Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×
United States

Politics and The Almighty Buck 275

Here's an interview with Gore that seems blandly catering to Slashdot readers. Billionaires for Bush or Gore makes a good point. Open Secrets is tracking campaign donations. Last up is a really good article about Dick Cheney, The Only Hope which trashes lots of candidates. Also I've attached a note about politics story submissions on politics between now and the election.
  • Don't bother submitting candidates official websites. They essentially are just press releases spouting bland dogma. We want some real content (although you should read Al Gore's "Open Source Website" bit and laugh your ass if you missed it when we posted it on slashdot nearly a year ago).
  • We're trying to be impartial, but Nader's supporters don't seem to submit much more then links to the official website, and Bush supporters are nearly silent. We want a diverse story selection here, but a lot of folks would rather bitch in the comments that we're oppressing them then take 3 seconds to submit a story.
  • There's lots of good stuff going on in these stories, but I'm sure gonna be happier when the election is over and the flames can stop. I suck, I know. Slashdot is trying to keep you down. I know. Of course I'm trying to force my political viewpoints on everyone (as I've said before I hate all the candidates, but I hate GWB most of all, so I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate). Fortunately this is is America, and I'm entitled to believe this. And you may believe whatever you want as well! And none of us are evil or wrong: we just have different political beliefs. And since this is Slashdot, we can talk about these differences in a mature manner: debate the issues. Try to make rational convincing arguments to back up what we believe, and perhaps try to convince others. Or we could bicker and fight and complain and flame about the various shadow organizations and conspirators trying to keep whatever viewpoint you have down. Its really your choice.
  • And stop emailing me stories! Use the submissions form!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics and The Almighty Buck

Comments Filter:
  • by OlympicSponsor (236309) on Friday October 20, 2000 @08:52AM (#689403)
    "He is not pro choice."

    Not to start an off-topic flamewar, but so what? Abortion is not about choice and I can't understand why anyone thinks it IS. The religious right may not have the right answer, but they DO have the right question: Is abortion murder? Does a fetus have any right to life? This isn't about "a woman's body"--it's about a FETUS's body. Now, if you want to say that a fetus doesn't have any right to life, that's fine with me--I even agree, assuming we are talking about very very early in a pregnancy. But don't confuse the issue by talking about "a woman's choice".

    And don't bother posting pointers to or arguments about how fetus's aren't people. That will only support my argument: In a rational discussion of abortion a "woman's right to choose" is irrelevant. The real issue is "a fetus's right to live".
    --
    An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
  • Your vote is only truly wasted if you don't take the time to evaluate the real breadth of options out there.

    Here is the SHORT list:
    sort @lastname;

    • Harry Browne (Libertarian)
    • Pat Buchanan (Reform)
    • George W. Bush (Republican)
    • Al Gore (Democrat)
    • John Hagelin (Natural Law)
    • David McReynolds (Socialist)
    • Ralph Nader (Green)
    • Howard Phillips (Constitution)
    Since CmdrTaco is down on candidate's websites today, I'll just link to issues2000.org [issues2000.org] where you can find out what each candidate intends to do about your favorite topic. But it won't tell you much about the candidates personality and only indirectly about their charachter.
  • I don't think you can ever forget the real, tangible consequences of your actions. And at this point, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

    Look at the polls. Ever the professional know-it-alls in the media have given up trying to predict this election. Meanwhile, Nader is sitting at 5%. The scenario that W. wins by less than 5% is a not only possible, it's probable.

    Come November 8, many of you may experience a long, sinking feeling. Nader supporters have strong opinions about preserving the environment and reining in the corporations and they could be directly responsible for electing the man who is by far the most hostile to their agenda among all the current candidates.

    It reminds me of when I lived in Canada. There, the conservative party split into two because many conservatives thought that the "official" conservative party wasn't nearly conservative enough. The result, of course, is that the liberal party has had a stranglehold on elections for the last decade and will maintain it for the foreseeable future. Those archconservatives must feel proud for bringing their people into the political wilderness.

    So, by all means, make your statements, influence the agenda, make the major parties scramble to adopt your more popular positions, and then quietly change your vote to Gore on November 7th. This election is too close, and too important, to do otherwise.

  • Not really recent esitamtes put Nader supporters as first time voters and apathy (on-off) voters, not the backbone of the Democratic party.

    Not to mention polls only focus on established voters, people who have voter 2-3 times before. At least one poll only considers you established if youve voted GOP before.

    The Green party makes an effort to show that Gore isn't green. His broken promises on raising CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards)standards and not shutting down that huge incenerator right next to school are two of many. The promises made this year will also be broken, the man does not have a respectable track record.

    What greens want to do is remove the corporate masters from politics, through publicaly funded elections and let democracy take place. Though i agree the GOP is much more harsh on the environment that the Dems, but they did start the EPA and have supported various pro-environ bills. The dems might have a slightly better track record but if their corporate masters come calling they must bow downto them. Right now Gore's occidental petroluem is drilling for oil on land claimed by a native american tribe.

    Its should be democracy first, money later. Not the opposite. Not to mention Browne is the right wing version of Nader, whatever criticism about about vote siphening you put on nader you must put on him. If you believe your argument then they will probably cancel each other out, considering they're neck to neck in the polls.

  • Well gonz, your right. Voting for who you think best suits you is key. A note to readers: Don't let propaganda sway you. Mom and Dad may have a different view than you and when you step in the booth its your turn to express that view. I think that who I vote for is amongst the most intensly personal things I do. It is noone's business who that vote is for and once I step in the booth the power is in my hands.- Gov. Jesse VenturaI think that the apathy level of our voting populous is a sad statement. There are lots of people registered and it is a right given to US citizens that they take for granted. Many men and women have died to grant us the privelege and millions worldwide would kill for the ability to do it. It's the same sadness I feel when I hear people complain about being a Juror, if only for a day. In peacetime, this is an infintesimally small price to pay for the freedom we enjoy. Yes, its a right and a privelege, but one should consider it as a personal civic duty to exercise all of your rights to the fullest. Ironically, those to lazy to vote still wont see the light in the big picture: if you don't vote for whom you believe is the person that best represents YOU and your views you really have no right to complain because after all you really have done nothing about it in the first place. They will still bitch, they will say it is because so and so is in office and yet thier pathetic assess will not get up and VOTE. btw...Gonz stop by #nothing and say hi - Sandor

  • by ronfar (52216) on Friday October 20, 2000 @08:55AM (#689411) Journal
    The most classic portrait of a cynic that I know is that of the French General Henry-Philippe Pétain. In World War I, Petain was a hero for fighting the Germans at the battle of Verdun. However, Pétain was a fatalist and a cynic, and when WWII began, he was convinced that resistance to the Germans was futile:

    ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA: Pétain, (Henri-)Philippe [britannica.com]

    Because he thought it would be worse for the French to fight a losing war with Germany, he went so far as to collaberate with the enemy, becoming leader of the Vichy puppet state.

    Was French resistance doomed, futile? Well, whether it was or not, I think it was worth trying, but that's just me. Better to die a hero than live as a Nazi stooge.

    Pétain, however, felt that capitulation was the lesser of two evils.... and he has gone down in history as a traitor.

    This has nothing to do with the current election, except for this:

    Whenever I hear someone talk about how we must support the lesser of two evils (even if they are comparitively trivial evils like our two presidential tickets), I think of Pétain and the choice he made.

  • If voting were an end in itself - if the purpose of voting were simply the expression of one individual's political perspective - I would agree with you.

    But voting is part of a process. It is an action with consequences. To the extent that you can predict the consequences of that behaviour, your choice should be dictated by them.

    I want to vote for Nader, and will if either the election has been decided before it reaches the West Coast at the end of the day, or if it looks like California is not going to be battleground state. Otherwise, I will vote for Gore for the reasons expressed elsewhere. Voting for Nader, even if he loses, could have positive consequences; if Nader gets more than five percent of the vote, the Green party will be eligible for matching federal funds for the next presidential election, and the entire Green agenda will become a strong counterweight to the implicit political consensus. However, if my vote has as a consequence a Bush win, that consequence will be less than the negative consequences created by his Supreme Court selections and his willingness for police-state enforcement in the War on Drugs. (I remain completely shocked that the fact that he enjoys a privilege of forgiveness for his wastrel youth, while happily jailing thousands of Texans whose only crime is drug use, hasn't been made a central political issue.)

  • I just got my citizenship this year, and havn't been psyched enough about either candidate to really think about voting.

    Jesus Christ, you just got citizenship and don't care about voting? What the fuck are you doing here? I can at least ignore the apathetic people who live here by accident of birth, but to go through all the trouble of becoming a citizen just so you can be one more apathetic statistic is unbelievable.

    Anyway, what do I need to do to vote? I'd always thought I could leave the choice to do so or not up until the last minute..

    You can still vote -- you don't have to register. You can show up, they'll ask for ID (proof of residence) and it doesn't matter if you don't have it. You are an American citizen and you have the right to vote and need no paperwork or proof to exercise that right. They'll have you sign a book that says "I am a citizen and this is where I should vote, and I attest to this under penalty of law" and you get to vote. You may only be able to vote in the national contests by doing this but you're ALWAYS allowed to vote for a federal election by virtue of being a citizen.

    ---------------------------------------------
  • Almost any posting that does not say "Good" things abour Gore or Nader gets moderated down. And thanks to the new "improved" metamoderation systems if you try to correct those mods you will get punished because you do not agree with the majority of people who metamoderate.

    Here's a question for ya'll:

    If the Libertarians come onto Slashdot and post that the invisible hand should be the only form of government, and they get modded down and out of sight, does that make them right or wrong?

    (Incidentally, the metamoderation system is the reason I am no longer willing to moderate.)
  • Washington newspapers also reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any medication and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know anything about his dog's "arthritis".

