Re:electorial college ruins it for me
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
Why isn't the Green party focusing on state positions, local representation, and the Congress, instead of trying to install a figurehead who will accompolish nothing, even if elected???
Just because you don't hear about it through the mass media, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Mark Dunau, a farmer, is the Green party candidate for NY Senate. Yet I have not heard his name mentioned even once amid all the garbage about Hillary and Lazio.
So you New Yorkers who dislike both Hillary and Lazio and think there is no other choice - there is. Look up Mark Dunau. Vote for him if you agree with him.
All y'all who are planning to vote Nader need to think hard about his anti-free trade, pro-union policies; you may find that you don't have any markets overseas for your geek product because Ralph has forced us into pointless trade wars.
What I find sad, is that we are expected to vote for the candidate that will benefit us the best *economically*, regardless of right and wrong. I'm sorry, NAFTA/WTO "free" trade is unethical. It is a free pass for multinational corporations to unfairly exploit labor, and other resources, without accountability. Unions (non-corrupt ones that is) are good, because they are the Right Thing. I don't give a shit if I "may find that I don't have any markets overseas for my geek product". Guess what? That's the price of being right. And I'll gladly pay for it. I'm not voting for the candidate who will screw the most people to put the most money in my pocket. I'm voting for what is right and what I believe in. And I suggest alot of you geeks wake up and realize that stock options and the large sums of disposable income to waste on the gadget-du-jour is not *everything*.
And about those Supreme Court scare tactics: in recent history, more liberal justices have been appointed in conservative administrations, and more conservative justices have been appointed during liberal administrations. And in any case, abortion is de facto prohibited because obj/gyns who do the procedure are harrassed and threatened with death, until they stop...so it's not like keeping it on the books is giving us that much anyway. Shame on you for falling for their scare tactics, you should know better.
In all but a handful of states, where the result is not yet "decided", progressives have a free pass to vote for a third party.
Ain't Fallin for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
As a weak athiest/empirical agnostic, I'd have to say that the jury is out, and probably will be for a long time. There is a gap between perception and absolute reality, and we can only form a characature of reality through theorems that try to logically relate our perceptions.
Of course, some argue (ironically) that logic itself is untrustworthy. Well, then we're up even a bigger creek.
The problem is, humans need squishy things like identities, and meanings, and purposes. In this nihilistic age, unfortunately, we have to create our own identites and meanings and purposes. Find something to believe in (hopefully it is something pleasant) and do some good. It'll probably make you feel better. Whether you believe in a god or not.
Well that is actually an impressive interview, and it sure makes it clear that Gore has his head on much straighter about the net than Bush.
However, I think that Gore's "vision" for the internet is not as pluralistic as we might want it to be. As you could only expect from somebody largely funded by corporations with vested interests, I think Gore sees the net more as an economic engine, than as some great democratizing force in which ideas can flow freely. Let's just be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
Reposting this from previous article for the links (because supposedly Greens are only posting the official site). Lessee, add grassroots.com to that list (you know, Google is your friend). Also see bottom of post for debunking of Taco's lesser-evilism philosophy (you'da thunk that recent electoral college article would have made this obvious).
--
The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.
Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.
If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.
The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.
I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.
Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.
Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.
Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."
Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html
Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,72 43,58092,00.html
And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.
And on the risk of getting too squishy here:
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.
Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.
If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.
The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.
I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.
Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.
Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.
Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."
Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html
Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,72 43,58092,00.html
Nader Campaign
http://www.votenader.org
And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.
And on the risk of getting too squishy here:
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
Now suppose that many generations from now the government is unable to provide those minimum levels because high taxes have encouraged the productive people to leave the planet, and so many of the people who remain have never held a job or are being so lazy that providing those minimum levels requires 1000% of the gross global product.
What then?
Fortunately you are talking about another planet. First of all I find insulting the insinuation that anybody who takes advantage of the services of government must be "lazy" never having held a job, inputting nothing into the economy. Hey, it's these "lazy" workers that serve you burgers and build your SUVs and clean your bathrooms. It's these "lazy" workers that make your nice clothes, and assemble these lovely computers. I also don't buy that providing these services is going to require such an increase in taxes, 1000% of the gross global product. That's just inflamatory and stupid. The system is swimming in money. It's just wasted on bureaucratic crap, and misguided policies. Heaven forbid we cut down the military industry trying to sell us the next whizbang super-hyper-mega-stealth-whoop-ass bomber, complete with $1000 barf bags. Heaven forbid we stop sending millions in aid to support puppet governments around the world, or fighting battles against mythical revolutionaries, and other issues we have no business getting our nose in.
