Pre-Election Discussion

With the US Presidential Election getting started tomorrow, this story is your official chance to discuss the issues of the election with other Slashdot readers. And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.

This "story" is click bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice the politically based "stories" get the most comments [slashdot.org] and a ton of clicks? Yes, that translates to ad money. No wonder Slashdot added a politic$ section [slashdot.org]. Maybe we can have mid-election and post-election discussions, too?

I remember when this was a good site for tech discussion rather than a huge flamefest. Yeah, I'll probabely be modded down for this comment, but if I expressed my political beliefs here I'd be modded down anyway.

Be patient...

[bergeron76]

I voted early (last Tuesday) here in GA. Even still, I had to wait in line for about an hour.

Please keep in mind that this is the most important election of our lifetime(s).

Please just tolerate the the wait, and make sure your voice is heard.

Issue

[daniil]

After the elections are over, should the politics section stay or go?

Discuss.

This election

[DrJonesAC2]

Will probably be the biggest one in our lifetimes. Remember to vote and remember to vote for the best candidate not the lesser of two evils.

Go Badnarik!!!!

Re:Be patient...

[Beatbyte]

why is this the most important election of our lifetime(s)?

how is it different than 2000 and how is it more important than 2008 or beyond that?

that's been one of the most irritating lines i've seen in the news since the "hubbub" began.

that and people voting democratic just because they believe in michael moore :-(

Re:An Honest Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther.

Please....

[Solder Fumes]

If you have no clue of the issues, if you're basing your decision solely on superficial reasons, or if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.

Don't drown out the voices of actual concerned citizens who have invested a good amount of effort looking at all the issues and reviewing the histories and promises of the various candidates.

Daily Show says it best...

[ntxb229]

Even though the daily show is "fake" news and is supposed to be comedy, I think the title of their election coverage tomorrow is all too revealing: "Prelude Recount" Let the lawsuits begin!

Re:Who does OBL want in power?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Why does it matter?

There are really more important things than terrorists. Such as education, jobs, the economy..

There's not much we can do to keep another attack from happening. But there are things we can, and are doing, that will provoke another attack.

We should try not being the Global Police for a few years, try to make buddies with our allies that we've pissed off.. and just focus on the home front.

Should you vote?

[chill]

And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.

The creators of that "Team America" movies (same guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.

What say you /.? Do those that truely have no idea or opinion really need to get out and vote? Does having some (more) randomness thrown in really help? Or is it all just a ploy to boost the "voter turnout" numbers, so when countries like Chile get a 98% turnout, we don't look like doofuses?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm voting Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

I really want Kerry to win over Bush, but for once I think it's important not to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. I can't say I entirely agree with any of the 3rd party candidate. There are some things I like/dislike about each. But I really want to help show a 3rd party (or independant) is a viable option, so I'm going with Nader since I suspect he will get the most votes of the others. So instead of "lesser of evils" I'm voting "most viable of goods"

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Frymaster]

it's a shame you can't just go and create your own website that meets your demanding personal requirements...

oh wait, you can.

Re:Who does OBL want in power?

[Leroy_Brown242]

What's worse, that he has a strong decision, or that he's more informed on the issue than most americans voting?

Re:Be patient...

[slungsolow]

Great point. WHY WHY WHY would you say that this is the most important election of our lifetime? Just to get people out to the polls? Jesus, the democratic process doesn't allow for "the most important election", it allows for "ELECTIONS" in general. All of them are equally important.

Don't be one and done. Vote now, vote later, vote all the time. Whatever you do, don't just vote once (except during each election, voting multiple times is bad).

Re:Please

[Moby Cock]

As an undecided, perhaps we can start the discussion off with you. What issues are important to you and what do you expect to be resolved are revisted by the government in the next four years? The answers to such question ought to help you become a 'decided'.

Re:An Honest Question

[eln]

The best way to build up your party is to vote for them in local elections where they are more likely to be noticed, and maybe even win the election. You can also support them by championing their ideas in newspaper letters to the editor, op-eds, protests, and other such things. If the goal is really to push an agenda rather than to put a certain group of people in power, your best bet may be to try to influence one of the major parties to listen to your point of view, and maybe get them to adopt one of your pet issues as part of their platform.

Remember that in the end, all politics are local. You may have a better chance of your party's platform actually influencing your day to day life if you can manage to get them elected to a state or local office. If your party manages to gain control of a locality, and the quality of life in that locality improves, that will be a far more valuable PR tool then voting for them in a national election where they are only likely to get .01% of the vote anyway.

Bush all the way...

[nberardi]

With the new release of the Osama-Bin-Laden tape supporting John Kerry, I can 100% saying I am going for Bush. If terrorists start saying they are going to start attacking any state the Bush wins and leaves the states the Kerry wins alone, then I am for Bush. Because that shows to me that the teorrists are running scared at another Bush administration. Plus Bin-Laden was spouting everything the idiot Michel Moore was saying just adds to the theory that teorrists and dictators want to see Kerry in office because he will not hunt them down and give their people freedom.

Freedom is as an effective virus as AIDS, and Influenza. It is something that cannot be stopped once it is out in the wild, and it has infected the Middle East, and it is only time when every nation on Earth will be able to say we are Free, the way God (what ever you may call god) has made us.

Bush has my vote 100%. I think you all should give the canidate that has proven himself, instead of the one who hasn't given a single inkling of what his canidancy would be like. He only says his administration will "do a better job".

Well I say to you John, with that slogan, anybody in the United States can run for President. But I know I am not qualified, because I don't have the understanding of what needs to be done in the job and lay it out in an effective way for the American people to understand. But if all it takes is saying "I will do a better job".

Then I am announcing my canidacy for President of the United States. If you want to vote for my just write in "nberardi from slashdot.org".

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's because it's a U.S. website. You visit it enough to have over a thousand posts. Wahhhh.

Re:I'm in England and I'm not American... but...

[Russ Nelson]

No matter what you decide to vote for, taking the time to vote is important.

Only for the same reason that it's important to defend yourself against criminals. What is truly bizarre is the people who think it's IMPORTANT to vote. Personally, my vote is for nobody. Maybe nobody will get elected and the government will close shop and everybody involved will have to GO HOME AND GET A PRODUCTIVE JOB.
-russ

Re:Al Gore Invented Close Elections

[ShieldWolf]

Couple points for you:

1) The REPUBLICANS created the first lawsuit in election 2000, and they have done so again in 2004. As well, if you recall the lawsuit before the Supreme Court was BUSH v. Gore, not the other way around.

By voting for Bush because Osama says vote for Kerry (which he didn't btw if you watch the tape or read transcripts), is STILL letting Osama decide the election. Voting for whomever you were going to vote for REGARDLESS of what he says is the right course of action.

Politics of Slashdot

[slumpy]

I agree, I've never seen a fruitful discussion on the politics section either. I think most people don't ever read any comments either. I understand there's big issues this year and I understand a polictics section sounded like a good idea, but it hasn't seemed to translate as well as I, or others thought. Something needs to be done....maybe only white male landowners or something can comment....I'm only kidding so don't mod me down for that.

I just hate to read the politics section because I learn nothing, and gain no insight. I love the rest of /. though.

Re:Should you vote?

[nomadic]

The creators of that "Team America" movies (same guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.

Not coincidentally, the creators of "Team America" are jackasses.

Re:Who does OBL want in power?

[wizbit]

Okay, I'll bite:

I can think of at least a few reasons Osama would like Bush to get re-elected:

- He's still alive
- He's still able to plan and carry out attacks
- Recruitment is probably at an all-time high thanks to the Iraq war
- His captured/killed deputies have been replaced (this "75 percent" figure is apparently directly from George Bush's ass)
- Al-Qaeda is probably operating in MORE countries and is hence more decentralized than before 9/11

These are all known, with maybe the exception of the last one, which anyone who believes Richard Clarke might know what he's talking about will also be inclined to believe is true.

What the GOP argument seems to be is, "Kerry will be a pussy and will pull out of Iraq, stop hunting terrorists," etc. Which is completely unknown and, I would argue, unreasonable, but you're all entitled to your opinions. I think the Republicans basically try to reason this out because they think they know what Kerry will do. I'm saying we already know what Bush and Bin Laden have done. Bang-up job in Iraq and Afghanistan (omg but tehre holding elections now wtf lol) but we still haven't caught the guy, and the fact that he's distributing video and has any ability to speak, let alone taunt Americans, is hideous.

So the proposed GOP solution - vote for Bush, he'll keep us safe. Okay. Here's what Cheney said about a week ago on Mr. BL:

"We haven't seen much of him. You'll notice there haven't been any Bin Laden tapes running on the air where he's out broadcasting messages, frankly, because we think he's probably in a deep hole someplace, in hiding."

So as you can see, I'm completely on board with that one.

For me, it's the environment

[benhocking]

When I think of the area in which Bush has made the most significant contribution (i.e., the area that would not have turned out the same if some other politician, Republican or Democrat, was in office), I think of environmental issues. Go to Google, or any other resource you know of, and research how George W. Bush has rolled back many of the environmental protections put in place by both the Democratic and Republican presidents before him. He clearly has no respect for the environment. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, but I'm certain he will do better in the enviromental domain - and GWB has demonstrated how much influence a president can have in this domain.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Jucius Maximus]

Or perhaps political and technical issues are so intertwined that political discussion is valid on this site. Wiretapping. Copyright. DMCA. P2P. VoIP. Fair use. WiFi Security. Anti-spam/spyware laws. I think that debating and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each choice is important in the process of democracy. Geeks are as much subject to the US Government as anyone else.

- Not an American

Nader's place is in the Democratic primary

[brlewis]

Many people who voted for Nader in 2000 got a hard lesson in why choosing the lesser of two evils is important. Their conscience is telling them to vote for Kerry now. This election is about determining who will be President, not about making a statement. The mathematics of US voting is such that we cannot escape the two-party system. If you can't win over one party or the other, you can't win over the nation. Nader definitely should speak out, but he should do so as part of the Democratic primary process.

I wanted to vote for Kerry

[Og_Readmore]

I came into this election wanting to vote for Kerry but when I researched his plans, for the economy, or the war, or health care, I found that there is no way he can pull off anything that he is promising. That means that if he is elected he is going to have to go back on all of his promises and come up with a plan that is actually possible, and who knows what that will be. I can't vote for him without any idea of what he is going to actually do once in office. Whether you like his politic or not, at least you know where Bush stands.

Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[LordZardoz]

It helps, but it need not be.

Politics falls under "Stuff that Matters". And Politics tends to invade every thread that refers to lawmaking. Politics is filthy, nasty, and tedius business that is of critical importance, and that people feel strongly about.

It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views. But no one can promise that any discussion about any of the big 5 offensive topics (Politics, Religion, Abortion, Capitol Punishment, and Same Sex relationships) will remain inteligent. This thread is sort of like a designated area for otherwise inteligent slashdotters to act just as retarded as other people about everyday things (as opposed to acting retarded about Linux vs Microsoft, or whatever).

Besides, I am Canadian, and I find the whole thing to be quite entertaining in a scary sort of way.

END COMMUNICATION

Heres an example why I won't vote for one canidate

[Rooked_One]

First off, let me say that both parties lie. They lie to their base for their votes so much so that it makes me sick. Before I start this post let me just say I would vote Peroutka if he was on the ballot in my state.

Ok... I'm going to use Bush because... well.. "THAT'S MY BUSH!!" and he's been the latest thing, so I feel justified in using him as a "bad" example.

In appealing to your voters, you may tell them you are going to try to do certain things. Bush did this in a little more.. uh... "promising" sort of the nature of things. He promised his base (the christian conservatives) that he was going to ban gay marriage and abortions.

Well.. thats fine, but HE KNEW long ahead of time it was never going to happen. Its not hard to ask the whips in congress what people are going to vote on such an issue, so he KNEW DAMN WELL that neither of these had a chance.

So, what did he do? Give false hope to the right wing'ed extremists who show very little tolerance outside anything of their norms. And what will he get for it? Quite a few of their votes.

Knowing that... along with countless other things bush has done... EXAMPLE

Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people. But in came GW Bush. He tried to limit the rights of gay people to get married. First president ever to try to limit someone's rights.

I think when a president starts limiting rights you had better raise an eyebrow.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[willpall]

Read the FAQ [slashdot.org]!

*I* get tired of people getting all pissed because of this.

Yeah, thanks for largely ignoring the other 6 billion on the planet.

No problem.

Re:Be patient...

[RazzleFrog]

It is an important election for several reasons:

1) We are at war.
2) World opinion of the US is at an all time low.
3) At least one Supreme Court justice will be replaced in the next 4 years.
4) The world is watching these elections.

And the comment about "of our lifetime" is typically meant as retroactively only. When I say that this was the best day of my life I mean my life to this point. Hard to say what things will be like in the future.

Re:Be patient...

[PostScience]

why is this the most important election of our lifetime(s)?

Of course we don't know what will happen in the future, but this election is important because:

• One candidate is a radical, whereas in past elections, both candidates were more or less moderate. (In 2000, most people thought Bush was a moderate)
• The winner will likely decide the composition of the Supreme Court for the next 20+ years.
• If Bush wins, Republicans will likely control all 3 branches of goverment, allowing for the most extreme changes since FDR.
• Military commitments made during the next 4 years could easily last decades.

Just my $0.02

Vote Third Party!

[Hatta]

Please people, vote third party. I don't care if it's Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, or Brown. Nothing will change if we keep rewarding the two major parties for being totally unresponsive to the people.

People complain about "throwing their vote away" when voting for a third party. I argue that voting for a candiate you don't believe in is truely throwing your vote away.

Re:Should you vote?

[Qzukk]

Do those that truely have no idea or opinion really need to get out and vote?