    Perhaps true, but...

    FACT: The same chemical is prescribed for arthritis in both humans, and some other animals (including dogs), and IS way more expensive for humans.

    (I know a vet)
  • by Inoshiro (71693) on Friday October 20, 2000 @08:01AM (#689429) Homepage
    "FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the 1990's."

    FACT : Al Gore doesn't handle talking to the media well, never has. He was the principle backer of many bills that funded NSFnet -- the National Science Foundation Network (which later became the Internet) after the Pentagon decided it didn't want Arpanet running on DoD dollars. Without him, there would certainly have been little funding for networking between Universities. Leading to the loss of anything related to networked univerities (such as the original birth of the Linux kernel, etc).

    This is very clever use of half-truths to change peoples' minds on the subject. A skilled troll. I hope the people reading this rememeber that no situation is as simple as one-line point/point rebuttals. Every situation has to viewed in its proper context before an informed decision can be made.
    --
  • While I agree that the analysis of others is clear as to why this comparison is bunk (i.e. the candidates could know or care less about this particular issue). Ralph Nader was actively seeking a Linux-experienced systems person to work in his campaign. 'nuff said. :)
  • by Chris Johnson (580) on Friday October 20, 2000 @10:58AM (#689432) Homepage Journal
    It would be just as fair to call it 'being counted'. I intend to Be Counted voting for Nader- all other politicians in the US will be able to consult that number and know damn well what my agenda is and what will or won't get my vote. This is NOT GAME THEORY! It is power politics. It's not about winning one particular game, it is about defining the issues and concerns that politicians consider when taking action.

    I heartily encourage libertarians to get out a huge vote for Harry Browne, even though I personally think he and they are lunatics: that doesn't matter, the point is that _whoever_ wins, even if it's Nader, I would want that President to remain firmly aware that there is a large power bloc stubbornly opposed to bigger government. This needs to be VISIBLE! Those people _must_ be represented, and voting for Bush is not going to do that.

    By the same token, I'm damned if I'm going to vote for Gore because Gore has been... not adequate at living up to committments that he's made (such as the toxic waste burning facility in New Jersey), and because only Nader allows me to BE COUNTED as part of a large power bloc that is obviously, blatantly, stubbornly opposed to corporatism. Voting for Gore will accomplish nothing in this: voting for Nader will make it very obvious what my concerns and the basis of my vote are. It is not relevant whether the person wins- you think the President is God? The important thing is to establish the factions, to BE COUNTED in such a way that other politicians can tell what you really care about.

    Politics is a damned busy job- polling, canvassing, trying to figure out what sort of actions will get people to support you and what sort of actions will produce a deadly backlash and knock you out entirely. The politicians are not going to concern themselves with the party faithful once the votes are counted- the sheep will be good and stay in line. The politicians will be grovelling over the numbers for all the third parties- "oh look, X% voted 'no big government', if I violate that they could produce a backlash and eat away at my constituency! Oh look, Y% voted 'anticorporate', they will go and tell my voters about the 7 billion in 'soft money' I got from Microsoft to swing that House vote! Dear oh dear, that will never do- and people keep finding out about these things- perhaps I'd better not do it this time if I want to get re-elected..."

    Venal, but what do you expect from politicians? THIS IS NOT GAME THEORY. It is public relations. The politician who thinks it _is_ game theory gets unseated quite promptly because you have to appease the people, pay attention to the zealots because the zealots are the ones paying attention to what YOU DO. The Libertarians are the ones who can quote off the amount of government spending you authorised. The Greens (certainly the Nader supporters) are the ones who can quote off the extent of corporate abuses in current society, and make a good case for why this is a doomed, self-destructive path to follow, to end in another Great Depression. THESE ARE THE ONES THAT PAY ATTENTION. That write editorials. That get people to the polls, that go door to door, that talk politics with their friends. These are the ones that will kill your political career if you don't keep an eye on them and keep your nose clean. CmdrTaco, I don't know if you are concerned with corporatism (Nader) or if you are perhaps vehemently opposed to big government (Browne) or whatever. I only know that if you refuse to pick a party to support based on what your genuine concerns are, you're being ignored- and I don't think you need to be ignored. Pick somebody who isn't Bush or Gore, unless you're oh-so-deeply-impressed with their wisdom and sincerity (ROFL! 'scuse me) that they truly are the ones that represent you.

  • by John Murdoch (102085) on Friday October 20, 2000 @10:59AM (#689433) Homepage Journal
    From the Yahoo! interview with Al Gore:

    But my own personal journey began when I was a kid of 10, watching my dad [Sen. Albert Gore Sr.] write law authorizing the Interstate Highway System. He took me to meetings, and I remember how it all came to pass--the voting to make the signs green, how wide the lanes would be. Quite a lesson.


    I seriously doubt this. The Interstate Highway System was established in the early 1950s, and the design decisions about factors like signs and lane widths were handled by members of the nascent Institute of Traffic (now Transportation) Engineers later in the Fifties. There might have been committee hearings in which lane widths or sign colors might have been discussed, but I strongly question whether they were issues that were put to a vote.

    (How do I know this, you might ask? Because my stepfather was one of the transportation engineers who determined all of that stuff. And I never heard him say 'boo' about any congressional votes on the subject.)

  • I know exactly how you feel, but you can't let them get to you. (I made a similar post to this one yesterday, because I lost it... I just get tired of all the anti-freedom people out to ruin my life and everybody else's life.)

    Remember, we're probably going to get a few representatives this year, despite everything this is a good year for the Libertarian party.

    So, when your sitting home or at work reading all these arrogant, sanctimonius people on Slashdot, just remember its more important to stand up for your beliefs when it is difficult than it is when it is easy.

    A person who will do that is worth ten of the people who make the easy choice.

  • You are right for calling out CT, but I know what he means, because I feel the same way. If I voted for Nader and GWB took my state 49-46-5, I would be pissed off. I made my statement and all that good American stuff that my forefathers died for...and I ended up with a functionally retarded president who hasn't accomplished a thing in his life that didn't have to do with his name. For me, the most important thing about this election is the fact that the guy we elect is going to nominate between 2 and 4 supreme court justices. I am willing to vote for a man that I truly dislike just to prevent GWB from having that power. If Bush gets elected, you can vote against him in four years and try to kick him out. But those Supreme Court justices are going to be around for next 15 to 30 years.
    -B
  • The government does decide who gets fudning, ever hear of federal matching funds? You simply put up rules (petitions, etc) like the 5% rule we currently have.

    Nader is also for opening up the airwaves for less corporate programming and more free community access which will allow non-millionaires to get their voice heard and give the 1 million crowd equal time so we can have a real debate.

  • If anyone actually believed the parent post (would someone please moderate that FUD down?), then you may wish to check out this link [snopes.com].

    --
  • This in not necessary a negative on Bush, but..

    Bush will probably win because he's a more perfect zero. What kind of Republican proposes the first-ever legislation to restrict CO2 emissions? What kind of Republican has no position on affirmative action? What kind of Republican says he "supports a culture of life" (opposes abortion) but admits that "we're going to have to change a lot of minds before we can get there?"

    The kind of Republican that this is the one that rears it's head only every 4 years, and tends to disappear within 6 months. Just the same as the rarity of the more-centralized Democrat.

    During *any* campaign, you need to take what the candidates say with a grain of salt; Bush Sr.'s snafu with the "No New Taxes" bit plays heavily here, and the fact that Clinton, when first elected, promised health care coverage, fought with the Rep. congress for a while, then let it drop after a year is also telling. Obviously, you as the average voter can only check the validity of some facts so far; an unbiased media can help determine the truthfulness of various statements (NPR, for example, has had post-debate reports that discuss how truthful every 'promise' the candidates make is).

    Past elections have had a definite media bias bent, which makes telling truth from fiction harder. Bush Sr. and Clinton were both press favorites at the time of their initial runs. This year, we're lucky that the media is trying to remain unbias (particularly after screwing up the primaries with McCain). However, because they are trying so hard to be unbiased towards Reps and Democrates, it's showing the weakness in covering anything 3rd party. The only two 3rd-party candidates that get named are Nader and Buccahan, and only maybe 1% of the time Gore and Bush get. What about the Natural Law candidate (so infrequently mentioned that I can't recall his name at the moment?) The press may try to be unbiased towards Rep and Dem, but they fall into the same boat in that they try to protect the 2-party system.

    And in such a case, it's makes it hard to get more truth from those campaign promises. For example, on the respective tax plans, Gore attacks Bush, Bush attacks Gore. Gore, for example, says that Bush's plan helps only 1% of the population (the wealthiest), Bush says they get the most benefit since they pay the most taxes. Both are right, as we recently covered here at /. But I know that Nader and other third party candidates are shouting that there's still flaws in these numbers; they should be looking at the benefits as a percentage of income, and in this regard, the rich are making out like bandits, upwards of 10-15% numbers (IIRC), with the middle class and poor only getting 2-3%. Gore's plan is no different, since it still helps the wealthy. A fair tax plan would have similar benefits per income across all income levels, but neither of the two main parties want to approach it that way, lest they lose their soft money.

    So for myself, I listen to the debates, and I'm not listening for what they plan to put into place when President, partially because they still need to get Congress to approve of those plans and partially because of the above. I watch the debates to see just what their general attitude and stance is on various issues, including the consistency of their overall system. (neither have much, IMO FYI) Since I'm not a swing state, I know I'm voting 3rd party, but I want to be aware of what attitude will be prevelent after the election, so I pay attention now.

  • Since the race is close there, it would be a risk for Taco to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

    Bingo. This election is really scary close overall, and it's amazing how many states are within +/- 4%, which is a statistical dead heat. You can look up state by state poll results at Hotline scoop [hotlinescoop.com].