It is *not* unreasonable to expect that the most powerful country on earth does something as simple and basic as provide a quality education to all citizens, a fallback healthcare system of some sort so that getting injured does not seal your fate, and a minimum wage that provides a subsistence living and opportunity for class mobility. Our education system sucks. Healthcare for a vast majority of Americans is non-existant or prohibitively expensive. And if I recall correctly, the minimum wage is at an all time low. In light of this great economic "boom", no, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this from my country.
And as long as we vote for shitty choices we'll get shitty results. Period. If Bush wins I hope he fscks the country so bad it will wake the liberals out of their stupor induced by corporate money, and give them a real bad hangover, maybe enough to actually do something about it.
That sure sounds trollish. You make the assumption that somebody with different ideas will not be able to get anything done because they will be "bombarding" congress with insults? So the right thing to do is to vote for somebody who you don't agree with, but will "get something done". So doing something that is bad is better than doing nothing? Because, in your mythical system, people in congress will fight for you? Let me ask you this: how will people in congress fight for your issues if you don't elect people who represent you?! See the recursive problem?!
Then you go on to childishly insult Nader.
Nader isn't the *only* Green candidate. There are Green senate candidates also. And guess what? That is how you change the system. Not by sitting on your haughty ass saying to freshmen that voting their conscience doesn't matter, and that they should just lay down and vote for one of the pre-fabricated candidates. THAT is wasting a vote.
If you have any question about what Nader would do in office, why don't you go to his site and find out: http://www.votenader.org
Yes, perhaps he might not roll over like a wimp and pander to big interests. I guess that's the "cost" of change.
The Supreme Court is just a bogeyman that both parties bring up to make you fear the other. The fact is, more liberal justices have been nominated by conservative administrations, and more conservative justices by liberal administrations, in recent history. Abortion ain't going anywhere. They just like to beat that drum to make you afraid and vote for them.
Software that was used to rate the candidates truthfulness during the debate. Cool stuff. I would have loved to just sit there during the debates with this thing running flagging everything they said.
but the answer is not to resist compromise but to educate America to realize that the issues facing this country are not four-year issues, but hundred-year issues.
Correct. If we don't face some of these "squishy" issues like the environment, vast disparities of wealth and power, etc., it will be our children who will have to fix the exponentially compounding problems.
I'd also note that ~%51 of the American populace doesn't vote. That means only the *voting* segment determine what is "center". And as you know by the type of people who vote religiously (elderly, far right, far left, special interests, etc.), "center" can be a very extreme thing. I like to think of progressivism as "center". I'd like to think what that %51 majority cares about, abstaining from voting in disgust, is "center". Today's "center" is really the status-quo of corporation-backed politics. That's the common denominator between both the Republican and Democrat parties, regardless of superficial differences.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Nader is liberal, progressive. Democrats are crying that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. A vote for anyone but Bush (and also not Gore), is a vote for Bush!
I think you miss the point (as many regulation-fearing "netizens" do). Nader is not about censoring, or government telling you what is right and wrong. Nader's *one* problem with entertainment is with corporatizing consumerizing culture it espouses. His complaint is that we are giving free reign to corporations to brainwash our kids, over our airwaves, from the time they are able to watch tv, until death. His complaint is that we are *letting* corporations pollute our schools with propaganda, *forcing* students to participate in a diet of their advertisement during *our* school ours. He is arguing that *we* as a people should take control back. Yes, I realize that it is up to parents to control what their kids what and do. However, we have allowed corporations to hold us hostage, to the point that there is *no* way to avoid their advertising and propaganda. Nader is for reclaiming this control over our own airwaves and our own schools. He is not telling you what you can and can't watch, other than saying that you should have *control* over what you can watch. Is there any geek around here, that, for instance, is *for* DVD controls that *force* you to watch advertisements? Many of us filter out ads in our browsers. That is control.
Well, I think in the most fundamental ways that government is needed, we are very much a "central" people.
We all should have a *minimum* level of education.
We all should have a *minimum* level of health.
We all should have at least a very *minimum* means of subsistence.
These fundamentals don't change according to what state you're in. It is these few fundamental things that I think make sense to be federally sanctioned.