Maybe you don't know the difference between blue and red. Maybe you have no clue who your US Representative is. But you probably do know if you want to have a cap on your property tax, and if there should be a .25 cent/gallon local gas tax to pay for road upkeep.

Go vote, even if you don't care what the president does. Even if you think your vote for president doesn't count, you've got state and local issues on the ballot where you will have your voice heard.

Re:Please....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't drown out the voices of actual concerned citizens who have invested a good amount of effort looking at all the issues "

What you're really saying is "don't vote for Bush".

I mean, my god...how could a thinking person vote for this clown?

He can't speak, he's an idiot, and he's corrupt.

I think the next person who says "he's got character" is going to be ridiculed until his/her dying day.

My goodness, the man is so freaking stupid that retards are feeling sorry for him.

Is there a mod...

[RedShoeRider]

...for "-1. Whole topic is flamebait?"

And me without my nomex underwear.

I'm for Kerry. Why? 'Cause he's a road cyclist. Anyone who would purposely wedge a bicycle seat up his ass for hours on end must like pain. And being a good leader does involve pain (even if it's mental anguish).

That'd be Diebold then...

[Colin Smith]

A sobering thought as the electoral process becomes more and more opaque.

I have been to iraq

[ChiefArcher]

and because of that.. I WILL NEVER EVER EVER vote for bush. i have reasons... although I cannot discuss them..
But remember, a vote for bush is a vote for rumsfield.. sorta.

Remember Debs

[nihilatron]

I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it.

- Eugene V. Debs

Re:I'm in England and I'm not American... but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the Iraqis didn't care who got elected 4 years ago either. Like it or not the US is the last of the Super Powers. There is no one country that could beat them. Stalemate, as Iraq is proving, is very possible, though. Add the fact that most commerce goes through the US or its close allies at some point.

Election Counting

[yintercept]

I suspect that people will be a lot more attentive to the technology of counting votes than they were in the past. Sadly, few people seem to realize the value of an electoral college (which was state of the art vote counting technology in the 1780s.) Even today, I think recent events warrant this technology. The idea is that you determine population in an area every ten years and use this data to separate the population into buckets, you then count the vote in each bucket then determine the winner of the election by counting the buckets.

The bucket counting process does give small states a boost in the process. The main thing it does is that it evens out wierd fluctuations in the data. For example, there might be higher voter turn out in states with a hotly contested senate seat.

The Electoral College was state of the art too. IF something went wrong, you would have a body that could deliberate and select the leader. Sadly, the courts seem to have usurped this authority.

The biggest problem with the bucket counting system is that the US is not expanding the number of buckets with the population.

Of course, if you believe that the "will of the people" is real and that it is determined mathematically by the vote, then the vote counting technology is just plain wrong.

Re:Bush and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[Catbeller]

Bush IS demonstrably an idiot. It's not reflexive to say so. He is just so remarkably wrong, uninformed, stubborn, not-bright, and incorrect. He thought Sweden was neutral and had no army. MY GOD. He won't drop his notions even after they are shown to be dead wrong. WMD, Saddam=OBL, taxcuts make us rich, over and over ....

Two separate issues...

[delcielo]

Everybody who is eligible should vote.

Separate from that, everybody who votes should be informed; but a lack of knowledge is not a barrier to voting. By accident of their birth, U.S. Citizens are eligible. No other test should be applied, as it will someday be abused.

I think the Team America guys had their hearts in the right place; but allowing uninformed or uneducated people to vote is the price we pay for ensuring that nobody does the "literacy test" kind of thing again.

Re:Please....

[Luciq]

I agree. This is essentially letting others get multiple votes through you, which is obviously unfair when phrased as such. My sister, for example, is wholly clueless when it comes to politics "I don't even pay attention to that stuff..."

But is she voting? Yes!

For who? Bush!

And why??? "I just vote for whoever Dad tells me to vote for."


Sweet succulent Jesus save us all...

Investing for the future

[in.johnnyd]

If your 3rd party vote total exceeds the difference between the two "evils," you're sending a message that the loser needs to look at pretty seriously. He might have won had he embraced some of your politics. Your return on this vote investment may be 4 years down the road (or never), but a vote for one of the "evils" will be interpreted as a mandate for his platform. I'd say it's even more important in a close race to vote for your 3rd party.

Re:Prepare to be flamed...

[Drakonian]

Are you guys kidding me?

I don't have any numbers on this at all but I was reasonably sure that if the people who had voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have easily become the president. No supreme court involved. Your vote *does* make a difference.

Voting for the lesser of two evils versus the voting for candidate you truly prefer is one of the most interesting aspects of this election, IMHO.

Re:An Honest Question

[dave-tx]

Quite simply, your vote is based on your evaluation of the situation. Are you willing to accept another 4 years of the current administration in order to make a statement for your third party candidate? If so, then you should vote for your third party candidate.

If not, then consider placing your third party vote another time. This may not be the best time to make a statement.

Re:My Endorsements (kind of)

[plaiddragon]

While Bush has made mistakes (Iraq), there is no reason to suspect that he will repeat them.

I've heard similar statements to this several times. I simply don't understand it. There is every reason to think that he will repeat his mistakes. He is the same person elected four years ago, and I haven't seen any indication that he would do things any differently given the same situation.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[pcmanjon]

No matter who wins -- we lose!

I voted for kerry on friday.

Re:Bin Laden treatens states that go republican.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have anything to say that doesn't come straight from RNC talking points e-mails? If bin Laden is running scared, why is he releasing a video on the eve of the election looking tanned, rested, and ready?

Whatever happened to "dead or alive"?

Oh, that's right--Bush doesn't think about him that much anymore. Said as much in an interview during the runup to the Iraq quagmire.

I don't think Kerry will do anything useful to get the world out of its current mess, but Bush serves Osama's purposes wonderfully.

Re:Politics of Slashdot

[lifes a cluster]

Well, the total lack of a fruitful discussion about politics goes much further than just slashdot. You have your right wing / left wing nutbags (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) who will use any forum possible to bash the other side without admitting the faults of their own side. It's crazy, really.

I've had to pretty much stop watching the network news channels as of late, because it would seem that every time I turn to them, there's a liberal and conservative trying to talk over each other. It's just a nuisance!

I for one just can't wait for this election to be over. Of course I feel this way during every election. It seems that the politicians here just make the entire elections process a complete pain in the ass for the average American - just the entire thing of having to listen to others spout off at the mouth - often not even having a clue about what they're saying - is enough to make a normal person want to puke!

I say vote if you have conviction. Don't vote just because some moron media whore tells you to. Vote because YOU think you're doing the right thing.

Voting for the lesser of the two evils is a standard here in the US - I think that's due to the inherent evilness in the political system. Maybe if we were to get smart and have a voting system which allows us to rank candidates, something like:

1 - Yeah!!!
2 - I guess so
3 - ok
4 - damn.. better than nothing
5 - I'd rather eat the oppositions solid waste

that would make things a little better. Then you cast your ballot ranking the rank candidates in the order in which they least make you want to puke. Hell, maybe a third party candidate would have a chance this way. Who knows.

Ahem, not exactly

[ravenspear]

But Badnarik is a bloody nutcase.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

Blowing up the UN within a week of taking office?

That was a facetious remark that was taken out of context, as he states in this interview [mtv.com], in which he responded "Blow up the U.N. building? C'mon, I'm a Libertarian. You know that I'd rather sell the U.N. than blow it up." His statement about blowing up the UN was more a jocular political point about how weak and ineffective that organization has become. (They even let themselves be blown up in Iraq by refusing military protection.)

The Federal Income Tax is illegal?

I wouldn't say the tax itself is illegal, but some of the methods the IRS has used in its collection definitely are.

Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy?

Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?

Does he understand that the President doesn't wield this kind of power?

Are you kidding me? That's one of the primary themes of his campaign, the fact that politicians today (the President in particular) wield far more power than they should.

I think you might want to take a look at the deeper meaning of some of the things he is saying before labeling him a nutcase.

Re:Should you vote?

[White Roses]

Somewhere along the line, "a duty to be an informed citizen able to vote intelligently" became "a duty to vote". I'm not really quoting anyone here. Just paraphrasing what I was taught in elementary civics compared to what I hear on ABCNNBCBS, a division of News Corp.

So, I agree that if someone doesn't know anything, he or she should stay home. It's not that she or he has failed in his or her duty to vote, he or she has failed in his or her duty to be an informed voter.

If you know the issues, are well informed, and still don't vote? Fine by me, you're an informed voter who abstained for informed reasons. But that's less likely to happen. Most people have an opinion on something. If an issue matches your opinion topics, vote. But you still need to be informed to do that.

He wants Bush in power.

[Colin Smith]

Cos he knows Bush couldn't catch a cold.

Or rather, Bush has an agenda which is served by not catching Osama Bin Laden.

Some advice to undecideds...

[l4m3z0r]

Alot of people here at /. would have you think that tossing your vote to a 3rd party candidate would effect some change and make a statement. This is true, but for the presidential election it actually does little to nothing. If you want more 3rd party candidates toss your local election votes to them, help a green be your mayor, or on your city council. The more greens or whatever 3rd party people that elected to these positions the larger there support base gets and positions them better for future national elections. This presidential election however will not be affected so much by your vote for a 3rd party candidate.

With this in mind it is obvious you want some change since you are undecided and would like to see more/better candidates. Your best bet to do this is to vote against the incumbent at every election. For each position on your ballot find the incumbent and vote against him/her. Failing to get re-elected sends a huge message to the party. If bush gets re-elected for instance his ideas become the parties main platform and ideas if he fails however they will seek to change themselves in order to correct Bush's mistake. This is the same for all local chapters of these parties as well.

So clearly and simply, vote against all incumbents no matter what. In local elections vote for 3rd party candidates at random if your too lazy to learn what they stand for. But for presidential elections your best bet is to just vote for Kerry and bitch about him when he fucks up.

Re:Should you vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

You rather abjectly missed the parent's point; nice knee-jerk response.

You said it yourself:
> The strength of the system is built on educated voters *casting votes*

That's great. The parent didn't ask whether you thought it was a good idea if people let themselves remain ignorant and never vote.

The parent asked, given the unalterable reality that many people ARE ignorant, whether it's a good idea to force or encourage the uneducated or unopinionated to cast random votes.

Come back when you have a clue and try again.

Well said

[TopShelf]

It frustrates me greatly when someone says "oh, we shouldn't talk about politics...". For those of us in the US, why the hell shouldn't we talk politics?

Our grandfathers didn't fight and die in the European and Pacific theaters so we could sit around together and avoid controversy by talking about the weather instead of who should be President.

Over 1,000 of our troops have died in the last three years in part to bring free and open elections to Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet we shouldn't talk about politics?

It's amazing to me, especially in light of our recent efforts in the Middle East, that some people look at politics merely as a source of personal conflict that should be avoided at all costs. Of course, the black-and-white conflict-driven political discussions portrayed in the popular media (talking heads yelling over each other on MSNBC, conservative talk radio, etc.) don't help things at all. But as a nation, we've grown relatively fat and happy over the last several decades and are only now starting to pay a price for that.

My hope is that this election brings out a larger share of the vote and people start taking things a little more seriously. A few huge upsets that discredit the predictive power of polling wouldn't hurt, either. I think many people don't bother voting simply because they don't believe their vote matters...

Re:Bush and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[joggle]

The world would be even better off without Osama Bin Laden. It would also be better off if the 100,000+ Iraqis and 1000+ Americans were still alive. Or are you saying it's worth that many lives (and counting) to get rid of one person. Then there's the thousands upon thousands of injured and permanently disabled people.

Why I think Kerry is a worse choice than Bush

[joelt49]

Hopefully, this will get read, so far down.

That being said, I think that Bush is a better choice that Kerry. I don't especially like Bush; however, I dislike Kerry even more.

First, let's stop living in 1971, and start living in 2004. What happened in VietNam is long over, and people have changed since then. I thank Kerry for his service 30 years ago, but I think that there are other issues more relevant to today's election that VietNam.

That being said, the most pertinant issue is Iraq. The war was totally justified. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one point in time. There's no question about it. We also knew that, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, they said that their work wasn't done. We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD. What evidence did we have that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? His word. Nothing more. UN Resolution 1441, passed in November (IIRC) of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to document fully his weapons programs. He failed miserably. There was a ton of stuff that was just plain unaccounted for. Saddam had the burden of proof to prove that he had gotten rid of the WMD's, in the treaties ending the first Gulf War. He failed. He gave no proof whatsoever. It would be irresponsible to put the the security of the US in Saddam's hands.

As we found out later, Saddam wanted us to believe that he still had WMD. He wanted everyone to think that he was strong. Well, he kind of fucked up there.

Also, let's not forget that John Kerry looked at the very same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the very same conclusions, namely that Saddam posed an iminent threat. So, any critiques you might have about Bush's judgement also apply to Kerry. Kerry also voted for the war. He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops. Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.

However, Kerry tried to attach a caveat to that, namely that he voted for the authorization so that Bush could back up his threats of military power, but Kerry didn't want Bush to actually use it. In a nutshell, he said that he wanted the threat of military force to be a bluff. What kind of respect will that get on the world stage, now that our enemies know that Kerry won't actually use the military?

Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either. To use their word, they recognize that his vacillations lose a lot of respect. Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops home is based on a false premis, namely that France and Germany will send troops. However, that's fallacious, as France and Germany have flat-out stated that they won't send troops, no matter who wins in November.

Next, we have to look at the big picture in Iraq. The media is claiming that we're losing the peace. However, they said that about Afghanistain in 2002. They said that about France and Germany in 1946. The moral of the story: It may be a long and hard road, but we'll prevail. Iraq is slowly training Iraqis to enforce their on security. It'll take time, but eventually they'll be able to police themselves. Until that time, they need US troops there to prevent the situation from deteriorating even more.