    My home state is a total one-party lock, so I can safely vote for whatever Nth party candidate I feel like. I recently considered doing a write-in for the arch-conservative dream team of Alan Keyes and David Duke -- fun fun! But I'll probably vote Nader so the Greens can reach the magical 5% funding threshold.

    If only the Debate Commission allowed 5% candidates instead of 15%...
  • Interesting quote there:

    What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law [the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months] was causing a logarithmic increase in processing power, and yet the throughput capacity was hardly changing at all.

    Do you think we should tell him that processor speeds are increasing expoentially, and not logarithmically? I personally don't have the heart...

    That having been said, I'm voting Gore in 2000 anyways. He's at least a little more clueful than the other guys. Besides which, IMO, this race isn't just about who's in the White House for the next four years, but who's on the Supreme Court for the next 20. Roe v. Wade hangs in the ballance. But that's just my opinion.

    fearbush.com [fearbush.com]

  • It looks like Bush is having second thoughts about his presidential run after he found out just how much a president makes:

    Bush Horrified To Learn Presidential Salary [theonion.com]
  • Al Gore and George W Bush both support turning the entire third world into a resource pool, and a market, for US goods, and support any military dictator who will uphold this.

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

    Time was when U.S. leaders would support any third world dictator who claimed to oppose Communism. Now they'll support any third world dictator who will allow multinationals access to cheap labor and raw materials.

    I guess some things change - under the old system, they at least had to pretend to be acting in the best interests of democracy. Now it's all about the Almighty Dollar. Upholding dictators in order to keep the world safe for democracy sounds more noble than upholding dictators so we can keep buying athletic shoes for cheap.
  • by donutello (88309) on Friday October 20, 2000 @11:13AM (#689455) Homepage

    I don't know about you but I'm rather sick of having the government meddle in my affairs as it is. Unfortunately he also seems to support MORE H1-B visas, which doesn't necessarily agree with another point of his to raise education in order to allow US citizens to meet the demand.

    I think the point should be to raise the level of education to the point where there is no need to bring in foreign labour to fulfill the demand - not by creating a protectionist system where inferiorly qualified people are hired because foreigners can't be hired. The restriction on foreign nationals being able to work in the US is something imposed by the government. MORE H1-B visas == less intervention.

    I think I need to also correct a common misconception, which is that H1-B visa holders are underpaid. According to the law, one of the criteria for being granted an H1-B visa is where your sponsor states that the person being hired is paid the normal salary for that position.

  • The Republican party is VERY ANTI-environment (particularly if it means that some rich guy somewhere will be denied the ability to make MORE short-term money by cutting down trees, polluting water, wiping species off the face of the earth).

    You're right. When we aren't too busy clear cutting forests and shooting cute, furry animals, we like to get together and show off our new winter coats, made exclusively from the pelts of endangered species. And after a grueling day of coupon clipping, there is nothing more relaxing than dumping toxic waste into the local water supply and throwing rocks at the poor.

  • "I'm making the point with supporting facts that Gore is not a lesser evil."

    What supporting facts? How much GOP FUD did you post anyway?

    Idiot.

    --
  • What I find sad, is that we are expected to vote for the candidate that will benefit us the best *economically*, regardless of right and wrong.

    Well, we simply disagree about the role of free trade. Along with the vast majority of mainstream economists, I agree that open trade is the fastest way to prosperity for what we used to call the "third world," and is as such the right thing to do. Take a look at Southeast Asia: the "tiger" economies, 1997-8 crisis notwithstanding, grew largely due to exports and open trade. Autarkic countries like India, Cuba, North Korea, pre-Salinas Mexico, et al. have by and large stayed poor.

    Now if you want the rest of the world to stay poor so US/EU union workers can enjoy their cushy jobs, that's fine. I just don't agree with that approach.

    Back on topic, I also think that prosperity at home is a good thing, and the Clinton/Gore record is very strong here. They did what the GOP failed to do in 12 years in office: they balanced the budget. That, along with technological improvements, is the #1 reason why we have experienced the boom we are in now. For that reason alone I would recommend a vote for Gore. Both Nader and Bush would lead us back into deficit-land, the former by spending and the latter by tax cuts.

  • I wish I'd read this post before making my other one on the article so I could mod it up.
  • To all those who are convinced their vote doesn't count, consider this:
    (from the Federal Election Commission FAQ [fec.gov] )

    EXAMPLES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

    In the 1829 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky's 2nd District, Jackson Democrat Nicholas Coleman defeated National Republican Adam Beatty 2,520 to 2,519.

    In the 1847 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 6th District, Whig candidate George G. Dunn defeated Democratic candidate David M. Dobson 7,455 to 7,454. Also in 1847, Whig Thomas S.Flournoy defeated a Democratic candidate named Treadway 650 to 649 in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 3rd District of Virginia.

    In the 1854 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th District of Illinois, Democratic candidate James C. Allen bested Republican William B. Archer 8,452 to 8,451.

    In the 1882 election for U.S. House of Representatives in the 1st District of Virginia, Readjuster Robert M. Mayo defeated Democrat George T. Garrison 10,505 to 10,504.

    RECENT EXAMPLES IN NONFEDERAL ELECTIONS

    In 1977, Vermont State Representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined , after a recount, that he had lost to Robert Emond, 572 to 571.

    In 1989, a Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote, 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.

    In 1994, Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for the seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area, with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a PingPong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.

    In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195 - 4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. A subsequent recount showed Wick the winner at 4192 - 4,191. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an overvote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the State Legislature voted to seat Wick 46-20.


    ---------------------------------------------

  • According to the law, one of the criteria for being granted an H1-B visa is where your sponsor states that the person being hired is paid the normal salary for that position.

    I hereby state that the Moon is made of cheese.

    That was easy.

  • All y'all who are planning to vote Nader need to think hard about his anti-free trade, pro-union policies; you may find that you don't have any markets overseas for your geek product because Ralph has forced us into pointless trade wars.

    What I find sad, is that we are expected to vote for the candidate that will benefit us the best *economically*, regardless of right and wrong. I'm sorry, NAFTA/WTO "free" trade is unethical. It is a free pass for multinational corporations to unfairly exploit labor, and other resources, without accountability. Unions (non-corrupt ones that is) are good, because they are the Right Thing. I don't give a shit if I "may find that I don't have any markets overseas for my geek product". Guess what? That's the price of being right. And I'll gladly pay for it. I'm not voting for the candidate who will screw the most people to put the most money in my pocket. I'm voting for what is right and what I believe in. And I suggest alot of you geeks wake up and realize that stock options and the large sums of disposable income to waste on the gadget-du-jour is not *everything*.

    And about those Supreme Court scare tactics: in recent history, more liberal justices have been appointed in conservative administrations, and more conservative justices have been appointed during liberal administrations. And in any case, abortion is de facto prohibited because obj/gyns who do the procedure are harrassed and threatened with death, until they stop...so it's not like keeping it on the books is giving us that much anyway. Shame on you for falling for their scare tactics, you should know better.
    In all but a handful of states, where the result is not yet "decided", progressives have a free pass to vote for a third party.

    Ain't Fallin for that One Again
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
  • You're wrong on this one. Taco lives in Michigan, which is one of those so called battleground states. Since the race is close there, it would be a risk for Taco to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

  • Listen, I've also got a lot of problems with the way many journalists have let the candidates throw around half and full lies (so much for the "keepers of the public record" idea!). But if you want to start hard talking about "FACTS" then you have to live up to a higher standard than they do. Make sure your claims are accurate and cite your sources. Several of these seem like blatant fabrications, or are at least so far out there that they need some evidence.

    Fifteen minutes with a web-browser brings up some of the real "FACTS" behind several of your items. I don't have time to check them all -- I wish you had done it before posting:

    FICTION: Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil rights during the 1960's.

    FACT: Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was a racist who was fond of using the "N" word.

    I assume you're refering to the Washington Post's article from back in April, though I've never seen any mention of Al Sr. being "fond of using the 'N' word"! Here's the full quote from the Post article:

    Long before Bill Clinton came along, Gore lived in the shadow of another dominant politician, his father, Sen. Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee. Many of the deepest tensions of American race relations were played out during the long career of Sen. Gore, whose opposition to the segregated ways of his native South angered many of his constituents and eventually led to his political demise. With one notable exception, when he capitulated to regional sentiment and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the choices he made over more than three decades in Washington were courageous -- and they provided lasting lessons in the political education of the son. If there are as many ways of looking at Al Gore on the issue of race as Wallace Stevens found to look at a blackbird, the first views, shading all the rest, including his relationship with Clinton, come from the life and times of his parents.

    (no longer available for free from the Post, but a reprint is available at http://www.jessejacksonjr.o rg/ issues/i042300173.html [jessejacksonjr.org])
    Hmm ... maybe that's why you didn't cite a source. Doesn't really support your argument, does it?

    FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's.

    FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim. (Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?"

    This is actually an older story that first started circulating in 1997. Here's the actual article from the time about Erich Segal's supposed "denial."

    "When the author Erich Segal was asked about Gore's impression, he stated that the preppy hockey-playing male lead, Oliver Barrett IV, indeed was modeled after Gore and Gore's Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones." (Original from December 1997 NYTimes no longer available on-line. Similar article at the Chicago Tribune
    Again, seems like Gore had a case here.

    FICTION: While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he was a "Brilliant Student".

    FACT: Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently earned D's and C's.

    What are these mythical "Washington newspapers" you keep citing? Give me an actual cite, ferkrisakes.