And while I was growing up I lived most of my life outside the United States in foreign countries. Now back in the states, I can't help but see, that *yes* we are a very "central" people. The world has gotten so much smaller since 1776...the "federation" doesn't even really make sense any more. Every little 200-person county has its own tome of archaic and peculiar laws. To a programmer that just doesn't make sense. Abstract, standardize, modularize, reuse;)
By corporations, who do whatever it takes to get salaries down, and by rich liberals, who would rather help the work-shy than the guy running a cash register at K-Mart (which I did for a while... no picnic, believe me!)
I hope you are not insinuating that I am a "rich liberal who would rather help the work-shy than the guy running a cash register at K-Mart". Because I think my post clearly shows that unlike some, I don't consider the *working poor* "work-shy". The working poor don't make enough money. Period. Regardless of whether I buy that new car or not. If I bought a new car, that $1,500 *wouldn't* trickle down to that family, would it now?
Seems strange to me that the default assumption is that money should be given to corporate barons to be "trickled down" at their whim on the lowly serfs. To me it is more natural that money trickle *up*. *Ensure* that there is a livable wage. *Ensure* that people have a baseline of health and education. And guess what? Those people will be healthier and more prosperous and have more leisure time. And they'll do strange things like -- wait for it -- *buy stuff*!
The goal is to have a certain *minimum* level of education for all citizens. Hey, if you don't want to use public education, or public roads, or public parks, don't...it's your choice. But the government should provide a standard minimum level of education for everybody. Your opinion of the role of government may differ. But in my opinion vouchers are admission of failure of that task and a cop out.
And perhaps you should "opt out" of using roads and ask for your money back? Maybe you don't use the public park, you should ask for your money back? Hey, you've never used welfare, ask for your money back?
I think my point is that the government is there to provide some baseline. Now you can use that or not...your choice. But the government is not a set of options which you can redeem for money. Giving your public school funding money back is admittingly failure and an unwillingness to solve the problem. I do not agree with that. It is beyond my comprehension why one of the richest, most prosperous, most powerful, countries in the world cannot even create a quality education system. No, I don't think we should bail out. I think we should fix it.
I have an idea for a symbolic Presidential campaign. The "campaign" would take place entirely on an Internet Web site. There would be no public appearances by the candidate. This campaign should probably be called an anti-campaign because the point of the Web site would be to highlight a significant problem with the current paradigm used to elect our leader.
There already is a web anti-campaign. The candidate is a potted plant! Vote Ficus 2000!!
And all our public schools will turn to (or remain) shit? No thanks, I'd rather fix the system than patch it.
Although some issues of taxation pop into my head, I don't see it as unreasonable to let people choose what public school they want their kid to go to right now. I mean, it is *public* school. They can also choose to put their kid in private school if they have the money. But public money should not be used for vouchers, saying "I'm sorry, our public schools are crap, here, take this consolation gift". Public schools should be fixed. They should all provide at least a minimum level of quality education. I'm not just going to give up and say, "Ok, we failed, sorry."
I think that they are similar in that they both want to remove inordinate power from government (and hence corporations which corrupt and run government), and put it back in the hands of the people.
They have different philosophies and mechanisms of doing this. But they fundamentally want the same thing. For instance, I'm not "afraid" of Libertarians because I trust that *if* Libertarians had their way, people would be free to migrate towards views that match mine. And I would expect Libertarians would be less afraid of Greens than the other two parties, because putting the political system back in the hands of the people could also allow the system to be changed the way they like it.
I think either is a good choice. I am Green and passionate about the Green platform and Nader's candidacy. I have strong feelings on the environment and social justice. I think both parties are different sides of the same coin, and I think either is much more palatable to a constituent of the other than the present two.
I fear that they got where they are by blanding down any ideas they have to be able to pander and pacify all groups, and are actually very aloof and dispassionate. I can't imagine somebody who is really passionate about anything behavior in the driod-like manner these individuals do.
On the other hand, Nader is doggedly passionate (to the point of invoking criticism), largely unscripted and ad hoc, *knows* what he's talking about, talks about specifics, not just grand over-generalizations, etc.
The assumption that government, specifically the Federal government, is the proper vehicle for guaranteeing subsistence needs.