Furthermore, the actual troops in Iraq support Bush's plan to Kerry's, by a fairly large margin. They don't see the same spin that we do; they actually see that there are positives, that we're actually accomplishing stuff over there now. A majority also believe that we're on the right track. If the people who have the best knowledge of what's going on over there support the current policy, don't you think that that means something?

Now, let's get on to the economy. I realize that Bush's policies aren't the best, but I do have a couple of points to make. First, the president really doesn't have that much direct control over the economy. Also, if you insist on assigning blame to the current recession, then Clinton des

Re:Bush all the way...

[DarkBlack]

Well, where to start. Firstly, I read the complete transcript of the the tape and not once did he endorse Kerry at all.

What exactly has Dubya done for us? Not a damn thing that I can see. Two wars with no clear victory. We have Afghan politics littered with accusations of drug trafficing and warlords, bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora - sure the people have the freedom to vote now, but that is not what we were there to do. We were there to get bin Laden and it was botched.

So in order to save face, the president tries to guarantee a government to Iraq that would be willing to offer cheaper oil in exchange, get Daddy's arch enemy, kick a few bucks to Cheney's old company, and everyone is happy. We lose soldier's lives, and the Iraqi people loose even more as we rampage through their country. Some of our own troops even decide to take some great pictures of themselves mistreating people (to put it lightly), yet no one seems to know about it...go figure.

Dissenssion with the war in Iraq is regarded as anti-american by the Republican party as witnessed all over their talk radios, and their prime television network Fox News.

Meanwhile things like our future envionment are ignored, North Korea gets nuclear weapons, the economy is blown to bits by massive debt, war, and coporate scandals, raping the people of this country. The world generally hates us because we act like we are better than them. The rich get richer, we get secret courts and laws that we don't know about.

No thanks, I'll pass on this joke of a president that we currently have. Terrorism has been present in the world longer than a few years, America. We are just catching up to the rest of the world. It isn't a one man show, and it's about time we acted like we are with the world rather than against everyone and acting so self-righteous like a bunch of pompus pricks.

If you are just voting for the first time, get out there and vote.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[DeltaSigma]

I'm with you, or rather, I would be. However the differences between the Republican and Democrat candidates on such issues seems very slim. There certainly would be benefit to political discussion on a tech site such as slashdot were it not for the fact that there's so little to discuss...

It doesn't matter who I vote for tomorrow I'm still looking at rediculous DMCA-like bills being passed in the next presidential term.

Re:Why so many Libetarians voting for Kerry?

[valkraider]

A vote for anyone else than Kerry is a vote for Bush. And i can't vote for Bush.

The best thing you (we) could do is find someone who is in your same district/precinct/state/whatever who is going to vote Bush. Thus your Kerry vote and their Bush vote would be a wash. Instead, you each vote for a third party candidate that you would *really* like to win.

That way - you don't impact the election, but you send a message with your votes....

Re:Nader's place is in the Democratic primary

[carlosh]

I have never understood why someone as smart as Nader does not run for the senate, where he would become important as an independant, and in a close vote would get to cast the decisive vote answering only to his own conscience and probably advancing the cause of the independant parties.

In countries where real multipartidism exists, the minority parties never get to elect the president or prime minister but almost always manage to tie him/her to part of their agenda in exchange for their support.

Or is it that Nader's party is too arrogant, and that makes him no different than democrats and republicans?

Re:An Honest Question

[soft_guy]

Yours is a very personal question. It is up to you, and no one else, to decide where you think your vote will do the most good.

A vote for a third party is not just a thrown away vote. Historically third parties have influenced the major parties. For example, the socialists advocated the creation of social security which was later picked up by the democrats. There are other examples. Plus, a third party can sometimes replace a major party. Example: the Republican party did not begin as a major party. They grew into one.

And we are not that far from such a thing happening. Let's say the democrats loose on Tuesday. Republicans retain control of the white house, both houses of congress, etc. It is only a matter of time before the democrats cease to be a major party. Perhaps the Green party would emerge as a replacement? Who knows.

Better Story Headline..

[ashitaka]

FLAMEWAR!!!!!!!!

Re:An Honest Question

[HarveyBirdman]

please no "if you vote third party you are throwing away your vote"

I never understood that either. How is voting for someone I don't want *not* throwing my vote away?

Re:Wrong candidates

[glitchvern]

Can I vote for the judges who will decide this election instead?

No, this vote is for three or four of the judges who will decide the next election ... amongst other things.

Re:An Honest Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that people who are choosing the lesser of two evils are still choosing evil. The only wasted vote is one cast for a candidate that you do not believe in.

It is in the major parties' benefit for people to belive that there are only two choices. Since the major parties are both backed by the same corporations there really is no difference between them.

If people voted for candidates they believe in instead of those the mass media (also supported by those same corporations) force upon them, politics might be different in the US. For god sakes, we have the INTERNET (for now)! Do your own research and do not blindly accept what the mass media has been paid to tell you.

It has become a government of the people, by the lawyers, and for the corporations. Speak your own mind and make a difference!

Re:Bush and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[MSBob]

Well George had his four years and most people did not like what they saw (war mongering, dogma based policy bordering on theocracy, junk science, militarization, shady deals for office friends (Halliburton first and foremost), terrible environmental record, tax breaks for SUV owners, massive deficit and the list goes on.

Sure enough, Kerry is pretty much the unknown in this equation, but honest to goodness could his record be any WORSE than Dubya's? Is the status quo really WORTH preserving here?

Re:This "story" is click bait

[ericdano]

Yeah, and notice how many people will mod-down any other opinions than the Kool-Aid ones (ie: Democrat).

Look, Kerry scares me. He can't answer a question directly. He's now even wearing one of those Lance Armstrong bracelets. Great. This guy will sell his soul to be President.

I don't think government should be involved in all it does, and Kerry wants to expand it. Government Health Care? Are any of you who use Slashdot going to use it? But you are going to get taxed to pay for it. Bush's plan about individual Social Security accounts is a great idea. But what that basically is is a sort of "retirement plan", which everyone should do anyways. Why do we all think we are "entitled" to all these things?

If I had a time machine and could bring back a Jefferson, or Franklin, or Adams, they would be shocked.

But back to Kerry and Bush. I don't agree on Bush on everything, but I think giving the Iraq people the chance of freedom is priceless. I know people serving in Iraq, and they believe they are doing good work and are proud to help there. That right there is my reason to vote for another 4 years. With everyone's "TV" mentality, where you want something done 5 minutes ago, War in Iraq is not fast nor easy. But it is the right thing to do. And in light of the United Nations possibly being corrupt, why would I want Kerry to go and work with them?

Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils"

[Hooptie]

is voting for evil!

Regardless of how you try to justify your vote, a vote for a major candidate is a statement that you:

• Approve of that candidate
• Endorse that candidate's position(s)
• Want that candidate to be the next President of the United States!

If these three items are not true, you can either abstain from voting, or vote for a third party candidate. Please note that it is not possible, in the US, to vote against a candidate. The most you can do is vote for one of the competetion

As for myself, I will be voting for Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] for President. What's that? I hear cries of:
"But, he doesnt have a chance to win!"
"This election is too important to risk electing the wrong person!"
These are both true statements, however I refuse to "waste my vote", or "throw my vote away" by voting for a candidate that I disagree with.

Hooptie

2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry)

[Tangential]

Question for Bush supporters:

What are the chances of 2 Texas oilmen (financially supported by many more oilmen) giving us a coherent national energy policy which frees us from dependency on oil and the Middle East?

Question for Kerry supporters:

What are the chances that 2 trial lawyers (who's biggest contributors are the trial lawyers associations) giving us the litigation reforms so crucial to getting escalating health care and pharm costs under control for the long term viability of our economy?

Wasted Votes?

[stealth.c]

The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a candidate you do not respect.

The Republicans and Democrats have all the media access they want, and are going to have a gajillion dollars to run campaigns no matter what. A vote for one of them would hardly be noticed. Voting for a third party has, proportionally, far greater impact on things than a vote for either Republican or Democrat. A vote for a third party candidate has a noticeable impact on the party's future funding and publicity. A Green/Libertarian/Constitution/Socialist vote in 2004 is an investment in 2008 and beyond. It is an investment in true change.

Besides, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you're going to keep getting--you guessed it--evil! Repeating an action and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanty. Therefore, if you're going to keep voting for Democrats and Repbulicans, you're crazy if you expect meaningful change.

Re:An Honest Question

[calibanDNS]

I'd advise you to vote for whomever you agree with politically no matter what state you live in.

Personally, I'll be voting for one of the major candidates and would really like to see him win. However, I'd like to see him win by having convinced people that he is the best candidate, not just because people think that the other candidate might be more evil.

Al Gore did not loose the 2000 election because of people voting for Nader or other candidates; Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he did not do a good job of convincing enough of the American people that he could be an effective and competent President.

I recommend that you not vote for what you consider the lesser of two evils, and don't let supporters of other candidates change your principles.

Re:Be patient...

[isometrick]

From the second presidential debate:

GWB: "I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution."

He calls wanting the words "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance (a scary thing in the first place) an opinion. What he doesn't say is that wanting them there in the first place is also an opinion. So Bush seems to want judges that support his opinions. Opinions are "moral" (religious leader) not "ethical" (government leader).

I know our founding fathers were religious, and they incorporated that attitude into the consitution. But America was started to support freedom from religious and governmental oppression. Do you really think that our founding fathers intended to get it all right on the first try? Do you really think they intended tradition to overrule the necessary evolution of the system?

When I have kids someday, I won't raise them to be religious. And I really don't want them to feel ostricized every morning at school when their schoolmates are "pledging allegiance" to some cloth stapled to the wall in the name of an unverifiable "god". Most people say "just don't say that part", but how do you explain that to a kid: "Support your beliefs by abstaining from the pledge, and just ignore everyone who calls you a 'poophead' every day."

It's not just a couple of meaningless words in the pledge, it is government sponsored religion. If you are religious and disagree, try to think what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot.

John Kerry has at least said (on many occasions) that he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve and that he won't use it to govern the people.

Disappointed

[Un pobre guey]

I am disappointed with the whole system. Most of the significant actions of our government are driven and often written by highly paid and highly connected lobbyists. If you don't have several lobbying for you, then our democracy is broken for you.

With regards to the two front men who will dominate the presidential vote, all hope of progress seems lost. It would appear that a large fraction of US voters trust one or the other, believe that the speeches will actually correlate with future performance, and generally trust their gut feelings about the candidates' "character" and "values." This is not merely a sad state of affairs, it is a tragedy in progress. Is it so hard to see that these people will say anything to get elected? Can you not see how much money is at stake? Do you believe that our presence in Iraq (essentially supported by both candidates) is something other than international piracy and a huge pork barrel for the defense and petrochemical industries?

Do you fail to see that ours has has become a corrupt, authoritarian, quasi-militarized Third World government? Any of you out there who are of Mexican origin (as I am) or have lived a significant part of your lives in Mexico (as I have) cannot fail to see the style and techniques of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, el PRI, in the US, especially in the Republican party. We Americans will gradually discover that we are the hapless slaves that the vast majority of Mexicans are in their own nation.

I will be voting for Not Bush, but only grudgingly. We are in for a very rough time in the near and medium term. At present, the long term is lost in the fog of the future.

Re:I agree with *some* of the Libertarian ideas...

[Lumpy]

This is the problem with almost all the third party's. It seems that they want to be the lunatic fringe and/or look like wackos.

How about a 3rd party that is the middle of the road, not the same damn clones we have every single year (Sorry but bush and Kerry ARE the same. They are both billionares that have no clue as to the reality that 90% of americans live each day.)

How about a 3rd party where we have a blue collar worker for president? A Foundry Foreman or supervisor? someone that has no idea what is it like to have a Billion dollars let alone a million in the bank.

Someone that drives a 3 year old Chevy, that is sick of the utter bullshit that our government pulls every day.

No we get nutcases that want to abolish Federal Taxes, blow up the UN, abolish the Federal REserve, become isolationist, legalize heroin, prostitution, and require that neopeganism become the national religion... (Ok, I'm making the last one up.. but this is how these nutbags sound)

I want a man in there that knows what is is like to worry about feeding his family, that knows what it was like to not afford medicine for his newborn so he did not eat for a week in order to get those antibiotics.

Not these pompous assholes that think hardship is not being able to contact the butler.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[torstenvl]

Since when are law and politics not geek subjects? The Geek code includes a code for Jurisprudence. In addition, many political things have a lot to do with technology, par exemple, DMCA and Check 21, not to mention export laws that would basically outlaw Pentium 4s outside the U.S. without a specific munitions export license.

Re:Should you vote?

[hendridm]

Well, looking at the replies, nobody agrees with Parker and Stone. I do, however. I think every citizen who is not a felon should have the right to vote, however, I don't think you should exercise that vote if you are uninformed. I don't care if you vote for the same guy I like, just take the time to read up on some of the issues and where the candidates stand. It's not that hard and helps encourage national well-being.

If there were IRV voting...

[Maul]

No secret that I'm a supporter of Badnarik. I've been thinking, however, how I would vote if there were Instant Runoff Voting. Going off of who qualified for my state's ballot (Nader was not one of them). Forgive me if I forgot someone in my haste.

1. Badnarik. The LP has the best platform for reducing the size and scope of government. The LP is against the current brand of foreign policy* that lead to the conflict in Iraq and causes us to be the targets of terrorists.

2. Petrouka. Some of the Constitution Party ideas are a bit way out there, but in general they are for less government, are also against the current brand of foreign policy.

3. Cobb. I disagree strongly with the Green platform, but if I'm going to choose between socialism and facism (where things are headed now with the Republicrats), I'll choose socialism. At least Cobb is a real left wing candidate, and is also against the current brand of foreign policy.

