Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

FortKnox's Journal: My Political JE 118

Journal by FortKnox
Its that once-in-a-blue-moon time for me to say something political. Its about the election. I mentioned before I'm a centrist (maybe leaning more towards conservativism), and a part of the reform party. I'll look at the upcoming election. Here are my thoughts:

If Bush wins: It means the war in Iraq will be dealt with correctly, we will get the job done, and we'll see the job done out right. Of course, this may also see times when its more 'religious right' than anything, which means stuff like the FCC going completely nazi on everything, and a loss of a lot of rights

If Kerry Wins: The good thing? Hilary Clinton will have to wait 8 years to run (I'd REALLY hate to see her run at all). I suppose the economy will boom, cause of the influx of jobs. But it also means that we'll be taxed to death, and the soldiers will return home like Vietnam soldiers, low morale, unfinished job, and most will try to be getting jobs, so hopefully Kerry's job plan works out really well, cause if it doesn't, we'll have war vets on the unemployment line, which just isn't good in my book.

So.... who am I gonna vote for? Most likely Nader (unless the reform put up a decent candidate). Lets face it, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils, and I'm not going to not vote... I'd rather give my vote to a third party to show the nation (or at least the repubs and demos) that the two candidates up for election both suck.

Now, you may commence tearing up my post into pieces and flaming me.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

My Political JE

Comments Filter:
  • I don't want Nader to be president, but I do think that voting for the person who you want, is better than voting "strategically." If more voters backed their favorite candidates, then we would get better candidates.
  • ...like Vietnam soldiers, low morale, unfinished job...

    The job was to take Saddam out.

    He's out.

    Ergo, the soldiers could come home TODAY and the job would be done.

    I'd be surprised if Iraq is even an issue come November, much less at the Inaguration in January.
    • Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FortKnox (169099)
      I thought the job was to free Iraq?

      If so, its a long process.
    • The job was to protect US security. Removing Saddam was supposedly the means to that end, because "he's a dangerous man."

      I'd be surprised if Iraq is even an issue come November

      Wow.

      Iraq will be the foreign policy issue in November. The current president's handling of the situation (vs his competitors' imagined subjunctive handling of it) is the major data point, regarding whether they are able to effectively use the power of the US military to achieve its purpose. That is one of the most important p

  • Is a vote for Bush, plain and simple.
    • It is not that simple.

      Unless you live in a battleground state then a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. Besides, you are assuming that those voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry. Even if you make that assumption, and the voter lives in a battleground state, then a vote for Nader is still only a half a vote for Bush, but I reject that idea.

      A vote for Nader can be many things. A small list:
      1. A statement that the 2-party system is broken.
      2. A vote against disproportionate corporate i

      • Yesterday a kid came to the door and said, "I am from the DNC and want to ask for your help in defeating George W. Bush!"

        The DNC has blanketed my area with posters recruiting campaign workers to "Defeat Bush". There may be some McCain-Feingold reason why they can't talk about Kerry at this stage, but either way it's an accurate picture of how much enthusiasm there is for Kerry in and of himself. And that's among his constuents!

        • The DNC has blanketed my area with posters recruiting campaign workers to "Defeat Bush".

          As good as that mantra sounds to Democrats, it is hard to sell. The people who decide the election aren't going to be the people you're preaching to the choir about how Bush is the devil. The moderate undecided voter from middle America will and they're not all that turned off by Bush's flag waving.

    • It's hardly plain and simple.

      Bush had half of the voters' support in the last election. Suppose he still wins, but with a lower fraction. That weakens his mandate. It makes it easier for congresscritters to stand up to him. Suppose (pulling hypothetical number out of ass) 10% of the voters show themeselves to be comm^H^H^H^H green. Then congresscritters may be willing to accomodate them in order to get 10% more votes in 2006. That means a harder time for Bush in the next 2 years.