This is an assumption I agree with. After all, why the hell do we even *have* government if it is not to provide a baseline of services for *all* people (including salvation from starving and dying in a gutter if random circumstances leave you too unlucky to be able to make it). Government provides a legal and economic framework. It also provides a judicial framework. I believe these frameworks do not exist merely to give people rules by which they can exploit each other in the rat race. I believe they should exist also to provide a very *minimum* quality of life, or opportunity to live perhaps.
Otherwise, we are right back in the "natural state", of cut-throat competition that we formed governments to *escape* from to begin with. Right?
(rant)
And I really don't buy the myth that person at the bottom of the ladder needs handout because they are stupid or wasteful or lazy. I know people who have had to live in tents, support families through back-breaking work with only a few hours of sleep a day, living paycheck to paycheck, who literally can't *afford* to be sick or injured at work because they have no health care, and the time it takes worker's compensation to kick in, two weeks, would leave them bankrupt and unable to buy groceries. These people aren't stupid. These people grew up in unfortunate circumstances, were *prevented* from going to college by their parents. These are perfectly smart, hardworking people, that break their backs and get shit day in and day out, to fund this wonderful "economic boom" that they are not able to participate in. So others can sit in their ergonomic chairs and drive their SUVs to trendy coffee shops to drink expensive lattes. No, these people don't need handouts. What they need is a *livable* wage, instead of a minimum wage which is lower than it ever has been. They need to be guaranteed some form of health care. They need to have the right to form unions and escape exploitation. These aren't excessive needs. These are human needs that we can certainly provide in this wonderful boom. What the hell is government about if it is not about creating a *baseline* for all citizens, now matter how *fscked* by bad circumstances they are. Yeah, I gave $1,500 of my own money to people like this, and I don't feel bad at all about it. But you know what? I would rather live in a system that wasn't so screwed up that I had to.
I'm lower middle class. I'm not rich, but my basic needs are met and I'm comfortable. I'm shopping for a new used car because my old used car is falling apart. I could've got a new one. I feel guilty for splurging on a new computer or buying that $50 whizbang game. Because that option on a new car, that neato new game, is somebody else electricity bill, somebody else's food on the table, somebody else's health care they can't afford. No, I'm not special. I'm just an average citizen. And you should be too.
And if any such laws are made, I would like them, as a citizen of the federation, to be uniform accross all states. I think it *is* a federal issue because it affects citizens everywhere, regardless of state.
I don't think pure federalism is really practical. This world has gotten *a lot* smaller in the last half-century or so. It makes sense to have laws that affect all citizens everywhere, be federal. Instead of a mishmash of random local laws.
And unlike Libertarians, I recognize that the government *is* the people. So saying parents and citizens should do it, not the government, doesn't make much sense. We *are* the government. It just so happens that our system is being held hostage by inordinately large corporate powers. The solution IMO is not to ditch the system, but the reclaim it. And I guess that is why I'm a Green, not a Libertarian (although I have nothing against Libertarians;)
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you don't hear about it through the mass media, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Mark Dunau, a farmer, is the Green party candidate for NY Senate. Yet I have not heard his name mentioned even once amid all the garbage about Hillary and Lazio.
So you New Yorkers who dislike both Hillary and Lazio and think there is no other choice - there is. Look up Mark Dunau. Vote for him if you agree with him.
http://www.ruralparty.com/
What I find sad, is that we are expected to vote for the candidate that will benefit us the best *economically*, regardless of right and wrong. I'm sorry, NAFTA/WTO "free" trade is unethical. It is a free pass for multinational corporations to unfairly exploit labor, and other resources, without accountability. Unions (non-corrupt ones that is) are good, because they are the Right Thing. I don't give a shit if I "may find that I don't have any markets overseas for my geek product". Guess what? That's the price of being right. And I'll gladly pay for it. I'm not voting for the candidate who will screw the most people to put the most money in my pocket. I'm voting for what is right and what I believe in. And I suggest alot of you geeks wake up and realize that stock options and the large sums of disposable income to waste on the gadget-du-jour is not *everything*.
And about those Supreme Court scare tactics: in recent history, more liberal justices have been appointed in conservative administrations, and more conservative justices have been appointed during liberal administrations. And in any case, abortion is de facto prohibited because obj/gyns who do the procedure are harrassed and threatened with death, until they stop...so it's not like keeping it on the books is giving us that much anyway. Shame on you for falling for their scare tactics, you should know better.
In all but a handful of states, where the result is not yet "decided", progressives have a free pass to vote for a third party.