4. Kerry. You can't call him an anti-war candidate. Kerry plans to pull us out of Iraq in INFINITY MINUS TWO years, as opposed to Bush's plan to pull us out in INFINITY MINUS ONE. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry's party bows to the Entertainment Industry and his administration will likely take no steps to reform IP laws so that they cannot be abused by megacorps. Still, he's better than Bush.

5. Bush. I absolutely fear what Bush's administration might try to pull once the fear of not being re-elected is out of the way. Military Draft? Even more blatantly facist policy? Legislation worse than the Patriot Act? Probably all of the above. Anyone voting for Bush because he lowered taxes is living in a Dream World. Bush has increased the size and cost of the government. Sure, he gave us back a few hundred bucks so we'd be inclined vote for him again, but increasing Government size amounts to deferred taxation. We'll eventually all pay for his outing in Iraq in the form of taxes, even if that tax increase comes from Bush's successor.

*By this I mean the current foreign policy that dictates the US get involved in the business of other countries when it shouldn't.

Re:Well said

[glorinc]

I am one of those who don't like to discuss politics with friends / family. Reason being is that typically the people who really want to discuss it have made their mind up about the issues, and are not willing to have an open-minded discussion about them. So I get to the point where despite constructing a logical argument from multiple sources (BBC, CNN, Al Jazerra, etc.) the other person so firmly believes in the 'facts' from one side (Fox News, etc.), that anything else is simply wrong.

So you get to the point where you've achieved nothing after several hours of arguing. I'd rather do something more productive with my time.

A Canadian Perspective

[Maeric]

I'm a Canadian and up until yesterday I would have voted for John Kerry if I was an American. I love politics and have found this election race rather interesting. I recently downloaded a History Channel episode called "The Jesus Factor". It aired last week but I missed it. It's about how religion has influenced George Bush's political decisions.

The bittorent link is can be found here:
http://www2.digitaldistractions.org:8080/info.php? infohash=d07694cb106f7df5a17030f7a59402c61f67c119 [digitaldistractions.org]

After viewing the episode I had to rethink my opinion of George Bush. Now I'm not a George Bush lover by any means after watching the show, but John Kerry definetly doesn't have my full support anymore. The show does a good job of showing both sides (unlike Michael Moore documentaries, even though I love his films).

As a Canadian I think this elections will influence my country and ultimately me a lot. I think also that it will influence Americans even more and am surprised by those that choose not to vote. In the mind of many Canadians, according to a recent poll, George Bush lost a lot of respect after going to war in Iraq. I had no opinion of him until then and since then I had a very negative opinion of him. This documentary changed that a lot, but you can't change the past.

Does anybody that has watched this documentary have anything to say? I'd also be interested to see what other Canadians think of this whole election. There aren't that many that love politics as much as I do around me (my wife is glad she works tomorrow so she won't have to see any election coverage). Anyways hope to read more on others opinions.

Re:Terrorism is an issue

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But what's the CAUSE of the terrorism? Why attack them directly when we may be the ones at fault?

If I stomp on your foot and you punch me in the face, do I get to shoot you dead? No.

I caused the problem, and next time I won't stomp on your foot.

Re:Get rid of Bush, please.

[goretexguy]

At the risk of sounding like an arrogant American, I must ask, "Why is Bush a nightmare for the rest of the world?" I could flip your statement around and ask, "Why is the rest of the world such a nightmare?"

What with the terrorists, kleptocracies, dictatorships, civil and genocidal wars and all, I think it is the rest of the world, in general, which has the problem.

Europe seemed pretty happy to have the US help out in the Balkans (and Germany I, Germany II, Soviet Union, Vietnam, Palestine, etc.) but where are they now?

Actually, Palestine is a bit of a cheap shot, since that was a British problem and the Brits still have a good global view...

Oh yeah, if Europe was so superior in terms of diplomacy, why did the League of Nations fail?

Bottom line, if you want a United States which is 'engaged' in global affairs, you're gonna get things like Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq... or you're going to have another Hitler or two pop up someplace. It doesn't matter who the president is.

And yes, America is only a part of the world.. the part that everybody runs to (or from) when there are problems.

George Bush ignores the way of Christ

[Larthallor]

The Bible teaches, I believe, that God the Father sent down to Earth his only son, Jesus Christ, to live as man among men. The Lord said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." God sent Jesus to be the example of how a man should live his life on Earth. Only by following the way, the truth, the life of Jesus, shall we come to know the Father. This is where the modern saying, "What would Jesus do?", comes from and makes it so much more than a simple statement of admiration. "What would Jesus do", in my understanding of the phrase, is the guideline of righteous living.

And so, in order to see what Christians should focus on when looking for leadership in their time on this Earth, they should look at what Jesus focused on while he was here, living the life of the righteous man.

How often did Jesus talk about homosexuality, abortion, or assisted suicide? Were these sins the focus of his ministry? Or did he focus on healing the sick and feeding the poor?

Did he beseech us to increase the wealth of the moneylenders, so that there would be more crumbs for the poor? Or did he believe that we should help the poor by ... helping the poor?

Did Jesus limit his healing to those that could afford the money to pay him? Or did he reach out and touch all in need?

Did he focus on destroying enemies or loving them? Did he advocate war or peace?

I understand and admire evangelicals' conviction to vote their conscience and follow the Word, not just in church, but everywhere, every day. But, despite the Republicans throwing those that have strength of faith some Old Testament bones, it is the God-fearing liberal Democrats like John Kerry that best exemplify the self-sacrifice and social compassion Jesus had.

Can you really look at how George Bush reacts to the world and see him asking "What would Jesus do?" I cannot. I certainly can see him consulting the Bible and finding passages to console him. I certainly see that he believes God approves of his actions. What believer doesn't? But, try as I might, I cannot see in him a man doing as Jesus would do. Read Matthew 5:38-48 and tell me if you can hear the voice of George Bush.

Agree or disagree with the policies of George Bush and other Republicans on the merits as you will, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that George W. Bush is following the way, the truth, the life.

Re:Voting for Badnarik

[LMCBoy]

If the decision was in doubt, I'd certainly vote Kerry

You should vote Kerry then, because AZ is in play. I'm in AZ too; voter turnout can make the difference here.

Re:Be patient...

[Nepre]

2) World opinion of the US is at an all time low.

And? I care why?

Because the low opinion of the US is what causes people to strap bombs to themselves and fly planes into tall buildings.

party mentality

[blackcoot]

i really don't understand why it is that people vote for /parties/ rather than /issues/. to be totally blunt, what the hell has the rnc / dnc ever done for anyone who isn't a candidate? why is party loyalty such a huge deal? i really don't understand it. i had a conversation with someone on campus the other day and he said something to the effect of, "my family are all proud republicans. we've been that way for three generations now." so i asked him why he was going to vote republican and his response was, "why wouldn't i? that's what we've always done." that's not democracy in action, that's a sheepocracy exercising its idiocy.

I vote for Han Solo shooting second

[__aanebg9627]

I have always seen the U.S. as basically the 'good guys', no matter how deeply our political elites were reeking of 'realpolitik'. The broad public generally has its heart in the right place, and our leaders can't really stray too far. Most all our wars were fought in self-defense, and the U.S. people have not knowingly embraced evil practices (never mind that our leaders have sometimes done ill, especially in Latin America, while most of the U.S. people remained ignorant).

In Iraq, we shot first. We invaded on a pretext, not for a real, solid threat; that is the bottom line of all those many hearings, investigations, and reports. The sanctions were working, for the time being, and Saddaam and Iraq had nothing to do with al-Quaeda. Our invasion was an alarming departure from the requirement of an "act of war" before going to war. At best, it was a grave mistake, at worst it was the kind of action you see from dictators, not from solid democracies.

Lucas (and all of us) know that the good guys don't shoot first -- that's the characteristic of corrupt sheriffs and other baddies. Lucas edited Star Wars to clean up Han's character. Wish we could do that to us in real life! But the best we can do, as U.S. voters, is to repudiate Bush and his gang.

To Bush and his gang, the invasion was not a mistake, not in the least. They revel in having shot first, in being 'tough'. The U.S's reputation in the world is terrible, because of Bush's policies and -- more important -- his aggressive actions. We are rightly seen as a threat to other nations; we're like the sheriff who goes and shoots the guys he knows are bad, without trial, evidence, or due process. There's a reason for having a 'cause for war' - it's clear evidence. Something we did not have, and our leaders knew, should have known, or at least should know now.

Sophisticated people know that there's a difference between the U.S. people and the government, and make allowances for individual Americans. But how can they possibly do so if we re-elect Bush? We will have clearly embraced the black hat.

Who will keep you and your family safer?

[yetanothertechie]

Bottom line is I think that Bush will keep Americans safer.

Sorry for all of you not in the US who don't like his approach, but much of the world hates us and many would like to kill us. Call me selfish, but I'm voting for the guy who I think will keep my loved ones and me safer.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[jdray]

You know, I figure those ads keep Slashdot going, so I let them through. If it was widely known that 95% of ads on Slashdot didn't make it to the screens of their intended audience, then advertisers wouldn't send their dollars here, ultimately making it really, really difficult for you to RTFA.

Re:Bush and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[Smidge204]

So you're saying it wasn't short sighted to attack Saddam now when he wasn't a threat, instead of Osama who not only was (and still is) but who was actually responsible for the attacks... instead of taking care of Osama first and going back for Saddam a few years later, when he very likely would STILL not be a threat?

=Smidge=

Re:Please....

[calibanDNS]

An alternative is to take the time to learn about the candidates and issues being voted on in your precinct before tomorrow. I'm not saying that it's possible to develop a full understanding of every issue before voting closes, but if readers make the effort they might find that there is something or someone that they want to support.

To get you started, here are some links:

The most talked about election is the Presedential election, so here are links to each major candidate's site. You can find there stance on many issues and hopefully decide which candidate you prefer. You won't get any balanced views at these sites and I encourage you to visit as many other sites as possible if you're still undecided.

• Bardnik [badnarik.org]
• Bush [georgewbush.com]
• Cobb [gp.org]
• Kerry [johnkerry.com]
• Nader [votenader.org]

For information on local elections, check your voter registration card for a phone number or website where you can get more information on local elections. If nothing is listed, just Google for your county's Board of Elections website.

Re:An Honest Question

[micromoog]

Look at the issue in more than a black & white sense. Many people have the following two goals, in order of priority:

1. Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected.
2. Get Bush out of office.

In reality, voting for the 3rd party candidate contributes to the failure of both goals (goal 1 is already at 100% failure). Voting for Kerry leaves goal 1 at its predetermined failure state, but actually does something towards goal 2.

If you really don't care whether Bush or Kerry wins (keep in mind, one of the two is definitely going to), then this doesn't apply to you. But if you have any preference at all, it arguably makes sense to vote along that preference.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[ericdano]

So what is the "primary reason" you think? Surely you don't think we are there for Haliburten (or however it's spelled)? Seriously, there are like 3 companies in the world that can do what Haliburten does, and it happens to be the biggest.

I believe we went there because, as everyone did at the time, Saddam had weapons. And he had a shit load of weapons. Not the Nuclear or Biological ones we thought. Though that seems funny because Libya had a Nuclear program.....anyhow. Yeah, so it turns out there were none. But then why did Saddam keep acting like he had them? Not letting UN Inspectors access. Thumbing his nose at the whole process.

I still believe it was the right thing to go in and allow the people in Iraq to create their own government. We in the USA hear about the bad things, but there is a lot of good being done in the country.

Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[scotch]

There are really just 2 taboo topics:

• Abortion = politics + religion
• Capital Punishment = politics + religion
• Same Sex Relationships = politics + religion
• Religion = religion
• Politics = poltics (but for some people, poltics = religion)

HTH

Re:Bush and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[snol]

His sig is grousing about Kerry's Vietnam-era activities and strongly implying that protesting any action of the U.S. military is treason. Why are you bothering to argue with him?

If everyone votes, republicans lose

[LMCBoy]

It's pretty interesting (in an wretch-inducing way) that a core Republican strategy is to keep people from voting. The lengths to which they apparently will go to achieve this end makes one wonder how they can sleep at night...

• Wisconsin: Flyers distributed in poor neighborhoods, falsely warning people that they cannot vote if they have unpaid parking tickets, unpaid rent, any relatives in jail, etc, etc.
  
• Wisconsin: Republicans claim that 37,000 democratic registrations are invalid, because the voters did not return registered mail sent by repub. party (same happened in Ohio).
  
• Ohio: Republican attempts to intimidate and delay voters at the polls have thankfully been outlawed by a federal judge (though I am not holding my breath that they will fully comply, and what about other states?)
  
• Ohio: Democrats were sent letters falsely informing them that their voter registration is invalid, and they are ineligible to vote.
  
• West Virginia: Democrats were phoned by Repub HQ, falsely told they are ineligible to vote.
  
• Ohio: Democratic party phone banking station had its phone line intentionally cut.
  
• Wisconsin: College republicans distributed flyers in UW dorms, falsely telling students they could vote in any precinct they chose (similar misinformation ocurring at U.Arizona dorms).
  
• Michigan: Republicans calling democrats, urging them to "stand up for gay marriage" by voting for Kerry, who will "legalize gay marriage", a right "that we all want". And don't vote for Bush who will "outlaw gay marriage".
  
• Alabama: Taking a page from "The Onion", flyers distributed in poor neighborhoods, encouraging voters to go to the polls on November 3rd.
  

and on and on and on...

What contempt they have for the American people and the democratic process. It's sickening.

Re:Investing for the future

[dtfinch]

He might have won had he embraced some of your politics.

I don't think it works out like that.