      Also, worrying abo

      • I'm not interested in making a statement with my vote. I'm looking to vote for someone who actually has a chance in winning. I wouldn't even consider voting for Nader because he doesn't represent my political views, on the other hand either does Bush or Kerry. So in the end I'm forced to choose the canidate who comes close and actually has a chance of winning. So therefore, I choose Kerry.
        • I'm not interested in making a statement with my vote.

          Why not? :-)

          How are you ever going to get what you want, unless you ask for it? Unless you write 'em some big checks, those two big parties are never going to take you seriously. So not just this election, but the next, and the next, and the next, they're going to give you candidates that don't represent your political views. Why should they? You'll vote for them anyway.

          I see some apparent pragmatism in voting for "someone who actually has a ch

      • I didn't see many congress-critters lining up to court the Perot voter's post-92. The republican party does need to get back to playing slash and burn with the Federal budget though, unfortunately, we can't pull the government shutdown trick Newt and friends used to create the "Clinton" surplus, the left would acuse the right of threatening homeland security.
        • You're either lying or an idiot.

          The GOP won in '94 in large part because they espoused extreme fiscal conservatism (with balanced budgets). We're talking "abolish five cabinet departments to save money" here. That's what the Contract with America was.

          Then Clinton was successfully able to take the balanced budget mantle and turn the public against spending cuts in '96. After this, the GOP continued to talk fiscal conservatism (while not going out of their way to do anything) while bringing their Clint

          • Clinton + a rubber stamp (democrat) congress from 94-00 would have never seen a balanced budget. I want my party to get serious about reducing the size of government, while at the same time having strong defense and intel budgets, that means trimming theft^Wentitlement programs.
      • Look beyond the immediate tactical situation. If you settle for a party candidate whose platform does not represent your interests, then you will always have a leader who does not represent your interest. If you refuse to compromise, then maybe some day you'll get what you want.

        This doesn't make any sense in the real world, for most people. If you are reasonably well-informed, the only person who always represents your views is, probably, you. You are always going to be choosing someone who is the "less
        • If McCain was Bush's VP... I'd vote for Bush in a minute. I prefer Bush over Kerry, but think he is doing too much of the 'religious thang' for me to handle (and I'm a pretty big christian). But McCain would easily sway my opinion.

          What are the odds of Bush dumping Cheney for McCain, though?
          • I prefer Bush over Kerry, but think he is doing too much of the 'religious thang' for me to handle

            I don't understand that at all, even from atheists. OMG, you mean he is religious?!?! Wow, imagine that, a religious President, just like EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT. :-)
            • No, I'm not offended that he's religious, just that I believe it interferes a bit. Sure, it 'should' be a part of his job, but you have to remember that whole freedom of religion and sep of chuch and state.
              • No, I'm not offended that he's religious, just that I believe it interferes a bit. Sure, it 'should' be a part of his job, but you have to remember that whole freedom of religion and sep of chuch and state.

                I don't have to remember it, because it is not in the Constitution anywhere. What the Constitution does say is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and I know of no case where Bush is in favor of violating that.
    • I saw the numbers on an election site [electoral-vote.com] and where I live (NY), Kerry is a pretty much a lock. It is going to be my first time voting in a presidential election so I'm not sure if I should throw a pity vote Nader's way. I did vote for the Green candidate for governor a couple years ago just because Pataki is seriously screwing over funding for state colleges.

      Beyond that, I don't know. I guess I'll decide in the voting booth. Who knows, I might vote Libertarian if not for their factious and most vocal off-p

      • I saw the numbers on an election site and where I live (NY), Kerry is a pretty much a lock.

        I think that's the mistake that Nader voters made last time in Florida and elsewhere. By voting Nader when they were so sure that the worst that would happen (from their perspective, at least) is Gore winning the election, they inadvertantly opened the door to Bush, which was the worst thing possible (again, from their perspective).

        Anyone who voted for Nader would have been appalled that Bush won the election as he
        • By the way, whatever happened to "compassionate conservatism"?

          If Bush were even remotely conservative I might answer this for you...

          Being religious does not equal being conservative :-p

          • But Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative". I want to know where that "compassion" has been hiding all this time. Just who is he showing compassion for?