Ain't Fallin for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
As a weak athiest/empirical agnostic, I'd have to say that the jury is out, and probably will be for a long time. There is a gap between perception and absolute reality, and we can only form a characature of reality through theorems that try to logically relate our perceptions.
Of course, some argue (ironically) that logic itself is untrustworthy. Well, then we're up even a bigger creek.
The problem is, humans need squishy things like identities, and meanings, and purposes. In this nihilistic age, unfortunately, we have to create our own identites and meanings and purposes. Find something to believe in (hopefully it is something pleasant) and do some good. It'll probably make you feel better. Whether you believe in a god or not.
Well that is actually an impressive interview, and it sure makes it clear that Gore has his head on much straighter about the net than Bush.
However, I think that Gore's "vision" for the internet is not as pluralistic as we might want it to be. As you could only expect from somebody largely funded by corporations with vested interests, I think Gore sees the net more as an economic engine, than as some great democratizing force in which ideas can flow freely. Let's just be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
Reposting this from previous article for the links (because supposedly Greens are only posting the official site). Lessee, add grassroots.com to that list (you know, Google is your friend). Also see bottom of post for debunking of Taco's lesser-evilism philosophy (you'da thunk that recent electoral college article would have made this obvious).
2 43,58092,00.html
--
The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.
Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.
If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.
The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.
I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.
Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.
Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.
Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."
Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html
Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,7
Nader Campaign
http://www.votenader.org
http://www.nader2000.org
And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.
And on the risk of getting too squishy here:
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.
2 43,58092,00.html
Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.
If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.
The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.
I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.
Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.
Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.
Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."
Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html
Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,7
Nader Campaign
http://www.votenader.org
And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.
And on the risk of getting too squishy here:
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
Fortunately you are talking about another planet. First of all I find insulting the insinuation that anybody who takes advantage of the services of government must be "lazy" never having held a job, inputting nothing into the economy. Hey, it's these "lazy" workers that serve you burgers and build your SUVs and clean your bathrooms. It's these "lazy" workers that make your nice clothes, and assemble these lovely computers. I also don't buy that providing these services is going to require such an increase in taxes, 1000% of the gross global product. That's just inflamatory and stupid. The system is swimming in money. It's just wasted on bureaucratic crap, and misguided policies. Heaven forbid we cut down the military industry trying to sell us the next whizbang super-hyper-mega-stealth-whoop-ass bomber, complete with $1000 barf bags. Heaven forbid we stop sending millions in aid to support puppet governments around the world, or fighting battles against mythical revolutionaries, and other issues we have no business getting our nose in.
It is *not* unreasonable to expect that the most powerful country on earth does something as simple and basic as provide a quality education to all citizens, a fallback healthcare system of some sort so that getting injured does not seal your fate, and a minimum wage that provides a subsistence living and opportunity for class mobility. Our education system sucks. Healthcare for a vast majority of Americans is non-existant or prohibitively expensive. And if I recall correctly, the minimum wage is at an all time low. In light of this great economic "boom", no, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this from my country.
And as long as we vote for shitty choices we'll get shitty results. Period. If Bush wins I hope he fscks the country so bad it will wake the liberals out of their stupor induced by corporate money, and give them a real bad hangover, maybe enough to actually do something about it.
That sure sounds trollish. You make the assumption that somebody with different ideas will not be able to get anything done because they will be "bombarding" congress with insults? So the right thing to do is to vote for somebody who you don't agree with, but will "get something done". So doing something that is bad is better than doing nothing? Because, in your mythical system, people in congress will fight for you? Let me ask you this: how will people in congress fight for your issues if you don't elect people who represent you?! See the recursive problem?!
Then you go on to childishly insult Nader.
Nader isn't the *only* Green candidate. There are Green senate candidates also. And guess what? That is how you change the system. Not by sitting on your haughty ass saying to freshmen that voting their conscience doesn't matter, and that they should just lay down and vote for one of the pre-fabricated candidates. THAT is wasting a vote.
If you have any question about what Nader would do in office, why don't you go to his site and find out: http://www.votenader.org
Yes, perhaps he might not roll over like a wimp and pander to big interests. I guess that's the "cost" of change.
The Supreme Court is just a bogeyman that both parties bring up to make you fear the other. The fact is, more liberal justices have been nominated by conservative administrations, and more conservative justices by liberal administrations, in recent history. Abortion ain't going anywhere. They just like to beat that drum to make you afraid and vote for them.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Software that was used to rate the candidates truthfulness during the debate. Cool stuff. I would have loved to just sit there during the debates with this thing running flagging everything they said.