    In this case, you're talking about this article [washingtonpost.com] from the March 18 Washington Post. Gore did get one D, some C's, and a B his first year, but his grades moved up from there, and he was generally an A and B student his senior year. He graudated cum laude (a far cry from "barely passing") based on the strength of his thesis. Here's a quote from the article:

    In his junior year, he earned a B, a B-plus and an A-minus in three government courses, and he aced his senior government thesis on the impact of television on the presidency, a strong finish that made him a cum laude graduate. His devotion to the subject by then was so intense that he gave much of his time to a not-for-credit seminar with his favorite professor, Richard Neustadt, an expert on the presidency.
    Both campaigns started spinning so fast that they took off and left earth long ago. The thing is, since the reporters have given up, no one's bothering to bring them back down. Go back and look at your claims: you've been spun. Bush's camp has had a pretty effective campaign against Gore's character going for over a year now. Look at an Oct. 15 NYTimes article called A Sustained G.O.P. Push to Mock Gore's Image [nytimes.com] for a story on it.

    -- Adam

  • Just for a laugh, i'm going to post a "babelfished" article from "Le Monde" (the largest circulation French newspaper). Perhaps the viewpoint of an international source would be interesting. I made a few corrections in the name of readability, and if you doubt that the original link is: http://www.lemonde.fr/article /0, 2320,89273,00.html [lemonde.fr]
    and you can run it thru babelfish yourself and compare.

    Here goes:

    Gore counters Bush, a true choice

    Updated Monday August 28 2000

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The two principal candidates of the American presidential election of November 7, the republican George W Bush and the democrat Albert Gore, are, at the current moment, more or less equal in the surveys taken at the end of conventions of their respective parties; they both come out of it reinforced, more definite and more combative, ready for the long autumn stretch, which is the final playing field. In the two camps, one envisages a very tight election and no judicious political expert risks a forecast. For the voters, the landscape was cleared up considerably : they have in front of them a true choice. A choice, initially, between two men of the same generation, both sons of political leaders and of a centrist leaning but with the basically different personality. A choice, especially, between two visions of prosperity and of how to get there.

    In Philadelphia, George W Bush, governor of Texas, made the republican convention swallow his " conservatism of the compassion " , a sort of human right which, while granting to richest a privileged role, does not want to leave anybody stranded.

    In this vision, the role of the State inevitably is very limited since it is not him but the private sector which is at the origin of the longest cycle of growth of the American history ; in other words the private sector will make it possible not to neglect anybody, through the promotion of private teaching and the devotion of caritatives and religious works. All the aspiring members of the republican party were gelled together in Philadelphia to emphasize this message of optimism and fraternity ; the right wing faction was hidden and Mr. Bush succeeded in low presenting his plan of tax reductions like a plan favorable to the incomes, omitting to specify that it was definitely more favorable to the highest incomes.

    George W. Bush proposes to devote a good part of the budget surplus, fruit of this prosperity of the Nineties, with tax cuts : it is the centre piece of its electoral device.

    Another part of the "kitty" would be used to refund the national debt and to refinance the social security, of which a part would be privatized.

    The vice-president Al Gore, intends to carry out tax cuts much more modest, whose principal recipients would be the incomes of the middle class, and to devote the major part of the budget surplus to the refunding of the national debt and the reform of social security. Mr. Gore is presented thus in the form of a guard of the budgetary policy of discipline which, since 1993, became the creed of the American Democratic Party and which it very largely contributed to benefit president Clinton. It is this policy, affirm the Democrats, who, while allowing to reduce the public loan, opened the way with the fall in the interest rates and supported the economic growth : to change policy would be likely to call into question all the dynamics of the current boom. The program that Al Gore envisages, in addition, has roles and appropriations more significant for the federal State than that of Mr. Bush, in particular in the areas of health and the environment.

    Paradoxically, it is the candidate of the opposition, George W. Bush, who makes his campaign on the topic of prosperity ( " prosperity with a goal " , proclaims one of its slogans) whereas the candidate of the outgoing team, Al Gore, has all the evil of the world to capitalize on the eight last years expansion. In Los Angeles where the democratic convention was held , Al Gore even created a surprise while launching out in a populist flight on the topic " they are for the powerful ones, we are for the people " .

    Can one reasonably make a left-wing speech in a country which is the middle of an unprecedented economic boom? Yes, answers Karlyn Bowman, of American Enterprise Institute, if the objective of Al Gore were to mobilize the democratic base, which showed lately worrying signs of undulation. Because a disenchantment of the democratic traditional voters presents a double danger to Mr. Gore : that of the abstention the day from the vote and that of a transfer of those voices to Ralph Nader, the candidate supported by the Green party whose campaign is against large corporations. Mr. Nader gathers for the moment only 2 % to 5 % of the possible voters, according to the States and surveys', but in such an open election, a hundred thousand voices can make the difference.

    A CLEAN PROGRESSIVE

    Al Gore must at the same time differ himself from George W Bush and leave the shadow of Bill Clinton. To counter the smooth and " light " image of the governor of Texas, he reintroduced policy into the debate, being presented in the form of a defender of the " hard hit families " . To come out from under the shadow of Bill Clinton, he refuses to be satisfied with this assessment of its two mandates and proposes to go further. (? -- dolanh)

    For the moment, the strategy seems to pay : the increase of Al Gore in the surveys is striking in the female vote, which had deserted him these last months. But outside of these famous independent voters, are the moderates supposed to decide final victory ? Can they be allured by attacks against " the large oil companies, the giants of the tobacco and the pharmaceutical groups " ? All depends on the reading which one makes of the new tone of Al Gore. " the details count more than rhetoric , underlines a Democratic New-York banker . If Al Gore promised 400 billion dollars for such federal program, 400 billion for such other, one could worry, but it is not the case. It is its vision which counts, and it is a centrist vision. " Sociologist at the university of Boston and specialist in the middle class, Alan Wolfe also notes that in spite of the tone each word of the speech " was carefully calculated to stick to the ideas of the democratic Party. There was for example no criticism of globalization " : Mr. Gore even reaffirmed his support for free trade.

    It remains to Gore to adjust this rhetoric not to give reason for " W ", who accuses him of again starting " the war of the classes " . Because the mood of the country hardly lends itself to it : " There are few indices, in the studies of opinion, of resentment with regard to the rich person " , notes Karlyn Bowman. With this nuance, introduced by Alan Wolfe : " What shocks people, it is that the money can buy the legislators through the financing of the campaigns. In other words, nobody has anything against the rich being rich, but people find it fundamentally unjust that they use their wealth to buy politicians. There is a real movement in favour of the reform of the financing of the election campaigns " - reform whose Al Gore promised to make a priority.

    Other axis of the redefinition of Al Gore : the stress laid at the convention on morality and family values . Contrary to George W Bush, Al Gore had an exemplary youth, married and father of very young family, engaged in Vietnam in spite of his doubts. And contrary to Bill Clinton, he will not make a extraprofessionnel use of the oval Office. Didn't the Lewinski business thus form part of the past ? " It is interesting , note Alan Wolfe, that Republican convention hid the leaders of impeachment, whereas the Democrats left Joe Lieberman " , famous for his criticism of presidential control. That confirms the double assessment of this episode : the Americans rebelled against the inquisitor role of the process of impeachment , but they inevitably did not forgive Bill Clinton to have put them in the embarrassment. In the same way, Joe Lieberman, running mate of Mr. Gore, is a very religious man, which flatters the mood of the country, but it belongs to a minority religion, which draws aside the threat of interference of the religion in the public life. Savage partisan of the right to the abortion, the non-discrimination, the rights of homosexual and the separation of the Church and the State, Al Gore thus remains a progressive. But a clean progressive.

    Sylvie Kauffmann

    Le Monde dated *** TRANSLATION ENDS HERE *** du mardi 29 aoû t 2000

    --sorry that the translation wasn't better, but my French is a bit rusty and Babelfish is even rustier :)

  • Guys give us a break. Tell us if you are running out of topics. We'll do the homework for you. But don't please let every other posting be something of only US interest.

    Unfortunately, the US Presidential election is of more than just US interest. What will be determined is who will lead the United States. How much influence the United States has is debatable, but what can't be denied is that the US has international influence. Look some of the mainstays of our vocation/avocation. Intel: based in the USA. Cisco: Based in the USA. Sun: Based in the USA What these companies do extends far beyond the borders of the US. Yes there are some other players, but if you took these away, the high tech world would look very, very, different.

    You can stick your head in the sand and act like the US presidential election doesn't matter. Your choice. But the world is a lot like the internet- connected in many different places in many different ways. This election will influence your life. Maybe not as much if you're not in the US, but it will.

  • Not from what I've seen. Everyone I know that complains about taxes being too high (and that is a considerable amount of people) already has a nice car, plenty of savings, a "portfolio", kids already in school (sometimes) and doing well, etc. etc. etc... No, I don't want to live paycheck to paycheck. Yes, I have some savings. But there has to be a balance between caring about money and caring about the more important issues in our country.
  • Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood producers and radical gay activists where he told them that he would only pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million.
    This is actually a huge plus for Al Gore, not a negative. It's only a negative if you want the government telling you what you can read, see, and hear. I don't, but I think, despite this, that Gore does. This is one of the many reasons my vote goes to Browne.

  • the rich are making out like bandits, upwards of 10-15% numbers (IIRC), with the middle class and poor only getting 2-3%.

    Why don't you look at it as a percentage of the income they pay in taxes? The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes while the poor only pay a much smaller percentage. Who's making out like bandits now? Yes, they're making out like bandits compared to where they are now, but by your own argument, they're being fleeced and robbed where they stand now and will continue to be so in the future. The top 1% of the population currently pays 62% of all taxes. With Bush's plan, they will pay 64% of all taxes paid. Hardly seems unfair to the poor the way I see it. Not only do they pay MORE in value than the poor, but also they pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income - that's almost a double crime. Do the rich get that much more advantage from government than the poor do? Why should they have to pay that much more to support it, then? No, I'm not suggesting things be changed - it's practical expediency where it makes sense for the rich to pay more than the poor. It's just annoying that everyone considers it the DUTY of the rich to do so!

    Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not rich - far from it. I just think it is unfair for the vast majority of people who are not rich to use that to try to screw the minority who are. That's what the communists did in Russia.

  • Imagine this: The race is won 46% to 45%, with 8% going to one third party cadidate, and 1% going to someone else.

    You had better believe the 45% loser is looking hard and long at that 8%. Maybe if they had taken a platform that attract that 8% as well, they could have won.

    Horsepucky. They'd evaluate if going after that 8% would cost them any of their current support, vs. going after an additional 1% from the winner without losing any of the current support.

    Considering the radical differences between the Green platform and the platforms of either the Dems or Repubs, it's highly likely that they'd lose far more current support than they'd gain new support by trying to attract Green followers.

    -jon

  • There are benefits to being a citizen other than voting! Anyway, thanks for the info, guess I'll just turn up on the day!

    There are other benefits, but few other responsibilities. I really do hope you go to the polls on the 7th!

    ---------------------------------------------
  • Unless you live in a state in which the results will not be close (I live in Texas) - the you can vote for whoever the hell you want, because it really has no effect on who will win. A vote for Gore in Texas would certainly be wasted, so might as well make a statement by voting for Nader and not waste it completely.
  • I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate

    In North Carolina, votes for Nader really are wasted. Because of a technicality, the state isn't even going to count them. See a recent letter to the editor [newsobserver.com] of the Raleigh News & Observer for the story.

    -- Adam

  • The story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has been extensively and convincingly debunked. That you repeat it here pretty much destroys the credibility of your other claims - many of which are also debunked on the Red Rock Eater story [somewhere.com] already posted to Slashdot. FWIW I think they're both scum and wouldn't vote for either even if I lived in the US, but there's no point repeating nonsense.
    --
  • Arguing that Gore's environmentalism consists exclusively of preserving a few "pretty parks" is simple-minded and igonrant.

    Gore has long been a supporter of international treaties to stop global warming, and promises to work hard as president to make affordable alternatives to fossil fuels a practical reality.

    Bush and his oil-loving Texan friends, on the other hand, would do nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, which is one of the reasons America can't take a firm stand in violence in the Middle East, because pissing off the Arab nations would lead to another embargo.

  • What site have you been reading??? Almost any posting that does not say "Good" things abour Gore or Nader gets moderated down. And thanks to the new "improved" metamoderation systems if you try to correct those mods you will get punished because you do not agree with the majority of people who metamoderate.
  • by OlympicSponsor (236309) on Friday October 20, 2000 @09:49AM (#689527)
    "How many women are raped and impregnated every year?"

    How many, indeed. And how many abortions are performed? If the latter is greater than the former your entire point is moot.

    "I don't think its anybody elses right to force someone to bear a child and bring them into this world just because they believe it to be wrong to do otherwise."

    This is typical of the poor reasoning skills of the "pro-choice" movement. If I have an apartment for rent and I want to start storing my own stuff in there, can I kill the inhabitants because "it isn't anybody else's right to force me to rent"? No, because that's irrelevant.

    I am in favor of (some) abortion--but not because I'm "pro-choice".
    --
    An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
  • did you read *any* of the article that this post talks about?

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/19/1447 208&mode=nested

    You're proving the author absolutely correct by perpetuating your "facts". Where are your sources, praytell?
  • I would like you to recount every single Presidential election where the Electoral College vote did not follow the popular vote. Go on, it won't take long.

    The idea with voting is to give each individual voter as much power as possible. You only have power if you, yourself, with your vote, tip the election. The probability of your vote tipping the election is computable. It turns out that the electoral college system actually gives MORE power to the individual voter, and therefore a larger voice to the minorities. Unfortunately I don't have a link handy, but I'm sure they're out there.
  • I've heard a lot of "not Bush!" comments on /. and in GIS, but no reason. Apparently Taco hates Bush because he hates Bush.

    Really facinating...

    I don't like Bush, I don't like Gore, I don't like Nader, I don't like Buchannan, and I LIKE Harry Browne -- and, believe it or not, I can articulate the reasons why I like/dislike them. Taco seems to be against Bush because, I dunno, somebody he knows said that Bush is an idiot, and he bought it hook, line and sinker.

    Makes you wonder why he started using Linux... is it because he found it to be stable, fun, powerful, etc., or because it became "cool"?

  • "Come November 8, many of you may experience a long, sinking feeling."

    I already have as much sinking feeling as I'll have on 11/8 because I already know the bad news: One of [Bush|Gore] will be president. That's why I'm voting for someone else.
    --
    An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
  • It's still a matter of how much they bring in.

    In a completely 'fair' system, if the top 1% bring in 62% of the income, and pay 62% of the taxes, with similar breakdowns in all other income catagories, then the tax system is fair to all. If they then, under Bush, pay 64%, then the plan is unfair to the rich. If they pay 60%, the plan is unfair to the poor.

    The problem is, the top 1% have an income larger than 62% (income != wealth, so it's not as high as 90%), yet they only collectively pay 62% or less. The percent that they earn as income *ought* to equal the percent they pay as taxes (percents based on the total society) in a flat tax system. Even worse, in a progressive tax system, as we claim to have in the states, they should be paying a larger percent in taxes than what they collect in income.

    There was a story at the NYTimes today that research showed about 200+ companies, many on the Fortune 500 list, do not pay any taxes in all. Some even got refunds back from the gov't. This is all because corporations, as well as the very wealthy individual, have tax shelters (and the knowledge of those shelters) that everyone else doesn't have, and that's where the tax system breaks down. I'm all for a fair tax system, one that neither penaltizes nor rewards the wealthy, and where the same tricks (if they exist) are accessable at all income levels. I'm happy people have made vast fortunes in life, and I'm against complete wealth redistribution. But I do feel that as fewer and fewer control the money, fewer and fewer will have control of the gov't, and *then* we go from a democratic nation to a implistic one. And like our freedoms of speech and other Bill of Rights rights that are trying to be taken away from us now, we need to fight this possible transistion now as well, and fixing the tax code is a big start.

  • Again, I would like to point out that it is our voting system that causes these sorts of dilemmas in the first place. If we would use a more sensible and fair system, such as the Borda count or approval voting, we could elect the candidate that is really the most desirable candidate to the most people. That won't happen now due to the way they screw with voting districts and the fact that a plurality vote is simply a bad way of electing someone when there are more than 2 people involved. I want to see a candidate stand up and point this out to everyone. I want to see him pull a Ross Perot and break out the graphs and pictures and explain it to everyone. This needs to be fixed.

  • by OlympicSponsor (236309) on Friday October 20, 2000 @06:42AM (#689551)
    I know this is a flame, but I just can't help it: "its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate.

    You can't risk making a statement? You can't risk not to!. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Break the cycle! Stop the madness! Other slogans!
    --
    An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
  • Along with the vast majority of mainstream economists, I agree that open trade is the fastest way to prosperity for what we used to call the "third world," and is as such the right thing to do.

    You surely aren't saying that whatever is the "fastest way to prosperity" is the right thing to do? So therefore indenturing third world countries because it allows rich western countries to modernize them is "the right thing to do?". Letting large corporations exploit the natural resources, pollute the environment and displace the native people of third world countries is "the right thing to do"?

    India has the second largest population in the world and I believe the highest population density. Cuba still faces harsh and juvenile sanctions from the United States dating from the sixties, North Korea is responsible for its own mess, and Mexico and much of central America has been embrioled in bloody revolutionary/terrorist wars and corrupt governments. I'd say "lack of Western exploitation" is just one of *many* other problems in these countries.

    Sorry, sometimes the Right Thing isn't the thing that puts the most money in somebody's pocket (especially ours).
  • How many, indeed. And how many abortions are performed? If the latter is greater than the former your entire point is moot.

    No, his point would not be moot. It just wouldn't cover abortion in all circumstances.

  • You start with the assumption that it is 'fair' to pay proportional to your income. If you and I were roommates - you made $100,000 and I made $10,000 - would we pay for the trash takeout and the phone bill in proportion of our incomes? No. It's not as if the government is the reason for the income. From a strictly moral perspective, the government has no _right_ to tax income. It makes a lot of practical sense but don't pretend it's 'fair'. The rich are paying MORE money for defense, roads, education than other people who reap precisely the same (arguably) benefits from those things.

    Corporations are an entirely different animal in this picture. Personally, I don't have a problem with corporations not paying any taxes at all because the shareholders are taxed for their personal share of any profits, anyway. However, corporations don't pay income tax - they are not among the top 1% or bottom 99% or any of the other parts of the discussion on income taxes. Corporate taxation is an entirely separate issue from this one.

    Tax shelters are a very stupid concept imho. They are like the government telling you "We want you to have a wife, 2 cars and 2.5 kids and we'll reward you for being the model citizen we want you to be and tax the fuck out of you if you don't do that". I hate the concept. A flat tax would fix that. It would also make it more fair in the sense that those who couldn't afford expensive tax consultants would get precisely the same results and those who could.

    How the hell is the tax code related to your Bill of Rights? You have to be smoking some of the stuff Nader is to believe there is any correlation. The reason why the rich are able to control the government is because of the way lobbying and campaign finance works in this country. THAT is the problem you need to fix, not the tax code.
  • You're absolutely right -- we should encourage all new immigrants to completely ignore the political process of their new country. After all, we've established it's cleary an insignificant and annoying part of living here -- they should just bitch about jury duty and lousy candidates while watching reruns of "Friends" and complaining about how high taxes are (when you get nothing in return, goddamit!). Actually getting up off your sorry ass and doing something about it is just too much trouble. Pass the twinkies....

    ---------------------------------------------
  • You seem like a rational, thinking person. However your unabashed support of Gore is puzzling. How can you even know if he holds the same beliefs as you when he can never keep a story straight or tell the truth?