If a candidate were to move towards a third party, they would lose middle votes to the opposing candidate. They seek the position that maximizes their votes. If some of a third party's supporters move completely out of reach, it may actually force their nearest two party candidate to move the other way to make up the gap by stealing his opponent's votes.

Look at what Kerry is doing. He's described as one of the most liberal liberals in Congress, yet he's taking a position that nearly matches Bush's. The last election, 3rd party votes gave Bush 4 years to "reeducate" the most gullible, pulling many middle voters in his direction. Kerry's only choice is to try to steal those voters back, and hope that the 3rd party voters have learned a lesson. I believe Kerry is a lot greener than he'll admit during his campaign. He's a big liar, but has little choice in the matter because of the damage that's been done.

Possibly the best way to pull the parties in your direction is to educate the opposing party in a non-threatening manner. Plus, by joining a major party you have the ability to influence its direction in the primaries. If you join a third party, your opinion does not affect who wins the two party primaries. I'm a registered Democrat but online surveys tell me David Cobb is my hero.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[flibuste]

Out of curiosity, how does one go about doing that and supporting it without some sort of ad revenue coming in?

Faith about your skills and will to do things you require, young jedi. Do not let the dark side of profit descend upon you!

Re:Why I think Kerry is a worse choice than Bush

[Spackler]

Good Job. You were able to reiterate almost every republican talking point, in order. That must be a difficult job sometimes. I am shocked they did not have you working the spin room after one of the debates.

Kerry, because Bush sucks more than Monica did.

Re:General thoughts

[poot_rootbeer]

I agree, most people are stupid, and voting should be left to enlightened geniuses like Slashdot's own "maximilln".

Go fuck yourself, elitist prick.

A US expatriate's perspective

[bug]

I'm an American living in Germany, which gives me a somewhat unique perspective I think. The German people generally has a, shall we say, critical view of our current administration. The cynical obsession with the Bush administration's dangerousness occasionally goes off the deep end, such as a common view that Fahrenheit 911 is unbiased and to be taken at face value, and occasionally even a belief that 9/11 was self-inflicted. Whether you consider it a more balanced view or not, the media here tends to show a more depressing view of the Iraq war than the US media does. Like anywhere else in the world, what the media shows is determined by what they perceive the population wants, and vice-versa. For what it's worth, the US soldiers serving in Iraq seem to have a more optimistic view of their progress in the general case.

Despite having a strong Christian heritage and traditions, Germans today are a rather secular sort that view organized religion with suspicion and occasional disdain. This also makes Bush suspicious in the eyes of Germans.

Thankfully, the German people are good at separating their hatred of the American administration from their views of American individuals. I've found the hospitality to be quite warm. I just wish that Americans were the same, but the shameful way that we Americans have treated the French has proven otherwise. However, I'm not confident that Germans will continue to be as forgiving if Bush is re-elected. That action would make it appear that we Americans actually prefer Bush's policies and approve of his decisions. I suspect that I might start to get nasty looks if that happens, but I hope otherwise.

Whether you are for Bush or not, Bush's poor respect in the world is an unconquerable distraction that prevents any potential progress. That reason alone was enough to prevent my voting for Bush. However, that doesn't help me to decide who to vote for.

I'm personally stuck, and no party or candidate represents me. While social welfare programs and strong regulation are attractive from a certain perspective, I look at the unemployment and stagnancy within Germany and just don't see that as effective. In other words, I'm fiscally conservative. In the past, that made the Republican party a more natural match for me. However, these neo-cons these days have completely alienated me. Usually complaints against the democrats, there's a heckuva lot of pork in our budget, our foreign policy is in shambles, our military is abused, our personal lives are overly interferred with.

The libertarian party is a bit too radical for me. There is plenty of truth to the statements that the UN is corrupt, populated with dictatorships, undemocractic, wasteful, and totally ineffectual. I couldn't possibly support the banishment of the UN that Badnarik proposes. While I don't like regulation or socialism in general, the nearly complete elimination of them isn't on the menu for me. So, Badnarik is out. The other parties and candidates are far too left-wing for me.

So, a few days ago I mailed in my ballot in, my decision more a process of elimination than anything else. Yes, I'm voting for the flake (Kerry) and his partner, the ambulance chaser (Edwards). I have every bit of faith that Kerry will be just as ineffectual in the White House as he has been these many years in the Senate, and that Edwards will usher in a new age of hyperlitigation. And believe me, I'll be voting them back out of office in 2008 with even more enthusiasm than I voted them in.

Re:Be patient...

[benhocking]

<sarcasm> But you've forgotten - unlike Kerry, Bush doesn't have any "litmus test" that he's going to apply to the justices that he nominates. All he requires is that they not be "activist" judges. I.e., that they don't disagree with him on what is the correct way to interpret the law.<\sarcasm>

Re:Some advice to undecideds...

[hacker]

"If you want more 3rd party candidates toss your local election votes to them, help a green be your mayor, or on your city council."

Actually, there is already a better idea. Vote Swapping . Basically voters in swing states are trading their votes for Green/Indy party candidates to Republicans in strongly Right states. The swing voter votes for Kerry, in exchange for the Right voter voting for Nader (or Cobb).

This, solves the age-old problem of "Nader taking votes from Kerry", in this case. The strongly-Right state remains Right, the swing state leans more to the Left, and Nader's percentage of votes goes up, without hurting Kerry at all.

There are something like 20,000 people who are signed up and doing this for this election alone, and the number of people doing it is growing every election.

But I agree with your points. We need to get some Senate, Congress, and House Green/Indy representation in place first, otherwise having a Green/Indy candidate elected for President, will mean nothing, because he won't have the support of anyone in his cabinet to affect change.

Re:An Honest Question

[bugnuts]

The problem is, the Electoral College does not work with more than two parties.

All third parties are completely eliminated by the electoral college unless they have a huge following. I don't know of any electoral votes going to a 3rd party, although I suspect that it could've happened in the past.

Voting third party does not literally throw away your vote, but it does literally have no effect on the POTUS election.

What it does do is help your 3rd party for the next election. If your party gets a certain percentage of the votes, your party gets on the ballot and even qualifies for federal funds.

But let's take, for instance, Nader and the Green party. The republicans fought tooth and nail to get the Greens on every ballot they could, simply because it tends to split the Democratic vote. And the electoral college virtually eliminates the green votes, so it's like getting democrats to throw their votes away. This is american politics. The other side effect, though, is it helps republicans in the long run because it helps keep Nader on the ticket for next election, continuing the cycle of splitting the votes.

Bottom line: If you can't vote for Bush in good conscience, you should not vote for Nader.

Re:Politics of Slashdot

[ahrenritter]

I'm going to watch this thread to see how you get modded and if you get flamed by the party goers.

I dipped into this story's comments because I wanted to comment on the "And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow." tag line on the article. Contrary to your request that people only vote if they feel they are doing the right thing, I am actually 90% sure I'm going to go out and vote for the first time in my 30 years tomorrow. It makes me feel dirty though. I don't have faith in either of the two parties and I don't have faith in the electoral system either. I have never complained about any of the decisions of elected officials because I did not vote for or against them. When I vote tomorrow, I will vote independent even though I do not even fully agree with the only other person on the ballot. I've been told that "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" and this too makes me sad because I truly do know that whether or not it is a "vote for Bush", it is a wasted useless vote. Someone might argue that my vote will add a grain of sand to the "people who want something different" side, but honestly, even if every single person with views remotely similar to mine voted independent, I don't think it would faze the two parties in the slightest.

I am so sick of the mud slinging. When I decided to vote this year, I attempted to do research on the local candidates, and all I could find was page after page (in print and online) of slur and "shocking truth about the lies and corruption and ineptitude". Digging through all this garbage to try to find out even the simplest answer of how a candidate even *states* they feel on an issue was reinforcement to the reason I have never voted before.

I logically understand why we are a republic. I understand that the lack of desire on the masses part to become informed on individual matters combined with the improbable logistics of accurately and quickly collecting votes from all our citizens on each individual issue make a true democracy a near impossibility. Logically understanding it doesn't make me content about it though.

I'm sure I'll be flamed to one end and back again for this. People will spout the age old adage spouted against people who are dissatisfied with the system (Love it or leave it you commie!). I do love America. I'm a tech loving geek and I aspire to become rich and live even more comfortably than I do now, and I hope that things in our country get better rather than worse. I am just a bit dispirited when I think about the (supposed) fact that my voting tomorrow will not help or hinder those things I'm hoping for.

Why chose people who want no choice for you?

[scherrey]

I see these arguments that one should vote for Kerry or Bush otherwise their vote is wasted. If you truly believe this then you've already given up your ONLY government guaranteed right as a member of this republic.

Regardless of your opinion about the two monopoly party candidates - the fact is that if either one had their way YOU would have no choice at all. They have used their monopoly of government force and tax dollars to suppress the knowledge of the very existence of altervative parties much less their viewpoints. They pass laws giving them the right to steal your money to use to pay for their propaganda and influence the outcome of the election. They contrieve new requirements making it impossible for other parties to participate in "debates" or even get on the ballot so that those of us who want someone else can't even legally express that opinion.

So... if you propose voting for one of the major parties rather than who you'd really want then you are part of the problem. If you want to protect your influence on the election then push forward laws like instant runoff or "none of the above" voting and requirements that the winner actually get 50% + 1 votes to take office. Don't cry that people may not elect the person they'd prefer when the fact is that, as things stand now, they are guaranteed to get the person they don't want - and that person already knows it and has no reason to change his current monopolistic bahaviour.

Voting your conscience and informed opinion is the ONLY moral vote possible. In fact, even if you do prefer one of the two monopoly party candidates, I find it hard to morally justify voting for them if only because of their oppression of this most important right. The US has already lost the courts' support of the Constitution. Once enough people figure out that their votes have been stolen too then there will be no saving this country. There isn't any "free" country left to run to folks... let's try to make this one free once more.

Re:Why I think Kerry is a worse choice than Bush

[roman_mir]

The war was totally justified - see, when you say something like that all of the following arguments just.. pufff... don't matter anymore.

Bush said Iraq had WMDs and it was a false statement. Bush did not get support of UN to go to war. Bush insisted that Iraq had something to do with 911.

The war was totally unjustified.

Re:Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils"

[epiphani]

To quote one of the great canadian political satirists and ranters, Rick Mercer once said (slightly paraphrased):

"Some people say that they arent going to vote because its like trying to choose between the lesser of two evils. Now listen to me very carefully here - when it comes to running a country, it is very important to choose the lesser of two evils."

Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[Hentai]

Really, they're both subsets of the same topic, which is "Reasons why I think other people should change to suit me".

Politics is just the practical side of that, while religion is the abstract side.

Re:Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils"

[wass]

There's a big difference between being an idealist and being a pragmatist. No candidate will ideally represent all your viewpoints, there will always be differences. So really every person in the USA should vote for themselves, according to your logic.

The big question is to ask yourself "How important is this election? How many issues are at stake that I will regret helping re-elect Bush by voting 3rd party?.

It's way too close to the election for any significant momentum to build up for any 3rd-party candidate. Like someone else said, the best chance to get them elected is to vote for local positions. For example, at my house we have a sign for the green party candidate for Baltimore City Council on our front lawn, and he's gotten alot of exposure lately. We also have Kerry-Edwards signs on our lawn too, because

But definitely realize that nationally if you vote 3rd party you're taking a vote away from Kerry. Yeah, we can argue all day till the cows come home about whether it's a wasted vote or not if you vote for who you really want. But practically and realistically you should realize you are 100% helping re-elect Bush again by doing so. If you don't mind re-electing Bush in order to vote for your ideal candidate, then go ahead and do so.

As for myself, I voted Nader in 2000 because my state is heavily democratic and I despise the 2 party system. Bush has been way way WAY too radically conservative IMHO, and the USA and the World will be significantly better off by pushing him out of office. Most liberals I know, including many local green-party enthusiasts, are voting Kerry in this election. (Actually, the only exception I personally know of who is voting Green is the aforementioned Green Party candidate for city council). Even though my state is not a swing state, by voting Kerry I am helping to legitimize his election through the popular vote as well.

So basically, if you don't mind Bush getting re-elected this time around then vote 3rd party. In the past republicans haven't been as evil as Bush, and I'd agree with you about going 3rd party to help usher in change. But this time around there's too much at stake for my risking any Bush re-election. Things at stake include : draft, more war, appointing between 1-4 Supreme Court judges, amendment to ban gay marriage, tie Christianity closer to the US government, etc etc.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[micromoog]

Whatever the reason was, going back now and celebrating freedom is backpedaling of the worst kind. If the U.S. was really in the business of liberating people, there are MANY nations that a) are in worse shape now than Iraq ever was and b) would be easier to "fix" than Iraq has been.

I can't just ignore the fact that the motivation for this war keeps changing, regardless of how it's turning out. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Re:Voting for Badnarik

[twisty]

I forgot to 'bottom-line it' for the readers:

It's important to vote, but even *more* important to reform voting. If you don't vote, you cannot claim to be the object of another's election crimes: you have only yourself to blame for your choice to be excluded. But if you do vote, it's fine to vote your conscience, inside or outside the two patry entrenchment. It's simply more important to fix the machine into behaving fairly than it is to feed your votes into a system that's broken.

Re:2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry)

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry was a prosecutor, not a personal trial lawyer.

Why should I listen to you if you don't know the difference?

Re:Should you vote?

[AK Marc]

If you know the issues, are well informed, and still don't vote? Fine by me, you're an informed voter who abstained for informed reasons. But that's less likely to happen.

I'd argue that it can't happen. An informed voter that didn't want to vote for either candidate with a chance should get out and vote for a 3rd party candidate they don't like. This is the course of action that will be most likely to influence their choices next election. The fact that no one is voting 3rd party results in the choices being between two moderate candidates that claim to be after the exact same goals. They just differ slightly in how they persue those goals. A large enough 3rd party will result in a change in platform by one of the major parties in order to court those split voters.