.co m/time/campaign2000/story/0,7243,58092,00.html
http://www.time
Correct. If we don't face some of these "squishy" issues like the environment, vast disparities of wealth and power, etc., it will be our children who will have to fix the exponentially compounding problems.
I'd also note that ~%51 of the American populace doesn't vote. That means only the *voting* segment determine what is "center". And as you know by the type of people who vote religiously (elderly, far right, far left, special interests, etc.), "center" can be a very extreme thing. I like to think of progressivism as "center". I'd like to think what that %51 majority cares about, abstaining from voting in disgust, is "center". Today's "center" is really the status-quo of corporation-backed politics. That's the common denominator between both the Republican and Democrat parties, regardless of superficial differences.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Nader is liberal, progressive. Democrats are crying that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. A vote for anyone but Bush (and also not Gore), is a vote for Bush!
Yes, which is why we have to *fix* government, not an excuse to let corporations have free reign.
E.g., we should replace the robber with a trusted guard, not just say "oh well, the robber is a crook too, so, hey, everybody, let's grab some dough"
I think you miss the point (as many regulation-fearing "netizens" do). Nader is not about censoring, or government telling you what is right and wrong. Nader's *one* problem with entertainment is with corporatizing consumerizing culture it espouses. His complaint is that we are giving free reign to corporations to brainwash our kids, over our airwaves, from the time they are able to watch tv, until death. His complaint is that we are *letting* corporations pollute our schools with propaganda, *forcing* students to participate in a diet of their advertisement during *our* school ours. He is arguing that *we* as a people should take control back. Yes, I realize that it is up to parents to control what their kids what and do. However, we have allowed corporations to hold us hostage, to the point that there is *no* way to avoid their advertising and propaganda. Nader is for reclaiming this control over our own airwaves and our own schools. He is not telling you what you can and can't watch, other than saying that you should have *control* over what you can watch. Is there any geek around here, that, for instance, is *for* DVD controls that *force* you to watch advertisements? Many of us filter out ads in our browsers. That is control.
Well, I think in the most fundamental ways that government is needed, we are very much a "central" people.
;)
We all should have a *minimum* level of education.
We all should have a *minimum* level of health.
We all should have at least a very *minimum* means of subsistence.
These fundamentals don't change according to what state you're in. It is these few fundamental things that I think make sense to be federally sanctioned.
And while I was growing up I lived most of my life outside the United States in foreign countries. Now back in the states, I can't help but see, that *yes* we are a very "central" people. The world has gotten so much smaller since 1776...the "federation" doesn't even really make sense any more. Every little 200-person county has its own tome of archaic and peculiar laws. To a programmer that just doesn't make sense. Abstract, standardize, modularize, reuse
Seems strange to me that the default assumption is that money should be given to corporate barons to be "trickled down" at their whim on the lowly serfs. To me it is more natural that money trickle *up*. *Ensure* that there is a livable wage. *Ensure* that people have a baseline of health and education. And guess what? Those people will be healthier and more prosperous and have more leisure time. And they'll do strange things like -- wait for it -- *buy stuff*!
The goal is to have a certain *minimum* level of education for all citizens. Hey, if you don't want to use public education, or public roads, or public parks, don't...it's your choice. But the government should provide a standard minimum level of education for everybody. Your opinion of the role of government may differ. But in my opinion vouchers are admission of failure of that task and a cop out.
And perhaps you should "opt out" of using roads and ask for your money back? Maybe you don't use the public park, you should ask for your money back? Hey, you've never used welfare, ask for your money back?
I think my point is that the government is there to provide some baseline. Now you can use that or not...your choice. But the government is not a set of options which you can redeem for money. Giving your public school funding money back is admittingly failure and an unwillingness to solve the problem. I do not agree with that. It is beyond my comprehension why one of the richest, most prosperous, most powerful, countries in the world cannot even create a quality education system. No, I don't think we should bail out. I think we should fix it.
There already is a web anti-campaign. The candidate is a potted plant! Vote Ficus 2000!!
And all our public schools will turn to (or remain) shit? No thanks, I'd rather fix the system than patch it.