    LK
  • What, you think money just disappears once it's spent? No, it just gets moved. In this case, it gets moved from rich donors to campaigns to TV stations. Nothing really horrible about that.
  • but I'm sure gonna be happier when the election is over and the flames can stop.

    He He, Something tells me that this is really pretty unrelated to the daily dose of flame Rob receives.

  • http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll /fa q.html [nara.gov]

    Hmm. 1824, 1876, and 1888 are mentioned as examples of when this happened. It also gives a good explanation of how and why it happens.

    -E

  • by kperrier (115199) on Friday October 20, 2000 @06:48AM (#689568)
    Please tell me how Al "I want to ban in internal combustion engine, keep your money and legislate what time you should go to bed" Gore is better than any of the other candidates? Personally, I'm voting for Bush because I want my taxes reduced. Everytime I look at my pay check stub and I see how much is taken out by Uncle Bill and his cousin Al I almost hurl. Then you hear about the department of education which cannot account for about 5 billion dollars because its books are so screwed up.

    Why should we leave any tax surplus in Washington?

    Kent
  • Let's see. The rich get a much larger share of their income from stock market gains. This is taxed at a lower rate than money I earn by working my tail off. Because tech workers get paid well I already am in the highest tax bracket. How on earth could the rich be paying MORE, as a percentage of their income, than I am?

    Sounds to me like somebody's pulling statistics out of his ass...

    -E

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20, 2000 @06:49AM (#689572)
    Umm - actually I am the network admin for the Bush campaign and he has a laptop on the trail with an email account that he setup in '94 that he checks pretty often. He also bought a nice new Dell for the Governor's Mansion last Christmas. I'm not saying that he is gonna be hacking the Linux kernel anytime soon but you statement is not correct.
  • by mrsalty (104200) on Friday October 20, 2000 @10:38AM (#689573)
    it seems than whenever anyone thinks 3rd party the name on their lips is Ralph Nader. It is time to focus some attention on Harry Browne, the Libertarian candiadte for pres. if you are truely interested in free tech policy then check out what Browne has to say in this wired article:
    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38748, 00.html
    here are a few choise things he has to say about bush-gore: "If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you're just giving up. You're saying, 'We never will have smaller government, so I'm just voting for whoever will take me to Hell at the slowest possible rate.'"
    "Both believe they are best qualified to run your life. Neither one of them believes in freedom, neither one of them believes in the Constitution as a limiting force on government."
    or the greens:
    "The Green Party platform is pure fascism and socialism," said Browne. "It's either government regulation to the nth degree, or government taking over to the nth degree."
    give personal resposability a chance.
  • While I'm not a big fan of Gore, the man does have an edge over GWB. He's just such a little kid trying to be his dad that I'd like to puke.

    Having lived in texas, I think I can openly say that he doesn't bring anything good to the table, other than tax benefits for the ultra rich. I'd like to pay less taxes on my midrange income, but that doesn't mean that I feel those tax cuts should be squandered on people making 7 figure incomes and up.

    for that matter, I don't want all those cuts going to welfare cases either; they already pay low enough taxes and get enough free crap from the gov't that I pay for.

    Where I currently live I pay over a grand a month in rent for a reasonable apt; my neighbours are on assistance and pay 200 for the same place. I like knowing that's where 800 bucks a month of my tax money goes.
  • by JazzManJim (196980) on Friday October 20, 2000 @10:43AM (#689579)
    Okay folks, I'm going to jump on this yarf-fest right here and now. Just because a person, let's say me, wants a tax cut, it doesn't mean that I'm:

    a) Against a clean environment
    b) Ready to oppress the masses because I'm cruel and completely eeeeeeeeeee-vil.
    c) Gleefully rubbing my hands together because I'm going to create dirty air and water and stupid people because I'll be taking all the school money.

    I want a tax cut. Want to know why? Because I'm working two jobs right now just to pay my bills and because we've had almost eight years of "targeted tax cuts" that never have managed to target me. I'm working nearly 70 hours every week trying to keep a roof over my head, to pay my bills, and to be a responsible father and the only reply I've ever seen from Al gore is that a tax cut is only for the rich and that his tax cut is good because he'll be able to tell me just where I should spend the money in order to get my taxes cut. I don't have a "beemer" in the driveway, and I'm hardly wealthy, but right now, GWB's tax cut is the only one that will affect me much at all.

    So here's the more fundamental question. What is it that I want? I want my government to be more responsible with the money that I allow it to have. let's not make a foolish mistake here. My government does not have the inalienable right to tax as much money from me as it pleases. Taxes are under the control of the people and we give the government only as much money as we allow. That we've allowed it to bloat to its current size and to do so with such ludicrous wastefulness (we're #1 in eduation spending, but #13 in education results? Huh?? Less money out of every dollar gets to a welfare recipient than it would if it were a "normal" charity? Huh???) is a shame and we should be changing that right now.

    I'm voting for GWB, not because I think him the ideal candidate, but because, of everyone who is in the race right now, he's in the position to do more of the things I find important to my life.

    Wow, okay, that sure ended up being more of a rant than I intended. Oh well. :-)

    -Jimmie
  • "Look at the polls. Ever the professional know-it-alls in the media have given up trying to predict this election. Meanwhile, Nader is sitting at 5%. The scenario that W. wins by less than 5% is a not only possible, it's probable."

    For people who agree with Nader, that is the best possible outcome. Sure, they would have to endure 4 years of Bush's 'leadership', but in 2004, the Democratic party would have a platform that included many Green positions.

    So many people get hung up on the question "Who will win?" that they forget to ask "Who will implement the policies I care about?".

    The only way to convince the Democratic or Republican parties to offer any new platform issues is to show them that a lot of people want something else, something they didn't offer. Then they will stsart offering those new ideas, claiming they have always supported them.

  • Yes, income taxes are rather immoral. We are now a commerce-based society, I'm in favor of a national sales tax, with waviers for those that can't afford such taxes. (I loved Perot's idea of a .50/gallon tax that he proposed -- but everyone saw that as being a nutcase, and the summer gas price situation only solidified my opinion that the american public has no idea of how to plan for the future).

    I'm not sure how well the roommate situation analogy compared to paying taxes, however. Thing is, you later support flat taxes, which is what I think will work as well. The roommate situation ends up being the same here too, with the more wealthy paying the bulk of the costs of living. There's something lacking, I can't place my finger on it, however.

  • "If you support the Green Party, you've got to vote Nader in this election so that he can get federal matching funds for the next election!"

    There are points to the Green platform that I agree with. Forcing others to help support their campaigns is not one of them. Of course, I also don't like being forced to support the campaigns on the Democratic, Republican and Reform parties either.

    I applaud the fact that Harry Browne turned down those matching funds. It demonstrates the fact that he believes in the principles he is talking about. If he had accepted those funds, I wouldn't be voting for him, and I wouldn't have contributed to his campaign.

    Instead of pressuring people to vote for Nader so that the Green party can force others to support the Green party later, why don't you simply send them a contribution of your own now, and ask others to do so as well?

    Is it because you don't think highly enough of the Green party to support them directly, or because you don't think they have enough support to succeed without forcing others to help them?

    Your "If Nader doesn't get the support he needs this time, then...." is the same sort of fear-mongering that Nader argues against.

    Vote your dreams. Support your dreams with your own dollars, not mine.

  • its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate.

    You know the thing that bothers me most about this statement has nothing to do with politics. Is is TOO hard to get TO, TOO, and TWO straight?

  • "I don't think its anybody elses right to force someone to bear a child and bring them into this world just because they believe it to be wrong to do otherwise."

    This is typical of the poor reasoning skills of the "pro-choice" movement. If I have an apartment for rent and I want to start storing my own stuff in there, can I kill the inhabitants because "it isn't anybody else's right to force me to rent"? No, because that's irrelevant.

    Here here!

    An even better question for you males out there in /. land: Why is the woman's right to choose paramount? Where is the man's right to choose? If a man says, "This baby was a mistake. I'm not ready for this, nor can I afford this. I want an abortion." and the woman says no, he's stuck with HER CHOICE! He doesn't get a choice. He can't say that she HAS to get an abortion because it will ruin HIS life. It's all about HER!

    I'm a firm believer that if you believe in choice that you need to change the viewpoint of your own people.

    All the following assume that a woman is pregnant and knows (or suspects) who the father is. If the mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't, the father must pay the mother a set amount of money for her time and trouble to have the child. Perhaps go by what host mothers are paid for people that can't carry a child to term. If the mother wants to keep the baby, and the father wants an abortion, the mother MUST renounce all claims against the father for financial support. In this case, the father will also never have custody of the child. Or for that matter even see it. If mother and father BOTH want an abortion, they split the cost 50-50. If neither wants an abortion, they do the civilized thing and either give the baby up for adoption or raise it.

    There, that gives EVERYONE a choice, doesn't it?

    (Where's the asbestos suit when you really need it... Oh wait, the government regulates that so much I can't buy one anymore...)