            The people who've screwed up under his leadership, perhaps? The ones who let September 11th happen, who covered up the investigation, who fabricated evidence that Iraq was contributing to Al Qaeda, that it had WMDs, and that it was attempting to acquire nuclear material, the ones that have violated human rights in Camp X-Ray and/or the ones that
            • Give him a break on the funeral thing. You don't know what's going on in Bush's head, and whether he has any compassion or not.

              If he did show up at one, we would (well, I would) call him a photo-op-seeking poseur. And when there's war involved, there's lots of funerals. Is he going to go to them all? If he goes to a few and skips a few hundred, do we draw inferences about that too? Maybe he should put his job on the back burner, and go to them all, as a fulltime job.

              IMHO, when someone goes to someo

              • He's supposed to be the President of the United States. He's meant to show some leadership. And, just as he represents the US people in other ways, he should be representing them in this way.

                Do I expect him to attend the funeral of every fallen soldier? No, but I expect him to attend at least one, especially when you consider he finds the time to enjoy twice as much holiday-time than the average American gets (those that have jobs) as well as dozens of political fund-raisers.
            • But Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative". I want to know where that "compassion" has been hiding all this time.

              Passing the largest increases in federal education spending in several years (a fucking huge mistake , IMHO), perhaps?

              Passing the largest increase to a federal entitlement program in decades (the Medicare drug benefit, which is even more of a fucking huge mistake)?

              Combine this with the administration's utter economic idiocy and penchant for making the tax code even more comple

              • The apparent fact is that if Kerry is elected, the GOP will almost certainly hold on to at least one house of Congress. This means divided government. If there's any lesson since WWII, it's that the most effective way to peace and prosperity is divided government, simply because the governing parties are too busy squabbling to fuck things up.

                Not necessarily. Think Clinton 1992-1994. He had Democrat majorities in both houses, and got basically nowhere. Ironically Clinton got arguably more done after the Co

          • Strong correlation tho man.

            Oh, if only Goldwater had beaten LBJ.
        • You are making the mistake of lumping all Nader voters together. As I said above, there are all sorts of reasons to vote for Nader. I am sure that there are people that vote for Nader that don't even like him and think he would be the worst president of the three choices.

          I voted for Nader assuming that Bush would win. Given that I was voting in Utah, where Ross Perot beat Clinton, I was free of the quandries that a Florida voter might face.

          I will probably vote for Nader again, this time from Massachu

  • But it also means that we'll be taxed to death...

    I disagree. Consider the amount of power the president has in this issue. This would most likely be a legislative issue, and the future president would have to veto legislation designed to lower taxes, and have that veto not be overridden, in order to be considered at all responsible for the taxes being "high," but that would be an extremely simplistic view.

    Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. I am not going to vote for Kerry, but I don't think t

  • Wow. You're talking about the administration that wouldn't listen to seasoned advisors regarding the cost of the war, and most importantly: the number of troops required. Pssh...What does a silly ole General know about troop requirements. I think it's going to be a bumbling mess unless they start listening to the people who know.
    • The people who "know" claimed that the invasion phase would have 10s of thousands of US casualities. Just food for thought.
      • Excuse me sir, I speak Liberal.

        SW, what RW is trying to say is that there were also people who *knew* that there were lots of WMDs in Iraq. I say when it comes to intel, trust your covert agencies. ;-)
        • A real point was being made. We keep on hearing that "Bush should listen to the experts!!" Which ones? Well the ones who agree with my viewpoint, obviously, the others are all idiots.
          • I am talking about his fucking advisors within the administration. Bush/Cheney only seem to listen to the ones who come to the right conclusions. If the Army Chief of Staff says "hey, this will require about 100,000 troops" don't you think that maybe you should consider his opinion before firing him?

            Just as Bush should consider Rumsfeld's input on Defense issues, he should consider Powell's input on Foreign Policy issues instead of ignoring him and then leaving him to muddle his way through a defense of
            • Same thing with "advisors within the administration." Believe it or not, said advisors will often reach different conclusions. Same issue. In the administration or out.

