerate. You got some of the big ones.
There's also the fact that because the CPD is bipartisan, it is violating federal law, because contributions are campaign donations.
And the fact that Clinton used his power over Dole in 1996 (dangling the carrot named "no Perot") to actually intentionally hold a debate on the same night as a baseball playoff game, to reduce viewership. Stephanopolous even admitted this was the case later on.
The two candidates actively attempt to swindle you. Call them. Tell them you don't want what they're selling. Tell them you want the CDC to take control this year. It's not too late. The only reason they don't change is because we don't ask them to. If you don't call them, they will -- apparently, rightly -- assume that you don't mind that they are staging the entire affair. The affair should be out of their hands.
There will be no change until, for some reason, the two major parties both think it's in their best interest. And I can't imagine how that would come about.
Your attitude expressed above is very troubling for me, and for millions others around the world, Arab or not, Muslim or not.
Seeing terrorists destroy the World Trade Center was very troubling for me.
The US may have been isolationist during the Napoleonic Wars, or in the first stages of the Second Word War, but after that, it is anything but isolationist, and every bit interventionist.
Yes. And I disagreed with most of it.
The United States role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unbalanced. There is no even handedness in dealing with the issue.
I favor that unbalanced policy. Israel is a recognized state. Palestine is not. Most of the aggression is sparked by the action of the Palestinian terrorists and support from not only the PA, but much of the rest of the Arab world around it, through inaction and direct financial and political support.
Why the tolerance for extrajudicial assassinations? Bombing of cities?
Because I imagine what it would be like if the terrorists were attacking the U.S., and I would support such responses.
The longstanding American support of authoritarian regimes in the Arab region and in Islamic states.
Right, this is something I mostly do not support from our past. Today, I support it some, but only as necessary to support the war on terror and movements toward democracy, which I believe inherently combat the spread of terrorism. It's a dangerous game to play, to be sure, but I don't see any alternative.
For example, we support Pervez Musharaff, who leads -- by most standards -- an authoritarian regime in Pakistan. His support of our war on terror is absoultely critical. We really can't do it without him. We have no real alternative. But I don't support what we did to support the Shah in Iran, because it wasn't, in my opinion, necessary to our security.
The indifference to genuine democratic movements (particularly those that have a religious bent).
When the choice was between an authoritarian and democratic movement and our security interests were not at stake, I did not and would not support a policy of supporting the former over the latter.
The US is not interested in reform or democracy or freedom.
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous overstatement. Many Americans have died to help bring democracy and freedom to the world (most notably in Korea and Vietnam; regardless of what you think about the wrongheadedness of the policies there, the purpose was clearly to fight communism and promote democracy). And today, if we didn't care about reform or democracy or freedom, we would not have 100K troops in Iraq. We'd have left long ago.
The feeling that Washington's policies are driven by short-term economic and geostrategic interests.
That's how it largely used to be IMO, which is why I was more of an isolationist. Now I support long-term geostrategic interventionism that promotes reform and democracy and freedom, which is why I support the war in Iraq.
The use of military force as the primary means of establishing democracy.
Then why have we not invaded Iran? Syria? North Korea? Why did we wait 12 years to eliminate Hussein?
the willingness of America to tolerate Islam-bashing at home
I don't see that at all. Sure, it happens more than I am comfortable with, but it happens less than it does in Western Europe, from what I can tell. Note that in all the examples you mentioned, those people have been mostly chastised by the American public, such as the general who spoke against Islam in the church. His speech was not tolerated at all!
The root causes of terrorism are never discussed
Since when? This whole thing about promoting democracy in Iraq is all about combatting the root causes of terrorism. Here on Slashdot just last week, I recently discussed how there are two ways to fi
There are more commonalities between a republican and a democrat than there are differences.
Just because the differences are not numerous, does not mean they are not important. Goats and women are more alike than different, too, but I prefer women. You can settle for goats because they are not much different, if you prefer.
The part about how states may not deprive people of the right to vote for electors, once that right has been granted. And that means that they must follow federal guidelines for what does and does not constitute a fair election. And that means the Supreme Court gets to decide, as they did in Bush v. Gore, where seven of the nine justices ruled that the then-current Florida recount was unconstitutional, whether the election is fair or not.