Re:Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils"

[micromoog]

Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils" is voting for evil!

Here's a spoiler: one of the evils is going to win.

Re:Why I think Kerry is a better choice than Bush

[adrenaline_junky]

Your attack on Kerry's position on Iraq basically comes down to the assertion that Kerry's policy would have been to use the military option only as a bluff.

This is simply false. Kerry has said that Bush rushed into war, but Kerry has not ruled out that he might have eventually taken the nation into war himself.

The difference is this: Kerry would have continued the diplomatic and economic pressure and given the inspectors the time to finish their job. Yes, it was a long arduous process (18 resolutions, blah blah blah), but so is this war that we're not stuck in.

The rest of your comments about the war are basically moot. Yes, we all know Saddam was a threat, and we all thought he had WMD. Points conceded. But Bush rushed us to war without properly verifying our suspicions, rallying a real coalition, or preparing for the aftermath.

I'm not sure what your source is when you say most troops in Iraq support Bush. I knows many people over in Iraq right now. To a man they were all gung-ho to get over there. And they are now, to a man, all gung-ho to get back. They suppport their fellow troops and will stay there to finish the job as long as their brothers are in harms way, but that's because of loyalty. Not because they agree with Bush's policies. But these are just the people I know... I have no idea what the overall feeling of most troops over there is.

As far as economics go, I suppose one would expect me to support Bush. I make over $200K, and my family also has a trust. One would think I'd be smiling all the way to the bank with the tax cuts.

But I'm not. I see the shrinking middle class as a threat, because in the long run it destabilizes the country. If the middle class disappears we end up in a situation where revolution is not only possible, but likely. And I don't see that as benefitting my long term prospects at all.

The cost of living has also gone up in ways that have made the tax cut almost meaningless, as well. Yes, tax cuts can help the economy, but if they are mostly offset by cost of living increases then the net affect is nil. Thost $300 checks that everyone received evaporated in the face of higher insurance premiums.

Further, antagonizing the rest of the world has hurt local business. Boeing now finds it difficult to compete worldwide. Given largely similar offerings between Airbus and Boeing, most foreign buyers would now prefer to buy from Airbus instead of from an American company. American brand names are taking a beating overseas. And the dollar has dropped about 30%, meaning that even if I am a bit wealthier in the U.S., I'm poorer overall when the whole world is considered.

Getting the rest of the world pissed off at us is something that could have been avoided. I'll concede that no president might have been able to keep the dollar strong, though Bush certainly didn't help.

Now for a point you didn't mention:

I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for some born-again refry who will more than likely try to appoint radically conservative judges to the supreme court. He claims there will be no litmus test, but his reference to Dred Scott is well known code that says exactly the opposite: he will do his utmost to appoint judges who will overturn Roe V Wade.

I also feel strongly about the constant attacks on civil liberties by this administration. Bush would make Jefferson spin in his grave, I am sure. In fact, this election has interesting parallels to the election of 1800 as far as setting the tone for the future of liberty.

And to follow the rule of three I should throw something else in here... but I've typed enough already and probably no one will read this anyway so I'll just stop here. But that video that strongly suggests Bush may be going senile is pretty damn frightening (and believable).

Re:2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry)

[Pragmatix]

What are the chances of 2 Texas oilmen (financially supported by many more oilmen) giving us a coherent national energy policy which frees us from dependency on oil and the Middle East?

This is actually the crux of the reason I do not believe Bush is much of a republican. If you think about it, the most US-centric, national security supporting policy possible is to completely wean ourselves off of foreign oil.

Think about the possibilities if instead of invading Iraq, we funneled those billions into alternative energy research. The payoff, perhaps in ten years, perhaps longer, would completely wipe away the ability of the middle east to influence or effect the US.

Re:Voting for Badnarik

[Anonymous Coward]

>Really, the only good thing I can think of to say >for Kerry is that the Democratic presidents have >generally been less effective at expanding the >government than have the Republican presidents.

Are you fucking for real? The democrats are primarily responsible for the size of our current government. They inacted the federal income tax, social security and most of the entitlement programs we have.

The only time when they didn't significantly expand government is when the republicans controlled congress.

I will concede that Bush has been lousy on this issue. He has acted more like a democrat than a republican when it comes to spending.

Re:Please....

[dhakk]

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, but somehow I just have the feeling it would immediately get twisted into:

Admendment X will:

a - provide for the modification of the current diction and structure of the state constitution with causation through the legislature impacting and promoting property levies
b - require me to sign over my firstborn child but may give puppys a new chance at life
c - nullify the unfair and previously meticulously planned sections of the state spoils allowing the absolute benevelent state executive to impact the state system of employ.

Ok... so I'm not good at obfuscation... but you know what I mean -- it would quickly be used in a partisan or bi-partisan way to try to again control who votes.

Solution? I don't really have one, as the only real solution is for everyone to think critically about everything.

Sorry for the criticism :).

Re:2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry)

[damiam]

0 and 0, but they're not of equal importance. Alternative energy sources are crucial to the future of the world. Tort reform would be nice, but litigation is being overblown as a component of rising health costs.

In any case, both of those issues are (in theory) legislative and not the President's responsibility.

Re:An Honest Question

[famebait]

Well, here's how my logic would go in this particular election, if I were eligible:

THE most important thing about democracy, even more important that any real or perceived influende on actual policy, is that you get to hold the people in power accountable.

Kerry may be a wild card, but you KNOW that Bush LIED to you. To ALL of you, and not just about his private life, or even shady business practices, but about important political decisions with direct bearing on the security of your country and the rest of the world. He LIED to you in order to go get accceptance for going to war on a sovreign nation who was no threat. He LIED to you about the reasons you should or should not support risking the death and suffering of thousands of american soldiers and innocent civilians alike. Even if you would have supported it anyway, there is NO excuse for misleading the public in such a blatant way on such a serious matter. NOONE should get away with that, EVER.

If you don't kick him out now, you're basically telling politicians (all of them), that they can get away with pretty much anything and enjoy continued support, as long as they dangle some sort of enemy in front of you.

Even if you believe Kerry will be worse (I fail to comprehend how that is even remotely likely, but I know you are out there), how much worse could he be, and wouldn't it still be worth it just to send a clear message that you will be held accountable if you fuck up?

Re:George Bush ignores the way of Christ

[raile]

I've made arguments along these lines to people who play the "righteous religion" card on Bush. Great job on your post. It's amazing how many people focus on certain "Book X, Chapter Y, Verse Z" of the Bible and completely ignore the overarching themes in the bible of compassion, etc.

don't vote.

[martin100]

why does everyone always pretend like they care if everyone votes? they should only care if their candidate wins. i hope everyone who supports the candidate i oppose does not vote. saying "regardless of who you support, get out and vote" seems pointless. isnt it most important to elect the better candidate than to just have better turnout? what good is turnout if they elect the guy who enacts bad policy? unless of course you believe more turnout is good for your candidate, which i suspect many of these people who are saying this believe. if you relly care about electing a better candidate, shouldnt you dissuade people from voting, if they support the wrong guy?

Re:George Bush ignores the way of Christ

[Qzukk]

I think this is probably halfway to the end of the connection between the Religious Right and the Fiscal Right. I saw the signs beginning way back when Howard Stern came to Houston, and someone wrote to the paper about how companies put the money ahead of the morals. I bet that person will vote for Bush, because thats what Christians do, they vote for the Republicans because they make a very good show of being Christian.

Re:An Honest Question

[Striver]

You just outlined the number one reason NOT to vote for small party candidates. I don't want to discount the importance of "issues" in choosing a candidate, but there is a great deal more involved in holding public office than holding specific beliefs and ideals, and most people in this country seem to be missing this point entirely. You can't simply elect your ideological soul mate and suddenly expect a bright new tomorrow to happen just because he is in office.

First of all, an elected president must be ready to immediately put in place a massive organization of highly qualified professionals. While mainstream parties may not be ideologically perfect, they do provide a solid foundation and a good supply of quality personnel for such organizations.

The new president also needs to have the management skill and experience to run that organization. Let me put it this way...Ideologically, I am the perfect candidate for me to vote for. After all, I agree with everything I believe in. However, I would never vote for myself for president because I do not have the managerial skills to actually run the office. I guarantee I would make a complete mess of this country and that has nothing to do with my stand on the issues.

The white house doesn't operate in a vacuum. What kind of connections does your party have in the house and senate, or even in the governments of the various states, to help them further their agenda? It would be almost cruel and unusual punishment to put a third party candidate in the Whitehouse while the entire remainder of the government is in the solid grip of the two main parties. Why don't you just have him spend the next four years beating his head against a brick wall.

And finally, I admit to being somewhat of an altruist and idealist. People like me do NOT do well in politics. We are too quick to give the other side a break, too inclined to play fair. You are better off finding a real bastard who will fight for you, because politics is a nasty business where altruists get stuffed into the office shredder. Sometimes you really do have to compromise your ideals a bit to get at least some of what you want. You may not like lawyers but you had better be ready to hire one when needed.

There was a candidate who was almost ideologically perfect for me. I voted against him in the primary because he wouldn't have been any better at running this country than I would, and believe me, we don't want that! Yeah, I would love to vote only by my ideals, but that is a good way to really screw up my country.

So yeah, I don't agree 100 percent with my main party choice (deliberately avoiding making this a political post), and I know he isn't a flipping saint, but I also know he has a solid organization under him, He has the wherewithal to manage it and he has the guts to fight for at least some of what I want for my country.

Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[prell]

There are no religious issues inherent to the debate over abortion rights. Abortion is the consideration of the rights of the unborn person versus the right of the parent over their body. If you were to ask me, as soon as conception occurs, the right of the parent over their body is separate from the rights of the child, and terminating that child is murder. If it can be reasonably determined that the life of the parent is put in danger by the life of the child, then aboriton is the decision of the parent. However, other problems and burdens that occur as a result of the pregnancy are responsibilities taken on upon pregnancy, and are not risks to be mitigated. The government should not be relied on as arbiter of responsibility.

Deadly corporeal punishment could be argued to be beneficial to society when the convicted has shown that they constitute a clear danger to others through their actions. "If there is one town that the world would be better without, it's Dogville." -- Lars von Trier

Marriage is not the business of the government; it is the business of citizens alone and as a law it is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous and alienating. It constitutes a violation of the right to privacy. Government-sanctioned marriage has also established an economy that, if it doesn't today, it certainly will require its participants to be married to be able to sustain their existence. Government-sponsored marriage drags the private lives of individuals into public spotlight unwillingly, and essentially crates a caste system whereby the existence of one individual is validated by the government, and the existence of another is not.

In the prevalent religions existing in the United States today, a person surrenders their ability to evaluate experience to a nebulous power which is in actuality just another person in a uniform. In a representative democracy, the desires of individuals are met in a confluence several times until they eventually turn into votes in Congress; hopefully, the government ends up being a compromise of what many people fervently believe is right. Religion and our government don't mix, and they shouldn't mix. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine knew this, and incidentally, they were deists.

Re:I'm in England and I'm not American... but...

[byolinux]

I care because my country seems to support the US in whatever they do.

I care because of the USA, my country went to fight a 'war' against a country that didn't have any of the weapons that were listed as the reason for going in.

I care because I'm a member of this world just like anyone else.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[ericdano]

I was pissed off at some one who cannot see the inconsistency of a stated policy. If the policy should lead to a different set of action than the one performed, then there must be a different reason for performing that action. Every policy stated by the administration to justify invading Iraq, should have put other coutnries higher on the list. Therefore, the policies statements for invading Iraq were not the real reason.

Hogwash. We invaded Iraq for our own security. We gave Saddam yet another chance to work with the UN. He failed. Would you propose to keep a openly hositle country with a track recorded of launching Missles at Israel, and invading other countries, to continue to operate? I suppose you'd want to do something AFTER Saddam launched a couple of missles at the US?

Someone had to do what the UN FAILED TO DO for 11 plus years. It only took a handful of terrorists to kill thousands of US citizens. If you have a whole country, with the backing of it's government, doing that.....

What other options were there? Another round of UN resolutions? In the mean time Saddam could be funneling funds and explosives to groups to do more harm in the US.
Are you saying we invaded because we didn't think he was doing the things he told the UN he would do? Is that really the United States job to enforce UN resolutions against the wishes of the UN. American soldiers, Iraqi Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians deserved to die because of Saddam wasn't obeying UN resolutions, and we decided it was our job to make him pay?

We were not out to "make him pay". We were out to make him play. Play by the rules which the UN set up. How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.

He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.

This is for my undecided friends....

[$criptah]

I really hope that all you who are reading this post do know your candidates. However, I will publish my points of view for those ones who are undecided. Here is why I vote for Kerry:

Kerry does not want to increase the power of the federal goverment. As he stated, he would like the states to decided on several particular policies. This is as "American" as it gets. Bush, on the other hand, wants to increase the amount of control that fed. gov't has over the states.

Kerry does not want to embed discrimination into our Constitution. I am not gay, but I believe in equality and justice for all. How can one expect a fair treatment while the others are being denied civil liberties? Think about it, would straight men beat their wives if the concept of heterosexual marriage was perfect? If you want to protect marriage, do me a favor: push for women's rights and stand against family violence.

Kerry does not shove the Bible up my ass. Whether you are religious or not, you should remember that religion and state are separate in this country. Just because you believe in god, it does not mean that your beliefs should become a part of my life. I have nothing about personal religious traditions, but I think that citing the Bible when it comes to creating laws is pushing it. When is the next round of witch trials, Mr. Bush?