              Many agreed with the Army CoS (who said closer to 250K, IIRC). Many (including me -not that I was asked, and being here has not changed my opinion) disagreed with him and thought that would be WAY too many.

              When you have conflicting advice, you need to listen to it all and then decide which advice (if any) you take. By simple logic, SOMEBODY'S

  • I suppose the economy will boom, cause of the influx of jobs.

    What influx of jobs? Kerry's national defense plan consists solely of pork for his firefighter allies (and police, originally, but I bet the Boston PD has ruined that now) but otherwise I don't know of anything that's even supposed to generate jobs.

    He's retracted the whole anti-outsourcing position, you know. (Which I happen to think is good news, but either way that issue ended once the primaries did.

  • The Federal Censorship Commission's latest actions against "indecency" are spearheaded by a democrat. Michael Copp.

    If you google around a bit, you'll find plenty of democrats who favor censorship in the name of fighting "indecency" - it isn't just a problem that originates solely from the republican camp!
    • Actually, I think the democrats will still cause FCC frenzy, just not to the point that it is now. I'm surprised no one ran against Bush for the republican primaries. I woulda loved to see McCain go for the ballot. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (will he be too old by 2008 if Kerry wins?).
      • I'm surprised no one ran against Bush for the republican primaries. I woulda loved to see McCain go for the ballot. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (will he be too old by 2008 if Kerry wins?).

        The sitting President is considered to the be the head of his political party and is given their full support. There still have to be primaries to nominate him, but the only competition are a few unknowns. Quite often if you care enough to look at the results, some areas will have high numbers of votes for anothe

    • If you google around a bit, you'll find plenty of democrats who favor censorship in the name of fighting "indecency" - it isn't just a problem that originates solely from the republican camp!

      Has everyone forgot about Lieberman? I really couldn't stand him. Anyone who throws their support behind censorship of videogames/movies and hefty fines for selling "inappropriate content" to minors isn't the kind of guy I want in office. Who is up for a single issue 'Videogame Party'?

    • by Sloppy (14984) *
      Censorship is basically a leftist tactic: Using the power of the government to supress someone, "for the greater good." It's just another thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on: government needs to have the power to be able to do that sort of thing.
      • Gee, thanks. If only it weren't for us evil liberals, there would be no censorship. Joy.

        Original right-wingers were monarchists not very enamoured with freedom of the press. Eh.
  • But why on earth do you believe Bush who has fucked up at every turn so far(terrorism is up this year, not down, Iraq is still in chaos, Afghanistan ain't looking to good either, and there has been dangerous movement in the mindshare of the Arab world away from hating/disliking American policy towards hating Americans.) will somehow do better in Iraq than Kerry will?

    Heck their positions don't even differ that much! Well, except Kerry wants more international involvement to cement the badge of legitimacy b
    • I also wonder why FK thinks that Kerry will try to bring the troops back. Hey, I haven't been following the US election, so he might have said that he would.

      What is more likely is that Kerry will try to even up international relations and try to get UN support. Not sure, but I think that's the card that Kerry will play, and he might even succeed if he takes it on smart.

      But then, who am I... I'm part of the rest of the world that has to succomb the choice of the US people. Besides, in my eyes the US

      • Well, it's not quite that simple. U.S. military personnel are obligated to disobey an illegal order. It's just that, in general, the orders being given are legal so the troops do what they're supposed to do - they carry them out.

        I'm part of the rest of the world that has to succomb the choice of the US people.