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States... is denied... or in any way abridged...." The Supreme Court held in 2000 that the rights of the people whose votes were excluded and NOT being recounted were being denied. This is not very complicated.
It's not too late for Deep Blue states to have their legislatures direct the electors to re-elect Dubya by Popular Acclaim.
Actually, it probably is. The Supreme Court frowns on changing the method of choosing electors this late in the game, and even in Colorado -- which is not taking this sort of a step, but is going to try to retroactively change their method of choosing electors for 2004 by proportional representation instead of winner-take-all -- it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will allow it, if it passes. Yes, they can change to this method, but whether they can do it NOW is not clear.
Ouch.:-) And this is what I mean by moderate. Rossi is fiscally conservative, wants health care for everyone, and he wants to focus more resources on the schools. This is something almost everyone in the state can get behind. As best I can tell he is socially moderate, but he seems to be saying with the fact that he doesn't talk about things much that those things really don't matter for a governor, and given that he doesn't appoint judges (right?) and very few of those kinds of issues come to his desk as bills, I tend to think they don't.
That outcome will rest in the integrity and decision-making process of the Slashdot leadership.
Yep. The two -- diversity vs balance -- really don't have much to do with each other. I could be balanced if I chose to be, in my journal, but I don't wish to be.
I'm a transplant (last June, previously lived in MA and CA), so much of this doesn't make as much sense to me as it does to you. Regardless, I live in Snohomish County, I am a Goldwater conservative, and I think Dino Rossi (another moderate Republican) is going to win the election (and he is on TV tonight, debating Ron Sims! Don't miss it!).
I won't comment on other individual editors; if they wish to, they can do so. I will say that my primary job is as programmer, while timothy and michael are the two full-time editors. The rest of us are part-time editors. As a longtime Mac user and big fan of Macs, I mostly do the Apple section, where I am infamously both anti-Apple and pro-Apple, depending on who you ask. That should tell you something about how many of our editors work, and about perceptions.
By the standard back then, yes. Also, in the mid-1800s, the "radical Christian right" -- favoring abolition of slavery, alcohol, favoring women's rights -- was liberal. It's all relative.
I am a Goldwater Conservative, not a neoconservative. I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11). We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.
Until that is fixed, we will be making a concerted effort to not put any but the most obviously worthy politics stories on the mainpage, because people cannot filter them out. I realize this also means, however, that you will get politics if you have sectioncollapse selected in your prefs. And I know that sucks. Sorry. We do want to fix it ASAP.
Slashdot Mirror
I may, but I can't put much faith in our ability to convince either candidate to make a decision that is clearly not in his best interest.
That misses the point, I think. If enough people complain, it becomes in their interest to deal with it, in various ways. Mostly, because if enough people complain, the bad press will follow. Then one of them will leap up to grab the good press, and the other will follow soon after.
The 5% bar is hardly onerous or unreasonable. Anderson and Ross Perot both managed to qualify and were present in the debates.
It's not 5%, it is 15%! Which would exclude Perot in both 92 and 96, and Anderson. Anderson is on the board of the CDC, FWIW.
It also, if applied at the state level, would have prevented Jesse Ventura from becoming governor, as he would not have been included in the debates (pre-debates he was 10%).
And it also means your tax dollars go to candidates (which IS a 5% barrier) whom you're not allowed to hear in the debates.
What is a much bigger issue is who gets to choose the questions. In a true debate the candidates would face off against each other. Instead the US media insists that it get to ask the questions. It would make much more sense to have the candidates question each other.
There is no "true debate," but that said, direct questioning of candidates to each other is one thing many people want. But the candidates negotiate that away, under the CPD. We would have it if the CPD weren't in control. But direct questioning makes candidates look bad, so the CPD and the candidates don't want it.
You're only seeing half the picture. The other half would include a reform of the form of the debates, as well. There are many different ideas of how to accomplish it. Just because the Democrats did it one way doesn't mean anything.