Kerry is for cooperation with international entities and other countries. Remember, we did not win WWII without help from numerous states. Despite personal feelings we cannot spit at the French and tell the Germans to shut the fuck up and eat that kraut. A world is a big pile of shit and all of us are in it equally.

I support women's right to choose.

During the debates Mr. Bush did not have enough guts to admit three things that he screwed. Let me help him out: "No Child Left Behind," Iraq, tax cuts for the rich.

If you think that Kerry is a "flip-flopper," think how many times YOU changed your mind and why you did it; did it make you a bad person? Although this may not be a populate saying in the United States -- it's French -- but "only idiots do not change their minds." Would you rather vote for a person who can adjust his/her decisions based on feedback (just like the spiral model of software engineering) or you would you prefer a blind follower of some sort of ideology?

Kerry is intelligent, Bush is not. Do me a favor, compare Kerry and Bush rallies, speeches, etc. You will see a difference. Our current president speaks like a fucking second grader with "internets," "budget men" and "group of folks."

48 Nobel prize winners support Kerry.

Kerry promises pro-environmental policies.

This is a strech, but compare the economies and educational systems of "blue" vs. "red" states. It will give you a rough idea who is voting for Mr. Bush. Also, take a look at rallies and the supporters of both candidates. I have nothing against Republicans because I tend to vote for the principals, not the party. However, it is not the case during these elections...

Well, I believe this is enough for starters. Ideally, I would like to see a president who is conservative when it comes to spending and liberal with social policies. However, this is never going to happen. There is too much bigotry in this world.

Re:George Bush ignores the way of Christ

[Lord Flipper]

I wish more people, Christians, folks of other faith, and the huge numbers of non-aligned ordinary folk, who really are just trying to live their lives, work, feed and raise their families.. could see this post. I can't call myself a Christian, but I recall Christ saying something along the lines of, "by their actions, so shall ye know them." I think that's how it went.

And in that respect, America's actions belie all this born-again nonsense, and the posturing and arrogance that certain administrations practice in 'our' (US citizens) name. It's not right.

An honest look at Judaism and Islam (amongst others) will show remarkable 'overlap' regarding 'the way'. All three religions are really more 'verbal', in that they are about how to live, not just what to 'believe', and even less about 'what to say' about one's beliefs. All three of those faiths are descendents of Abraham, although you'd never know it from the looks of things, today.

I am under no illusion that Sen. Kerry is 'the Answer', nor that he will make everything better. But, for any person, group, race, or nation, sometimes the best way to 'make things better', is simply to stop making them worse. America doesn't have to roll over because of whatever 'opinion' others may have of it, but it can stop creating its own victims and enemies and hatred. Will we still have enemies? Of course. But they will, like America itself, have to face a day of reckoning, at some point.

For us, doing the 'wrong' thing for the 'right' reason, is, always has been, and always will be, the wrong thing; Rationale is not a determinant of morality, it's an excuse for an action. I just hope that a lot of folks look into their hearts and consult whatever Higher Power they turn to in times of trouble, before voting.

An argument against third parties

[jgardn]

I believe the third parties are useless. You can get a lot of your issues done if you choose the right party and form a coalition within that party. (There is a time and a place for a third party - this election is not one of them. Take a look at how the republican party got started if you want a good example.)

I agree with a lot of the libertarian platform. Yet I am a republican. What am I doing actively working in the republican party trying to get Bush elected when I know that Badnarik would better represent me?

Quite simply, I am working with others who feel like I do. We've already caused a divide among our party in my local town. Next year, we may have the power needed to put our choices for local politics on the ballot. If they win, we will hold the power in our district. Our party platform in our area will have so many similarities to the libertarian one that perhaps we can convince the 500 libertarians to team up with us. The republicans agree with a lot of what the libertarians agree with. We are getting - for free - a couple thousand votes from people who are "blind" republicans. That's something a third party could never get.

Eventually, I hope to cause a shift in the republican party like the shift that Jerry Falwell and others have instituted. I think it is far more possible if I work from within than without. When we get our people in the state house and senate, we can get our ideas out. Eventually, one of our guys will get the governorship and become the de facto party boss.

So if you want to get your issues out, choose the party closest to yours and start working for them. Over time, you will gain the power you need to tell them what they are going to stand for. And you'll have far more power than Badnarik does now.

Re:Politics of Slashdot

[Oblio]

"...only other person on the ballot..."?

On my ballot, there are 5 candidates for president. And MANY, MANY candidates for lower office.

I'm constantly amazed at people who don't vote... I mean, it's not that important to vote for the president (Some guy from Wyoming's vote counts for 5 of me), but your state and local offices will impact you quite a bit- not to mention local millages, or state ballot initiatives.

Usually you can see your ballot ahead of time online from places like publius.org but I think that is state dependent.

Good luck.

Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[scotch]

The term you use ("Unborn person") presupposes some positions that not everyone shares with you. Many times, a person's opinion on the validity of the term "unborn person" (which might change over the course of a pregnancy) is highly influenced by religion. In the US, the prevailing distinctions between persons holding different views on abortion is religious. If you believe otherwise, you are in denial of the reality that surrounds you. The word "Murder" is interesting, and it's interesting that you use it. In fact, I'd say you use it incorrectly. In any case, arguing against abortion by declaring that abortion == murder is worthless. If you need help determining why, let me know.

Similarly, but to a lesser extent, the moral legitimacy of capital punishment is often determined by religious rather than othere means.

I agree that the government should not be involved in defining marriage or otherwise entangled in religious issues.

All of these things are overly entagled in fundamentalist America.

Re:Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils"

[Who Man]

I'll also be one of those "idealists" voting for Badnarik, and my defense to your "pragmatism" is:

1. If I had used "pragmatic" judgement in the last election, I'd have voted for Bush. I couldn't imagine voting for someone who said he "took the initiative in creating the internet." (Let's not get into what Gore meant by that--it just made him sound like an idiot.) Besides that, I liked the idea of tax cuts, because tax cuts generally mean smaller goverment. So Bush sounded like the lesser of two evils. However, I took the "idealist" approach and voted for the Libertarian candidate. And for that, I can now sleep at night. Cause wouldn't you know it, voting for the lesser of two evils gave people evil. If I use pragmatic judgement in this election and vote for Kerry, who knows what I'll end up with? Kerry sounds like the lesser of two evils, but we'll probably still have a neverending war. We'll probably get a Patriot Act II. We'll probably get on the road towards government health care. And we'll probably get crap I can't even fathom right now. Why should I vote for that if I don't agree with any of it?
2. I would be voting for Kerry if he had proved something to me. But he hasn't. Go to factcheck.org and look at the facts on the debates. Both sides had lie after lie. (Okay, misleading statement after misleading statement--same thing to me.) I can't vote for someone unless I believe what he says. And if most of what he says isn't really true, I can't believe him.
3. Yes, there's a good chance my vote won't affect the outcome of this election. Personally, I don't think it matters who wins, so I'm instead investing my vote into a hopeful future. I hope that with these close races, the percentage of votes going to 3rd party candidates will become more meaningful. Perhaps the Democrats will lose and realize they need instant runoff or approval voting so that I can vote for Badnarik and Kerry. And that will be a happy day for me.
4. This is still a free country. Don't go lecturing me on how I should use my vote. It's my vote, and I will use it however the fuck I want to. Sorry for foaming at the mouth, but arguments like this are pissing me off. If "pragmatic" people like you would vote their conscience instead of following the herd of sheep, we might actually be able to get out of this mess.

Re:Voting for Badnarik

[durdur]

>only good thing about Bush is that the Republican presidents have generally been less effective at curtailing our civil rights than have the Democratic ones.

Huh? Can you say "Patriot Act"?

Politics: everybody knows

[Zarn]

I think I'll let Leonard Cohen speak for me:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Bush can elect himself thru the Supreme Court!

[Catbeller]

Nightmare scenario:

If the election goes into a 2000-style knock down courtroom fight later this month, and it winds up in the Supreme Court, at the moment it is a 4-4 tie with Renquist out of the picture.

I've read that a tied vote cannot overturn a lower court's ruling. Soooo they would be out of the picture.

UNLESS:

Renquist announces his retirement immediately. Bush then chooses the new justice of the Supreme Court, since he is still President.

Bush gets to CHOOSE THE MAN WHO CASTS THE DECIDING VOTE!

Are you saying?

[Mike Hawk]

Everyone should vote for Bush because he respects the seperation of church and state?

Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil

[prell]

What a load of bullshit. You would have your mother carry to term the offspring of a rape, eh? Nice guy.

Why not? The baby didn't rape anyone; it's not Rosemary's Baby or something. She can always put it up for adoption. In the event of a rape, the responsibility for the child by default falls on the state or whichever social institution you choose, since society in a way failed you. Rape does not devalue the child; it's not your choice to make.

Conception -- fertilisation -- is well defined. Read a book and lay off the personal attacks.

I quoted that entire sentence because it's so ludicrous. Just who are you going to have as the arbiter, god?

You.

Interesting

[YukiKotetsu]

Interesting thing I read, course I'd have to look it up about it all being true...

Things that make you think a little........

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following.

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Kerry supporters are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Wait, there's more.......................

JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn:
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn:
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.
It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.
I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look those men -- with their mangled bodies -- in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and

Re:Properly formatted version: (sorry bout that)

[DaoudaW]

As a mathematician, I find the logic of Landsburg to be totally flawed. First of all in a lottery there is only one winner. In an election, approximately half the population gets their choice for president. So in fact you have a 50% chance, more or less, of winning. Just because your vote didn't determine the winner, doesn't mean your vote didn't count.

In baseball, statistics are kept on the "winning run", meaning the run which put the winning team ahead to stay. Likewise, the losing pitcher is the pitcher who gave up the winning run. In fact it's nonsense. The winning run had no more effect on the score than the first run scored, and the first run allowed by a pitcher is just as much a part of the loss as the last one.

Its just as silly to try to pick out single vote that "counts" and then claim that all the others don't count. All the votes count equally and anyone who voted for the winner is as entitled as any other to claim their vote as the "winning vote"

On another level the piece is equally flawed. I live in a town of about 20,000 population. According to this piece, about 7 people in our town will be killed by their mothers. We've had only 2 murders in the last 25 or so years none of them by a mother. So unless we are highly unusual that's a overstated statistic.

Now, I live in Kansas and unless hell freezes over Bush will win our 6 electoral votes tomorrow. So my vote won't count, but thats because the electoral votes are winner take all, not because of any probalistic comparison to lotteries. Over 50% of the votes cast tomorrow in Kansas will count.

Re:An Honest Question

[Moofie]

In other words, register for one of the two parties (you have to guess which one will be more important) in order to help validate the existing duopoly in exchange for a slightly larger franchise that will be totally invalidated by the large numbers of party True Believers who are the ones the primaries are REALLY for.

The system is broken. Spending more time working on this system will not make it less broken. We need a new system.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[RustyTaco]

North Korea is openly hostile, and actually HAS missiles that can hit the US. Why didn't we invade North Korea first?

Ah, that old dodge, one of the more entertaining ways to dance around the question, I'll grant you. It basically boils down to "A" was wrong because I think "B" should have been a higher priority, completely dancing around the issue of "A", and "B" for that matter, and instead focusing on a external matter of queueing.

- RustyTaco

Re:Why I think Kerry is a worse choice than Bush

[MarkLewis]

How is it that a comment where somebody expresses several positions, backed up by relevent examples, not modded up at all?

And this comment, which instead of real content carries just a snide remark, gets modded "5, Insightful"?

I don't care which side you believe in, this thread (and its modding) is an example of blind partisanship. The only reason this post was modded 'insightful' is because most of us happen to agree with the author. But try to compare this post and its parent without letting petty political bigotry interfere, and it is abundantly clear that the parent post, even if we disagree, is more insightful than this. And we wonder why the level of political debate in this country has dwindled from the 'Federalist Papers' down to the 'sound bite'. Those involved should be ashamed of themselves!

Re:This "story" is click bait

[IndependentVik]

It's still a valid question, RustyTaco, and one that we should hope our leaders have the answer to. If other countries were bigger threats than Iraq, why were they not put first on the agenda? Giving a lesser threat a higher priority is endangering the security of the country. Of course, if you can successfuly argue that Iraq was the biggest threat the US faced, then the discussion gets well and truly interesting.

Re:This is for my undecided friends....

[dustinbarbour]

I think that citing the Bible when it comes to creating laws is pushing it.

Whether you like it or not, the Bible has had the largest influence on American law.. more so than any other document the world has ever produced. It is basic religious values that has shaped this nation into what it is. This you must admit.

Second, separation of church and state ONLY means that the government does not endorse any specific religion or nor any general religion. That's it. If you feel that a man with a religious background as President automatically makes that government espouse and support that religion, you have much to learn and need to work on your logic process.

Let me help him out: "No Child Left Behind," Iraq, tax cuts for the rich.

Iraq: okay.. not going super-smooth, but it was the right thing to do. "NCLB:" The problem is not the program and high expectations put in place by this act, it's the lack of interest given by parents. America's public school system is in disarray not because of GW.. Rather its the public's fault. So we'll skip that one.

Taxes for the rich is where I wanna go. Any and all taxes are passed onto the consumer, the middle class. Increase taxes on the rich, they merely raise the prices their businesses charge for a service. Lower taxes for the rich and they can more openly compete in the free market. That means lower prices for the consumers, you and I. The rich do not care if taxes go up or down. They can always make up the difference. So it is in the middle class's best interest for the rich to have lower taxes as that will (hopefully) mean lower prices for goods and services.

Conversely, raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class.. looks good on paper and gets people elected, right? What is never explored is the inflationary effect this has on the free market. The rich business owners raise their prices.. effectively exacting their own tax on the consumer.

This goes without mentioning the fact that those who pay more in tax are going to receive a larger percentage of the kickbacks.