  • by quantum bit (225091) on Friday October 20, 2000 @06:53AM (#689589) Journal
    Vote Vader [vaderfor2000.org]. Or else.
  • This is typical of the poor reasoning skills of the "pro-choice" movement. If I have an apartment for rent and I want to start storing my own stuff in there, can I kill the inhabitants because "it isn't anybody else's right to force me to rent"? No, because that's irrelevant. I don't want to get into the process of insulting ones reasoning skills. However, your logic is flawed. If you have 'an apartment for rent' you make a decision on what to do with it. A) you rent it out and reap the rewards of the income or B) you store your stuff there. The decision being made before hand as to which you action you will take. Killing your tenants to store your stuff is not an option (although at times it doesn't sound like a bad idea :P ) and you have to either wait until the lease expires or you find some legal grounds for eviction. A womb is not an apartment and its tenant (your implication) does not have the rights a real tenant would have by contract. My whole point is this: Your beliefs should not be able to prevent someone else who thinks otherwise from doing what they envision as thier own righteous legal actions in a free society. You have your point of view to which there is merit. This does not negate my right to have a different view. I already stated my personal view on late term abortion: no it should not happen unless there is a serious medical need for it. Other people feel different and think that late term abortion is ok. More power to them. I applaud them and you for sharing your views and hope that more people will develop at the very least an informed opinion. There are too many people who don't even have an opinion to begin with. What an absolute tragedy. Maybe that in and of itself is a case for abortion right there... I digress. When its all said and done I think that abortion should be legal and free. I am tired of my tax dollars funding welfare, prisons, public housing, food, and social security for society's unwanted and unintentional additional populous. If you want to have children fine. If you don't want to have them that is fine to. [vhemt.org] Make a choice and move along that path. When you pull the lever on election day remember the real, long lasting implications of your decision and the people that will be empowered by it. If you want to end up in a society where abortion is illegal then go ahead and vote for Bush and be happy when that happens. I'd rather not see that as the outcome because the mentaility of the RTL crowd is that what they believe I should believe and that is not right. In fact, it is very disrespectful to the tenets of freedom. This will only continue to foster intollerance of opposing views and lead to censorship on levels far beyond the scope of what the RTL agenda would have you think they are about.de cadir - to make a choice and eliminate or cut off all other scenarios.

  • by festers (106163) on Friday October 20, 2000 @06:53AM (#689594) Journal
    so I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate

    Is Gore who you really think is the best candidate? If so, by all means vote for him. But don't give me that crap about wasting a vote. The only vote wasted is the one for a candidate you don't think is best. How many times does this cliche need to be repeated until you get in into your thick, geek skull?


    --------
  • OK, I like in Massachusetts. There's not a chance in hell my vote will tip the balance from Gore to Bush, in fact Gore is certain to win by a landslide. We might as well hand those electoral votes over right now... which is essentially what the pundits do when they count electoral votes at this point in the race.

    If you're a conservative who happens to think that Bush is a complete dolt (I know many who feel this way), AND you happen to live in a state which is solidly Bush turf, what the hell do you have to lose by voting Libertarian [lp.org], The Constitution Party [ustaxpayers.org], or The Natural Law Party [natural-law.org]? It's not like you're going to hurt Bush by not voting for him, in your state he's going to win! This gives you some freedom to vote your conscience without potentially tipping the race toward the Democrats (who are the party I would vote for if my state were up for grabs).

    My point is that only a few states are still undecided... if you live in one of then maybe it makes sense to vote "strategically". But for the most of us it's pretty safe to vote our conscience... me I'll be voting Nader [votenader.com] because that's who I like. And I don't feel the slightest concern for the outcome.

    BTW: the Reform Party main page is down right now, so I didn't exclude it out of any malice (though I do think Buchanan is a fascist); I assume that's because of the Buchanan rift in the party. Speaking of that, Buchanan taking over the Reform Party has only benefited the Republicans as it's basically killed a major contender party. Wonder if Buchanan was really a poison pill for the party... I guess we'll know if Buchanan re-joins the Republicans after gutting the party and leaving the entrails asunder...
  • I know several families that would be considered poor to lower middle class that send their kids to private school (most without our churches help) because they realize the value of a good education that's concerned less with how Johnny feels about himself and more with how well Johnny can think.

    The solution to the problems with the education system may lie in private schools replacing public schools, but that doesn't solve the problem of how to make sure that everyone has access to a good school. The problem is that we don't pay teachers squat compared to what they can make in other jobs, and schools constantly decide to spend vast amounts of money on their sports programs instead of their academic programs. If parents want their kids to play sports, there are plenty of sports organizations out there for them to join. We need schools to teach kids better than they do now. We shouldn't have to import our skilled labor. It comes down to how much we're willing to spend on educating our children. I think Gore is willing to spend a lot more than Bush, but I'm not sure if he'll spend it in a way that will maximize the benefits. Paying teachers more would help at least. Then there's Bush, who seems extremely shady to me given his reluctance to give a straight answer to a straight question. (If I had to listen to him babble on about being a uniter and bringing sides together to come to a solution one more time I was going to puke) I just have to wonder why he so unwilling to be straight and honest with us.

  • What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months was causing a logarithmic increase in processing power, and yet the throughput capacity was hardly changing at all.
    Gore seems to come dangerously close to asserting that he essentially came up with Moore's Law before Gordon Moore.

    BTW, the article does say some good things about Bush compared to Gore, such as:
    Bush also supported the controversial exportation of cryptographic technology, an issue on which Gore dragged his feet. In addition, Bush took a George père-type "Read my lips: no new taxes" stand on e-commerce and ISPs, whereas Gore supports the current moratorium but has indicated that Net taxes are inevitable.
    And strictly anti-Gore fodder:
    But Gore has a less consistent record on the kinds of free-speech issues that are important to many in the online community... Gore supported what became known as CDA 2, the Child Online Protection Act, a bill that First Amendment advocates find objectionable because it attempts to regulate speech on the Net.
    Keep that in mind if you think Gore "gets" all technology issues better than Bush.
  • The only point I was trying to make (badly) with the roommate analogy was that it's not 'fair' that people pay according to what they make and it's not a 'right'. It's the only practical solution though and I'm all for practical solutions that work.
  • by G Neric (176742) on Friday October 20, 2000 @06:55AM (#689599)
    I'm so sick of the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum debate that accompanies the "lesser of two evils" vs. "statement" debate.

    Face it, you of both sides: your vote can make a (very small) statement, and can have a (very small) impact on the outcome, both in who gets elected and in how well the also-rans "show", potentially helping a future third party.

    Problem is, you only get one vote. It's easy when someone like Ronald Reagan is running because you either buy that ideology or not. But when positions are in the fuzzy middle and the race is closer, the decision gets murkier. There is no right answer: you can spend your vote hoping to influence the "lesser of two evils" outcome, or you can signal a broader protest by moving to an extreme.

    But what you can't do is convince me that there is just one way to go. It is obvious that there is merit to both sides of the argument.

  • I'll admit that the cantidate who fires me up is Buchanan, but he has no chance of winning. The next best guy is Bush. In 1992, or 1996 I would have been willing to cast a "make a statement" vote, but this year's election is too important for me to do that.

    LK
  • Check out GreensForGore.org [greensforgore.org] for more info about swings states and choosing between Nader versus Gore. Here's the CNN's swing state map [cnn.com].
  • Because tech workers get paid well I already am in the highest tax bracket

    That, sir, is the definition of the word "rich". Btw, those statistics were talking about percentages of money paid as income tax - which does not include capital gains tax. So the richest 1% pay 64% of all income tax.

  • I also liked the TomPaine.com article [tompaine.com] on strategic voting and which states are really in play.

    Damn Electoral College.

  • by GoNINzo (32266) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <ozNINoG>> on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:02AM (#689618) Journal
    Like many other people my age, I didn't feel like I had a real choice. The difference between Gore and Bush was almost negligable (yes I know a flame commment) but at the time either candiate is a crap shoot for affecting issues I care about. Hence, I did not even register to vote (because of the number of calls/junk mail that I would get from the freely available registration lists). Why should I get harrassed at home more often just so I could flip a coin (with the edge of the coin being Nader).

    Now, I'm a little regretful that I don't even have a choice. I should have registered, I should have voted. I wish that Bush had cooperated in this interview (damn did Gore come off well to a geek like me!) just so I could hear if he would bother to memorize some standard rhetoric.

    Anyway, for those who did register, go out there and vote. Vote for whoever you think will do the right job for you, not your dad or your company or your community, but who you think is correct. You are not a Democrat just cause your parents are either. Make a conscious choice about what you choose....

    Best way to illustrate it is the difference between Linux and AIX. Given a set of technical tasks defined by an IT department, these two operating systems might seem similar in nature. But only after you do a little research do you realize the strengths and weaknesses of each. From the surface, they seem the same. But if you can get past the tough kernel of linux and the gui of smit, you'd find which is the best for the job... and any unix person would agree that is the correct way to make any choice.

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau

  • by envisionary (238020) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:03AM (#689619)
    Typically Bush stances have been modded down (but we won't get into that). On to the point, Bush seems to take a very laissez faire approach to how the government should approach the internet, which is good.

    Governor Bush recognizes that our new economy is driven by the hard work and creativity of men and women in the private sector -- and not by Government bureaucrats.


    I don't know about you but I'm rather sick of having the government meddle in my affairs as it is. Unfortunately he also seems to support MORE H1-B visas, which doesn't necessarily agree with another point of his to raise education in order to allow US citizens to meet the demand.

    The high tech industry is in great need of highly skilled workers. Too many Americans are unable to fill these jobs because they lack the necessary skills.

    However overall [georgewbush.com] (apologies for a link to a homepage), he seems to be very technology oriented especially from what I saw in the last debate, as opposed to Gore that proposed filtering 95% of content at the ISP end.

    However, I'm all about exploring both sides of the issues so to present both sides. [about.com]
    Warning: The last link is a slow load...
  • by mobileunit (227048) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:03AM (#689620)
    Here in Tompkins County, the Green Party has a much larger presence on the ground than either the democrats or republicans. In fact, the only sign I've seen of the republicans are some signs for Rick Lazio for senator and an office out by the commercial strip.

    Bush and Gore expect to win this election by television, so they're making no effort to activitate the population. In the post-Kennedy age, the role of the president is to be a political neutralizer. The aim of the game is to win the race with the fewest number of votes.

    The Gore campaign has bullied a few labor unions and feminist groups to speak out, but Bush doesn't care about having an off-television voice. This is why the Bush supporters are so silent. They don't exist.