Also, you misunderstand the criteria. Likely, it would be based on a. elgibility (35 years old, born citizen, etc.), b. on enough ballots to win, c. running at least 5% in the polls.
The 5% is a compromise, based on the fact that it is already codified into our laws: if you get 5% of the "popular vote" in one election, you get federal matching funds in the next. The current criterion the CPD uses is 15%, so you have candidates who qualify for federal money (as Perot did in '92), getting federal money (in '96), but not being heard by the people whose money he is getting (because Dole and Clinton would not let him be heard).
There are so many problems they are difficult to enumerate. You got some of the big ones.
There's also the fact that because the CPD is bipartisan, it is violating federal law, because contributions are campaign donations.
And the fact that Clinton used his power over Dole in 1996 (dangling the carrot named "no Perot") to actually intentionally hold a debate on the same night as a baseball playoff game, to reduce viewership. Stephanopolous even admitted this was the case later on.
The two candidates actively attempt to swindle you. Call them. Tell them you don't want what they're selling. Tell them you want the CDC to take control this year. It's not too late. The only reason they don't change is because we don't ask them to. If you don't call them, they will -- apparently, rightly -- assume that you don't mind that they are staging the entire affair. The affair should be out of their hands.
There will be no change until, for some reason, the two major parties both think it's in their best interest. And I can't imagine how that would come about.
Call them and complain!
Un-check "section collapse" or whatever it is called.
The exclusion not working is a bug, it will be fixed. In the meantime, don't collpase sections.
Sure. Free markets are a means to a positive end, not the end itself.
Your attitude expressed above is very troubling for me, and for millions others around the world, Arab or not, Muslim or not.
Seeing terrorists destroy the World Trade Center was very troubling for me.
The US may have been isolationist during the Napoleonic Wars, or in the first stages of the Second Word War, but after that, it is anything but isolationist, and every bit interventionist.
Yes. And I disagreed with most of it.
The United States role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unbalanced. There is no even handedness in dealing with the issue.
I favor that unbalanced policy. Israel is a recognized state. Palestine is not. Most of the aggression is sparked by the action of the Palestinian terrorists and support from not only the PA, but much of the rest of the Arab world around it, through inaction and direct financial and political support.
Why the tolerance for extrajudicial assassinations? Bombing of cities?
Because I imagine what it would be like if the terrorists were attacking the U.S., and I would support such responses.
The longstanding American support of authoritarian regimes in the Arab region and in Islamic states.
Right, this is something I mostly do not support from our past. Today, I support it some, but only as necessary to support the war on terror and movements toward democracy, which I believe inherently combat the spread of terrorism. It's a dangerous game to play, to be sure, but I don't see any alternative.
For example, we support Pervez Musharaff, who leads -- by most standards -- an authoritarian regime in Pakistan. His support of our war on terror is absoultely critical. We really can't do it without him. We have no real alternative. But I don't support what we did to support the Shah in Iran, because it wasn't, in my opinion, necessary to our security.
The indifference to genuine democratic movements (particularly those that have a religious bent).
When the choice was between an authoritarian and democratic movement and our security interests were not at stake, I did not and would not support a policy of supporting the former over the latter.
The US is not interested in reform or democracy or freedom.
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous overstatement. Many Americans have died to help bring democracy and freedom to the world (most notably in Korea and Vietnam; regardless of what you think about the wrongheadedness of the policies there, the purpose was clearly to fight communism and promote democracy). And today, if we didn't care about reform or democracy or freedom, we would not have 100K troops in Iraq. We'd have left long ago.
The feeling that Washington's policies are driven by short-term economic and geostrategic interests.
That's how it largely used to be IMO, which is why I was more of an isolationist. Now I support long-term geostrategic interventionism that promotes reform and democracy and freedom, which is why I support the war in Iraq.
The use of military force as the primary means of establishing democracy.
Then why have we not invaded Iran? Syria? North Korea? Why did we wait 12 years to eliminate Hussein?
the willingness of America to tolerate Islam-bashing at home
I don't see that at all. Sure, it happens more than I am comfortable with, but it happens less than it does in Western Europe, from what I can tell. Note that in all the examples you mentioned, those people have been mostly chastised by the American public, such as the general who spoke against Islam in the church. His speech was not tolerated at all!