There are other issues I have with your super-long rant above, but I don't have the time to be going into each of them. But please, please, please.. don't be so freakin' short-sighted!

Re:Can't beat my web site('s name): bush.fails.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, you know, Bush is the president of Pakistan.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[spirality]

Ah yes, the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been a most ill-used constitutional instrument for increasing federal power at the expense of the people and the states. The check the states once had on the Federal Government is only there in name now. What's bad about this for us citizens is that the further power is removed from us geographically the harder it is for us to control it. It's not so hard to drive up to the State Capital and protest or talk to a representative that represents 50,000 people. It's very difficult and expensive to travel 2000 miles to DC or speak to a representative that represents 500,000 people. We should want our states to have more power so that we can have more say in it's exercise. The Fourteenth Amendment is such a bitter sweet pill to swallow.

I wonder how things would have been if the South would have been allowed to peacefully secede... If I could change one thing about this country's past it would be to have never imported or used slaves. So much social ill-will has come from it. So much pervision of our constitution has come from correcting its ills.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[MotherSuperior]

<flamebait>

I always wonder about comments like this. 'If Saddam didn't have weapons, then why didn't he just let the UN do the inspections?'

I wonder about these comments especially considering the sources (No specific reference to poster intended). They're usually the same 'free-as-in-speech' libertarian ${foo}-wing whackos that don't want their computers wiretapped, even though they presumably don't have any child pornography, or terrorist ties to hide.

What if the UN decided they wanted to start inspecting our weapons? Admittedly, this is pure speculation, but while we openly admit to having WMDs ourselves, I imagine that we're developing even more destructive technologies that we aren't announcing to the UN, or the rest of the world. There isn't much chance of the U.S. inviting delegates from other nations, hostile or not, to inspect our defensive capabilities. I also imagine that you could unite most Americans of any political ideology under a banner prohibiting such a thing.

So why didn't Saddam let UN inspectors into Iraq? I don't actually know. However, I do consider it entirely possible that it's because despite his murderous behavior, he was leading his country - at least in this respect - in what he felt was an appropriate manner, and in the best interest of his own national security.

I just find it rather hypocritical that privacy advocates recoil in horror when they hear a statement like, 'If you've got nothing to hide, then there's no reason not to let the nice men in black search your house.' Then turn around and say 'If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have let the inspectors in.' Again, for the record, this was not meant as an attack on the parent poster, but his comment started me thinking along these lines.

Thank you and goodnight.

</flamebait>

Vote your conscience

[dumfrac]

I want to encourage everybody to vote their conscience. IMO, it will be terrible if GWB gets re-elected, but even worse if democracy fails because people vote for principles with which they do not agree. If the Democrats can't win an election based on their principles, then they don't deserve to win (part of the definition of democracy).

Re:This "story" is click bait

[An Onerous Coward]

The only way you can believe that only liberal judges "legislate from the bench" is if you only call it legislating when a ruling goes against your political agenda.

Conservative judges don't have a lock on "strict constructionism." Rather, they simply have a different idea of which areas the government should be butting its nose into.

It wasn't the liberals in the Department of Justice who eroded states rights by deciding that California couldn't have its own medical marijuana laws. It's not liberal judges who are blithely ignoring the spirit and letter of the Constitution by allowing the administration to detain prisoners without bringing them to trial. It wasn't a liberal Supreme Court which stepped in and stopped the Florida recounts.

As far as I'm concerned, when a Republican starts griping about "activist judges," they mean "judges whose rulings come down on the liberal side of the aisle."

Re:This "story" is click bait

[jdiggans]

Judges cannot 'impose gay marriage from the bench'. They can only rule that a law (or legal action taken by a government body) banning gay marriage contradicts the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. Which it does.

It then falls upon the citizenry to clarify, via the ammendment process, their will regarding gay marriage. In the interim, however, it must be legal because, and you'll hate this part, the Consitution already provides for its legality, Defense of Marriage act notwithstanding.

Repeat after me: the judiciary doesn't make laws. The Republicans have gotten a lot of mileage out of this canard but that doesn't make it true.

Can I have whatever you are smoking?

[asoap]

Seriously.. dude.. Whatever you are smoking. I want some of it.

I just read your blog, and I didn't read one legitimate point in the whole thing. It sounded nice, but it sounded a lot like Bush explaining what Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century [mac.com]. You didn't seem to make a point, you just kinda rambled on.

So you MUST be smoking something that is really good. What is it? It can't be 100% Christ love, because I love Christ too, and he doesn't get me that high.

Here, I'll take a quick quote from your blog:

Another possible source of our Rights is society, but this reasoning is flawed for the same reasons government granting them is. If society grants our Rights then we must assume that they are only safe for as long as the majority wants them to be. We could actually have our very lives voted away from us.

It was here that you were making the point that God gives us our rights. You are making the point that God is currently in control of our rights. How can God be pulling the strings of the government, and the constitution and law, and still give EVERYONE free will. Not most of us, not some of us, but all of us. That is apparently God's greatest gift, so if he gives us that, how can he possibly control us. That would mean that he hasn't given us free will. It can't happen both ways.

I know how people answer this question, and it really is bullshit. People usually answer it with the statment that God doesn't control people, people just do the will of God. People do what they think God wants them to do, and thus totally negates what you said about God controlling rites, it's the people creating the rights, and people that are flawed. Secondly, if God is really working through people, and people are doing his will, how do you explain the patriot act? It is be definition giving up rights. Does God want the government to be able to throw you into a jail in Cuba, and never ever give you fair trial?

If so, that's one wacky God. Now, I know I'm being an ass here. I'm coming off as rude bastard. I also kinda understand what you are saying. I am a Catholic myself, although I personally believe in Church and State being seperate. But, you really shouldn't shrug off this message, and you need to seriously sit down and rethink your whole entire view on this subject, and keep into mind that we all have free will, ALL OF US.

-Derek

Re:Kerry Victory

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Oh, this is the route that you are taking? I am jacking off on your face while you lick it off my throbbing cock.

I win.

The Republicans are making black people prove their identities, on the slimmest of reasons. They are racists, and YOU are a klansman. A cock gobbling klansman, to be sure.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[TGK]

If you can find a ruling upheld by the Supreme Court or, hell, even at the federal level, preventing a public school from teaching a unbiased comparative religions course I'll eat my hat.

That said, answer me this. How do you construct a school sponsored moment wherein kids can pray if they want to without in some manner distinguishing between those children who do and do not pray. To be different in elementary school/middle school is to be inferior. The kid who doesn't pray is being coerced by the system.

The answer is simple, and conveniently already allowed under existing law and the constitution. Kids don't need to shout their prayers over the PA, God can hear them just fine if they pray silently.

We don't need a moment of silence or any other specifically reserved time for God because to confine God to a specific moment or setting belies His true nature and His import in our society.

We should not restrict our children's right to pray silently by asking them to do so during a quiet moment in the day. Our children should be free to exercise their right to pray silently during the everyday moments of their school day.

Wait.... they already are.

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Darby]

What is wrong with a few minutes to allow kids to pray or not to pray?

Because what happens in reality is that there are a few minutes to pray or see who the "evil heathen non-believers" are so that they can be singled out for later oppression. School is supposed to be for learning. Kids can pray on their own time if they want to (or more acurately because that is what their parents told them they're supposed to do with absofuckingly no actual facts presented just this is the truth believe it or burn.).

The only purpose in trying to shove prayer time into school is to try and force it into the faces of those who don't want it or to weed out those who don't conform to that particular system.

When I was in high school back in the late 1980's (I graduated in 1991), we had a history class that studied WORLD RELIGION. No one forced us to "worship" any God/god. We were just taught about various different religions, and IMO, it was an excellent class. If we are going to make a kids take a biology class, what is wrong with teaching a class on world religion (note: not any one specific religion)?

That is a completely differnt subject and one on which we agree.
There is nothing wrong with learning about the history of religion. The only problem is that any actual learning would never happen. Did you learn in your class that the New Testament was only put together hundreds of years AD by the fledgling Catholic Church which was solidifying their power against the various other equally legitimate sects and that they picked and chose what to include drawing from Gnostic scriptures written hundreds of years BC?
Of course not.

That's why classes like that are worse than useless. Zealots will destroy any actual learning in them in the intrests of promoting their agenda.

Re:George Bush ignores the way of Christ

[jamesmrankinjr]

But, despite the Republicans throwing those that have strength of faith some Old Testament bones, it is the God-fearing liberal Democrats like John Kerry that best exemplify the self-sacrifice and social compassion Jesus had.

Is your idea of compassion putting people into desolate public housing projects where the only viable occupation is selling drugs and going to prison is seen as a rite of passage? Is your idea of compassion a failing school system where teacher's unions blame everything and everyone else and refuse any and all change?

And if you believe the state is the rightful source of compassion, shouldn't the state ensure that material blessings are enjoyed equally by all? Is that truly the compassionate thing?

Finally, did Jesus suggest that taking someone ELSE's money and giving THAT to the poor is the definition of compassion? Or was that Robin Hood?

And I'm waiting to hear how John-I-marry-money-Kerry has exemplified self sacrifice, since returning from Vietnam (yes, his service there was truly self sacrificing, no sarcasm intended).

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

The Fundamentalist Error

[SpryGuy]

When President Bush attempts to justify his Iraqi misadventure, he inevitably claims that he is on the side of justice and truth and that those who oppose him are "evil doers" or their accomplices. Again and again he reminds the world, you either for us, or against us. There is no room for nuance, much less dissent. Though he has learned to avoid the word itself, "crusade" accurately describes the evangelical fervor with which Bush pursues the continued occupation of Iraq. His fanatical zeal can admit no mistakes nor tolerate any criticism.

The Administration paints Iraqi resisters as crazed fundamentalists hell-bent on enforcing their self-centered vision of God's will, the cost in human lives be damned. But, with tragic irony, such a description applies equally well to the White House. They wave the flag, hoist the cross, and profess theirs to be a mission from the Almighty. If blood is being spilled, so be it. It is God's will.

Fundamentalism of any stripe makes for bad politics, for politics involves the art of getting along and living together in peace. Any group believing itself in sole possession of The Truth will inevitably, perhaps with the best of intentions, try to convert others. The more fervently any fundamentalist believes in his "truth" (be it Mohammad, Jesus, or laissez-faire capitalism), the more coercive conversion methods can be justified. If thumb-screws or worse are needed to get non-believers on board, their use is surely better than allowing someone to go unconverted.

One of America's enduring political strengths has been a skepticism about religious fundamentalism and political absolutism. Indeed, our Founders recognized the utility of tolerance, religious and political, in encouraging diversity. From diversity spring vitality and resilience; good ideas are more likely found from amongst many options than from one dusty scroll or one blinkered political doctrine. "Truth" is not ever captured in just one person or one time or one text. It is the goal of constantly thinking, living - and thus changing - minds. Fundamentalism, demanding unyielding adherence to a predetermined creed, inevitably becomes the enemy of truth.

The motto of America itself celebrates the utility of diversity: E pluribus unim (out of many, one). It is tempting for some politicians, eager for the power of unity, to forget that a strong unum is predicated on a vital pluribus. Enforcing oneness while quashing deviation leads to brittle totalitarianism. Any system aimed at avoiding such brutal and short-lived rule, must derive legitimacy and strength by embracing and encouraging sometimes inconvenient and messy diversity

Instead of drawing on our strength in pluribus, Bush has sought to stifle and silence critics. He has armed John Ashcroft with the power to sneak peeks at political opponents' credit card receipts, video rentals, and library borrowings. Secret tribunals are to replace public trials. And everywhere, fear is generated to prevent people from daring to oppose our leader. Dissent is explicitly equated with treason.

Bush claims his fundamentalist-inspired war is to be "perpetual", thus civil liberties need be suspended indefinitely. But real Americans understand that tolerance, dissent, and diversity make America stronger, not weaker. Let us hope voters this November 2nd send a message to the world: anyone parading narrow-minded fundamentalism, martial law, and endless war as true Americanism is a dangerous charlatan to be exposed and rejected.

Why I'm Selfishly Voting Kerry

[Koewn]

The world at large, I'm sure, could give a rat's ass about my vote, but, I wanted to get it out, cause I'm doing something I didn't think I'd do.

Normally, I vote conservative. (in local elections, almost always third-party) I would have done so again this time out. Bush isn't the 'new classic conservative' made out in the Reagan image, but, hey. Not doing anything of importance domestically and letting the economy shake itself out will get my vote over doing something that may not work. Granted, he's not 'inacting' on purpose, but hey.

And I'm unconcerned with people getting blown up, including myself. Take that how you will.

I was recently diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.

And you know what? If I could steal somebody's fetus and suck a cure right out of it's neural tube I'd damn well happily do the jail time. Yea, I'd have no life if and when I got out, but fuck it. I'd still be able to walk, work, shit and eat like a man.

Embryonic stem cells may not be the answer but it can't hurt. So I'm selfishly forced to vote Kerry in the hopes that a cure (or even a known working way to stop further damage!) will come sooner.

Hell, I don't even want universal health care. It'll just mess with the good health care I have now - universal health care is for people whose problems can be fixed.

So, yea. I'm a one-issue voter, I guess. Wish it wasn't this one :)

koewn

Re:This "story" is click bait

[Moofie]

I still disagree with you. Every citizen of the United States should be able to enjoy whatever "benefits" the State grants to "married persons". This is absolutely an equal protection issue.

Again, I think the better way to solve this problem is to remove all State granted benefits from "marriage". I would not at all be opposed to the US Supreme Court agreeing with me.

The Patriot Act is definitely unconstitutional. The DMCA is a bad law that is not directly proscribed by the Constitution (although this would be a better law to argue your Supremacy Clause point with).