        Yea well... the American people are, largely, lazy, stupid, pompous bastards. I should know, I'm one of them, and I'm surrounded by them. They'd just as soon run around cheering and slapping static

        • U.S. military personnel are obligated to disobey an illegal order

          Guess what: I knew that. However, how can they judge if an order is illegal when it concerns WMD. They don't really have first-hand information, do they? The government told them they were there. How could they judge if such a statement was true or not. I'm not talking about the torture thing, that is something different. (I just try to be optimist and hope it wasn't an order from really high-up)

          the American people are, largely,

          • They were actually sent to force compliance with U.N. resolutions. We were fully within the bounds of the law to go in and kick the shit out of the place. They were not, technically, sent to find big boomies (not to be confused with big boobies which Iraq might also have), so they shouldn't be judging the order on those grounds.

            You said that...

            Trust me, it's true. I mean, I love my country and all in spirit, but people these days are so vapid it's truly sickening. Nobody sits around and talks about the

  • I am personally bored by all of this silly "serious" political garbage. Maybe I'll sign up and run for office, myself. My platform? Pizza any way you like it, without any topping- or crust-related persecution, and complete *unrestricted* freedom to breastfeed children in public. And maybe a requirement to do so for all the hot chicks.

    What else? Nothin'. We don't need no more stinkin' laws. Just leave it be -- all conflicts heretoforward will be resolved by naked Jello wrasslin' matches, flavor to be deter
    • I believe you should extend your law to say all hot women must be nude in public!

      Though, you may want them to wear bras some of the time so they don't get too saggy.... I'll have to think it over.... ;-)
      • If women have to wear bras to keep from getting saggy, then I demand men MUST wear some kind of device to prevent the same thing from happening to their balls. I mean, come on, people. NOBODY wants to see those things hanging down THAT far!!

        Or, of course, there's always the option of mandatory plastic surgery... but it's gonna have to be equal requirements for men AND women.

        So you choose, FK. Complete bralessness or a knife to the balls. Which will it be? :-)

        ....Bethanie....
        • So, you deal with a bra and we get a knife? How's that? What about a ballssiere?

          Women are so violent! It upsets my constitution.
          • The ballssiere is an option -- in the final analysis, though, I just whittled it down to the two extremes for FK. Of course, he'll probably prefer to take the centrist road.

            And that's not violent women upsetting your constitution. It's the pineapple you're secretly snarfing when you think no one's looking.

            Moderation, man. Everything in moderation.

            ....Bethanie....
        • I'm no fan of silicon outside a computer, so let'm go free!
  • Politics blows moose cock.
  • I should endanger somebody in the name of something I believe in. Then nobody could oppose me!

    But...but... Somebody might die blowing moose cock! You wouldn't piss on the very thing that they are risking their lives for, now would you?
  • Yup. I said it.

    Whatcha gonna do about it?

    * In response to FK's plea [slashdot.org] to change the subject.
  • by Morosoph (693565) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @06:24PM (#9436423) Homepage Journal
    From Liberals and Libertarians [impel.com].
    On November 3rd: VOTE!!!

    It's not who you vote for, it's what you vote for. An election is not a horse race; you don't get a prize if you pick the winning team.

    The only "wasted vote" is the one that doesn't accurately reflect your views; a vote for the lesser of two evils just sends the message that you are willing to settle. Don't settle.

    The only vote that is well and truly wasted...
    ...is a vote for a Republican.

    -Glen Raphael

    So Glen agrees with you: don't settle.

    Mathematically, your greatest influence is to a priori vote for any candidate with equal "probability", as long as include 'none' as one of your candidates, even if you really like or hate all of them. Why so? Each candidate has to compete for your vote, but it is the option of 'none' that makes them have to think outside the box. Although you risk not getting your choice by voting for none, you exercise an influence upon all the candidates that is that much greater by virtue of having one more "opponent". Too great a chance of voting for none, and you lose your leverage, as a future candidate will target votes that were cast for other candidates this time around, instead.

    The Single Transferable Vote [slashdot.org] "wastes" 1/(n+1) of the vote in an n-seat constituency. Similar reasoning to that which I have used above shows why this is not in fact wasteful.

    • The only "wasted vote" is the one that doesn't accurately reflect your views; a vote for the lesser of two evils just sends the message that you are willing to settle. Don't settle.

      Fscking-A! That's the wording I need right there!

Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning

Working...