Although some issues of taxation pop into my head, I don't see it as unreasonable to let people choose what public school they want their kid to go to right now. I mean, it is *public* school. They can also choose to put their kid in private school if they have the money. But public money should not be used for vouchers, saying "I'm sorry, our public schools are crap, here, take this consolation gift". Public schools should be fixed. They should all provide at least a minimum level of quality education. I'm not just going to give up and say, "Ok, we failed, sorry."
I think that they are similar in that they both want to remove inordinate power from government (and hence corporations which corrupt and run government), and put it back in the hands of the people.
They have different philosophies and mechanisms of doing this. But they fundamentally want the same thing. For instance, I'm not "afraid" of Libertarians because I trust that *if* Libertarians had their way, people would be free to migrate towards views that match mine. And I would expect Libertarians would be less afraid of Greens than the other two parties, because putting the political system back in the hands of the people could also allow the system to be changed the way they like it.
I think either is a good choice. I am Green and passionate about the Green platform and Nader's candidacy. I have strong feelings on the environment and social justice. I think both parties are different sides of the same coin, and I think either is much more palatable to a constituent of the other than the present two.
I fear that they got where they are by blanding down any ideas they have to be able to pander and pacify all groups, and are actually very aloof and dispassionate. I can't imagine somebody who is really passionate about anything behavior in the driod-like manner these individuals do.
On the other hand, Nader is doggedly passionate (to the point of invoking criticism), largely unscripted and ad hoc, *knows* what he's talking about, talks about specifics, not just grand over-generalizations, etc.
This is an assumption I agree with. After all, why the hell do we even *have* government if it is not to provide a baseline of services for *all* people (including salvation from starving and dying in a gutter if random circumstances leave you too unlucky to be able to make it). Government provides a legal and economic framework. It also provides a judicial framework. I believe these frameworks do not exist merely to give people rules by which they can exploit each other in the rat race. I believe they should exist also to provide a very *minimum* quality of life, or opportunity to live perhaps.
Otherwise, we are right back in the "natural state", of cut-throat competition that we formed governments to *escape* from to begin with. Right?
(rant)
And I really don't buy the myth that person at the bottom of the ladder needs handout because they are stupid or wasteful or lazy. I know people who have had to live in tents, support families through back-breaking work with only a few hours of sleep a day, living paycheck to paycheck, who literally can't *afford* to be sick or injured at work because they have no health care, and the time it takes worker's compensation to kick in, two weeks, would leave them bankrupt and unable to buy groceries. These people aren't stupid. These people grew up in unfortunate circumstances, were *prevented* from going to college by their parents. These are perfectly smart, hardworking people, that break their backs and get shit day in and day out, to fund this wonderful "economic boom" that they are not able to participate in. So others can sit in their ergonomic chairs and drive their SUVs to trendy coffee shops to drink expensive lattes. No, these people don't need handouts. What they need is a *livable* wage, instead of a minimum wage which is lower than it ever has been. They need to be guaranteed some form of health care. They need to have the right to form unions and escape exploitation. These aren't excessive needs. These are human needs that we can certainly provide in this wonderful boom. What the hell is government about if it is not about creating a *baseline* for all citizens, now matter how *fscked* by bad circumstances they are. Yeah, I gave $1,500 of my own money to people like this, and I don't feel bad at all about it. But you know what? I would rather live in a system that wasn't so screwed up that I had to.
I'm lower middle class. I'm not rich, but my basic needs are met and I'm comfortable. I'm shopping for a new used car because my old used car is falling apart. I could've got a new one. I feel guilty for splurging on a new computer or buying that $50 whizbang game. Because that option on a new car, that neato new game, is somebody else electricity bill, somebody else's food on the table, somebody else's health care they can't afford. No, I'm not special. I'm just an average citizen. And you should be too.
(rant over)
And if any such laws are made, I would like them, as a citizen of the federation, to be uniform accross all states. I think it *is* a federal issue because it affects citizens everywhere, regardless of state.
;)
I don't think pure federalism is really practical. This world has gotten *a lot* smaller in the last half-century or so. It makes sense to have laws that affect all citizens everywhere, be federal. Instead of a mishmash of random local laws.
And unlike Libertarians, I recognize that the government *is* the people. So saying parents and citizens should do it, not the government, doesn't make much sense. We *are* the government. It just so happens that our system is being held hostage by inordinately large corporate powers. The solution IMO is not to ditch the system, but the reclaim it. And I guess that is why I'm a Green, not a Libertarian (although I have nothing against Libertarians