    People who are voting for Bush are voting because they hate Gore. People who are voting for Gore are voting because they hate Bush. Bush and Gore don't step up and say "I'm a great guy, you should vote for me" rather they step up and say that you shouldn't vote for that other guy. Both Bush and Gore are aiming for a political absolute zero.

    Bush will probably win because he's a more perfect zero. What kind of Republican proposes the first-ever legislation to restrict CO2 emissions? What kind of Republican has no position on affirmative action? What kind of Republican says he "supports a culture of life" (opposes abortion) but admits that "we're going to have to change a lot of minds before we can get there?"

    Unfortunately, most of us Nader people aren't high tech, so a lot of them think that http://www.votenader.org/ is hot stuff.

    I disagree with the idea, however, that the author is sick of politics and wishes the election season would end. What the movement learned in 1968 was that it isn't enough, possibly isn't even desirable to have state power. The Green Party got a student elected to city council here in Ithaca and he's been crushed, domesticated and turned into a Democrat by the old ladies, wives of real estate speculators, who currently run the town.

    To get real change, the people need to be mobilized and put constant pressure on public leaders. People are sick of globalization and the economic boom and they're fighting back... You can read the latest at

    http://www.indymedia.org/

    The Nader campaign is building a Green Party that is going to get in the face of elected officals and corporations.
  • by Jason W (65940) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:05AM (#689623)
    This is not a flame. This is me trying to debunk CT's obviously wrong view of politics. :)

    He'll bitch to the end of time about how stupid Bush is and how Gore's policies suck, but what does he do about it? And guess what? When the 2004 election rolls around, he won't be able to say crap about any candidate without being hypocritical, because its his own damn fault there isn't a third party candidate with as much funding. (Ok, I'm giving CT too much credit for the election results, but his vote is worth more than mine since he lives in Michigan).

    Yeah, democracy is great. It lets you say what you want to say, and hopefully get something done. This is worth than voter apathy, its voter insincerity. Not only do you not get what you really want, you make the wrong impression with your vote, the impression that you want Gore to win. As much as you may applaud Nader and put Gore and Bush down, in the end only your vote counts.

    And when you say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, that just fuzzy math. Do you think of the Nader supporters more were originally Democratic or Republican supporters? Who knows? From a statistical point of view (and realistic pov too), its 50-50. So if everyone voted for who they really wanted, a vote for Nader would be a vote for Nader.

    There is too much politics in government. We don't need politics in the way we vote!

  • by OlympicSponsor (236309) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:05AM (#689625)
    "What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law [the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months] was causing a logarithmic increase in processing power..."

    I hope you cut and pasted this from Gore's site because if so it is absolutely classic. It's also self-refuting. On the one hand he claims to be so technologically literate and insightful that he figured out Moore's law before Moore did but on the other hand he doesn't know what "logarithmic" means. Tee hee!
    --
    An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
  • by Hard_Code (49548) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:20AM (#689633)
    Reposting this from previous article for the links (because supposedly Greens are only posting the official site). Lessee, add grassroots.com to that list (you know, Google is your friend). Also see bottom of post for debunking of Taco's lesser-evilism philosophy (you'da thunk that recent electoral college article would have made this obvious).

    --

    The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.

    Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.

    If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.

    The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.

    I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.

    Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.

    Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.

    Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."

    Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html

    Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html

    Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
    http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com

    Who Do You Trust?
    http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,72 43,58092,00.html

    Nader Campaign
    http://www.votenader.org
    http://www.nader2000.org

    And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.

    And on the risk of getting too squishy here:

    "A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
  • by ucblockhead (63650) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:22AM (#689637) Homepage Journal
    If the third party vote is large enough to swing the election one way or the other, than the parties will damn-well have to pay attention to the people who voted for that third party in the next election cycle.

    Otherwise, they can just safely ignore them as too insignificant to matter.

    One of the reasons (along with the good economy) that we finally managed to get the deficit under control is because a third party candidate wouldn't shut up about it, and got a lot of votes. He didn't win (thank God!) but the important thing he was talking about finally got noticed.

    Nader's talking about the way corporations have bought the political system. If you want to get that issue noticed next time out, you have to give him enough votes to get the attention of the major parties. Otherwise they'll just ignore the issue as ramblings of unimportant voters.

    To me, a real wasted vote is a vote for someone who will likely ignore 90% of what the voter stands for. Given the stands I've seen both candidates take on the issues that continually crop on /., I'd say that that is the majority here.

  • by Entropius (188861) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:12AM (#689640)
    ...between politics and karma whoring? The skills some slashdotters learn now could be of great use in a political career...
  • by Glowing Fish (155236) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:23AM (#689642) Homepage

    One of the greatest reasons I see people supporting Al Gore is his environmentalism. I am think Al Gores' environmentalism is pretty trivial.

    Yes, I think it will be a great loss if George Bush has his way with the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. (That phrasing makes it seem like George W Bush is about to seduce their daughters! And that is almost the emotional level this seems to be at.) And I do think Gore will be able to stop this from happening.

    But a few national parks and national forests in this country are a trivial matter. The result of losing these is that a few yuppies may miss out on a chance to commune with nature.

    The real environmental issue is the third world, and the corporate control of it that will lead to it's ruin. Al Gore and George W Bush both support turning the entire third world into a resource pool, and a market, for US goods, and support any military dictator who will uphold this.

    So with Gore and Bush, we get environmental destruction of the 3rd world, but with Gore we get a few pretty parks saved to look at while the world burns.

  • by Hard_Code (49548) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:24AM (#689643)
    Well that is actually an impressive interview, and it sure makes it clear that Gore has his head on much straighter about the net than Bush.

    However, I think that Gore's "vision" for the internet is not as pluralistic as we might want it to be. As you could only expect from somebody largely funded by corporations with vested interests, I think Gore sees the net more as an economic engine, than as some great democratizing force in which ideas can flow freely. Let's just be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
  • by StormyMonday (163372) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:24AM (#689644) Homepage
    It sickens me how much money is donated and spent on this bullshit that could be better donated to help people out.

    It sickens me how *little* money is needed to buy a candidate. The press made a big hoohah about how Bush supporters raised US$70M to get him to run. That's what, one major movie or two Internet startups?

    A politician is one of the highest-returning investments a business can make.
  • by grappler (14976) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:15AM (#689647) Homepage
    As it turns out, they split them. Gore supporters include Apple Computer's Steve Jobs, Netscape cofounder Marc Andreessen, and John Doerr, the venture capitalist who has backed many Internet companies. Bush's include Cisco's John Chambers, former Netscape president and CEO Jim Barksdale, and Michael Dell of Dell Computer Corporation.

    Is it just me or does bush have the PHBs, and Gore have the "visionaries"?

    Granted, they're all suits, but I like Gore's suits much better than Bush's suits. Andreessen or Barksdale? I'd go with Andreessen any day of the week.

    Of course, I'd be more interested in Jamie Zawinski's vote...


    -------
  • by sulli (195030) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:37AM (#689664) Journal
    Wrong.

    Suppose you don't like any candidate, but you think that Bush would be a disaster, and Gore and Nader would each cause more trouble than not but would not be as much of a disaster than Bush.

    The question is now whether you are in a swing state; if you're in a swing state (e.g. Michigan), vote Gore, because if Bush wins you're really in trouble, but if you're in a NON-swing state (e.g. California or Alabama), you have a free vote and can afford to vote Nader.

    As for me, I'm voting for Gore, because he's smarter than Bush, has a record of balancing the budget, and is not rabidly anti-business like Nader. All y'all who are planning to vote Nader need to think hard about his anti-free trade, pro-union policies; you may find that you don't have any markets overseas for your geek product because Ralph has forced us into pointless trade wars. And all y'all thinking of voting for Bush do need to consider the Supreme Court factor: one vote could not only overturn Roe v. Wade but also roll back our freedom in other important ways.

    Just my $.02.

  • by jellicle (29746) on Friday October 20, 2000 @07:37AM (#689666) Homepage
    Unfortunately, you're basing all of those assertions about what Gore did on statements made by the Republican party - in fact, you're copy-and-pasting them from an email circulated by the GOP, which I've seen making the rounds. Unfortunately, the GOP has made up those straw men out of whole cloth.

    I don't really feel like rebutting this crap right now, but I think you'll find that if you investigate, everywhere you've tagged Gore with some "Fiction", the real story is that Gore told an absolutely truthful statement, which the GOP has tried to turn into a lie.

    Don't take my word for it - investigate. Read the actual incidents. You'll find that all of those attacks on Gore are nothing but GOP propaganda.

    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
  • by thelonius (22561) on Friday October 20, 2000 @08:47AM (#689667)
    Gore seems to come dangerously close to asserting that he essentially came up with Moore's Law before Gordon Moore.

    What Gore said was, "By the time I got to Congress in '76, I began holding these hearings about the future. What I realized then was that the phenomenon later to be known as Moore's Law [the prediction that transistor capacity would double every 18 months] was causing a logarithmic inrease in processing power, and yet the throughput capacity was hardly changing at all."

    Here [microsoft.com] is a paper which addresses the history of Moore's Law, and it clearly says that, though he first made the observation in 1965, the current manifestation of what "shortly thereafter, someone (not Moore) dubbed this curve", was delivered in a paper at the 1975 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting. I don't know when this unknown third party dubbed Moore's Law "Moore's Law", but it's not a stretch to imagine that it happened somewhat later than Gore's 1976 Senate hearings. Gore is not saying that he observed the phenomenon before Moore did, he is just saying that at the time he did observe the phenomenon (by way of listening to tech-industry testimony at these hearings, I assume), it was not known as Moore's Law yet.

    In my opinion, this does not by any stretch qualify as a Gore exaggeration.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark

Working...