The root causes of terrorism are never discussed
Since when? This whole thing about promoting democracy in Iraq is all about combatting the root causes of terrorism. Here on Slashdot just last week, I recently discussed how there are two ways to fi
There are more commonalities between a republican and a democrat than there are differences.
Just because the differences are not numerous, does not mean they are not important. Goats and women are more alike than different, too, but I prefer women. You can settle for goats because they are not much different, if you prefer.
The part about how states may not deprive people of the right to vote for electors, once that right has been granted. And that means that they must follow federal guidelines for what does and does not constitute a fair election. And that means the Supreme Court gets to decide, as they did in Bush v. Gore, where seven of the nine justices ruled that the then-current Florida recount was unconstitutional, whether the election is fair or not.
... is denied ... or in any way abridged ... ." The Supreme Court held in 2000 that the rights of the people whose votes were excluded and NOT being recounted were being denied. This is not very complicated.
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States
Maybe thats because the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the electoral system.
Except where that electoral system violates the Constitution (specifically, Amendment XIV, Section 2).
It's not too late for Deep Blue states to have their legislatures direct the electors to re-elect Dubya by Popular Acclaim.
Actually, it probably is. The Supreme Court frowns on changing the method of choosing electors this late in the game, and even in Colorado -- which is not taking this sort of a step, but is going to try to retroactively change their method of choosing electors for 2004 by proportional representation instead of winner-take-all -- it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will allow it, if it passes. Yes, they can change to this method, but whether they can do it NOW is not clear.
No, the governor doesn't appoint judges, they get elected in this state.
:-)
I knew most did, but wasn't sure if all did.
We'll just have to wait and see how things go after the primary -- then the MADNESS BEGINS.
Indeed.
That's good, because Goldwater was about the last real conservative the GOP had.
:-)
Apart from Reagan, you mean?
+5, flamebait!
Ouch. :-) And this is what I mean by moderate. Rossi is fiscally conservative, wants health care for everyone, and he wants to focus more resources on the schools. This is something almost everyone in the state can get behind. As best I can tell he is socially moderate, but he seems to be saying with the fact that he doesn't talk about things much that those things really don't matter for a governor, and given that he doesn't appoint judges (right?) and very few of those kinds of issues come to his desk as bills, I tend to think they don't.
Yes, and I, the parent you're speaking to, am an editor. oops. :-)
That outcome will rest in the integrity and decision-making process of the Slashdot leadership.
Yep. The two -- diversity vs balance -- really don't have much to do with each other. I could be balanced if I chose to be, in my journal, but I don't wish to be.
I'm a transplant (last June, previously lived in MA and CA), so much of this doesn't make as much sense to me as it does to you. Regardless, I live in Snohomish County, I am a Goldwater conservative, and I think Dino Rossi (another moderate Republican) is going to win the election (and he is on TV tonight, debating Ron Sims! Don't miss it!).
I won't comment on other individual editors; if they wish to, they can do so. I will say that my primary job is as programmer, while timothy and michael are the two full-time editors. The rest of us are part-time editors. As a longtime Mac user and big fan of Macs, I mostly do the Apple section, where I am infamously both anti-Apple and pro-Apple, depending on who you ask. That should tell you something about how many of our editors work, and about perceptions.
By the standard back then, yes. Also, in the mid-1800s, the "radical Christian right" -- favoring abolition of slavery, alcohol, favoring women's rights -- was liberal. It's all relative.
Yes, and I am saying it is funny to think that, since I am an official of the Republican party in Washington state, a precinct committee officer.
I am a Goldwater Conservative, not a neoconservative. I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11). We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.
Until that is fixed, we will be making a concerted effort to not put any but the most obviously worthy politics stories on the mainpage, because people cannot filter them out. I realize this also means, however, that you will get politics if you have sectioncollapse selected in your prefs. And I know that sucks. Sorry. We do want to fix it ASAP.
What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies. :-)