×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Vote" in the unofficial orthogonal presidential straw poll

orthogonal (588627) writes | more than 9 years ago

United States 8

In order to gauge who Slashdotters' opinions in the upcoming United States Presidential election, I've added a series of five user journal entries, immediate "below" this one.

Please indicate which candidate you support for President of The United States by adding a comment to the journal recording tallies for the single candidate you support.

In order, the journals are for supporters of

In order to gauge who Slashdotters' opinions in the upcoming United States Presidential election, I've added a series of five user journal entries, immediate "below" this one.

Please indicate which candidate you support for President of The United States by adding a comment to the journal recording tallies for the single candidate you support.

In order, the journals are for supporters of

Please note that you should indicate the candidate you support even if he or she is not currently on the ballot in your state, or if you are illegible to vote for one reasons of age, residency, citizenship, or civil disability -- the point is to indicate support, not to predict the actual electoral outcome. But is you are illegible to vote, or your preferred candidate is not on the ballot, I'd appreciate your noting that, and the reason you can't vote for whom you support, along with your comment.

If the candidate or party you support is not explicitly listed, please add a comment to the fourth journal entry, "Supporters of a candidate or party not listed above", and begin the subject line of the comment with the party affiliation (if any) and candidate name of the candidate you support.

Please comment only in a single "candidate" journal. You may add a brief sentence indicating the reasons for your support, but please reserve longer advocacy or argument for this journal entry. Anonymous entries, multiple entries, and entries by the same user in more than one tally journal will not be recorded in the final tally of "votes".

(But multiple or anonymous entries commenting on the candidates or on this straw poll are more than welcome in this journal only.)

Thank you for participating in orthogonal's straw poll!

8 comments

[x] The Vote (1)

LPetrazickis (557952) | more than 9 years ago | (#9303610)

I posted this in the Other Party section:
I am Canadian, eh, so I can't vote.


Anyways, I'd support:
- Green Party of the United States [gp.org]
- The Greens [greenparty.org] (a less mainstream variant)
- Socialist Party USA [sp-usa.org]

Other parties are just bleh.:)

Re:[x] The Vote (1)

daniil (775990) | more than 9 years ago | (#9305078)

Other parties are just bleh.:)

The independents [politics1.com] are fun, though ;7 My personal favourites:

Muadin [muadin.com] of the e-Democratic Party (sounds like a Slashbot to me)
"Average Joe" Schriner [voteforjoe.com]
A.J. Albritton [webtv.net]: relocate the federal capitol!
Joseph K. Bellis III [joebellis.com]: the PaleoConservative Voice of America
Andrew M. Rotramel [rotramel.net]: Chomsky for National Security Advisor!

independent - myself (1)

gotih (167327) | more than 9 years ago | (#9306224)

i will vote myself for president on an independent ticket.

i live in california where the democrats will surely win -- my presidential vote will not make a difference. i'll vote for someone more mainstream (green/democrat) in the local and state contests because i don't think it is fair to my constituents to win two offices at once then have to choose.

i encourage people who wouldn't otherwise vote to get out this year and vote yourself for president.

--paid for by the people who don't believe in representational politics.

AAARGH!!! (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#9309245)

I had to post something here as it was such a tremendous effort not to reply to the people on the George Bush side asking "What the fuck are you thinking?!?!?!?!?"

My favorite so far:

You don't switch the horse in midstream. So keep on with GWB for another 4 and keep scarey kerry away from the white house and his "I SUPPORT THE WAR TILL I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR" stance outta here!

Holy crap, what kind of reasoning is that? "You don't switch the horse in midstream"???? I mean, I realize Bush/Dick '04 has said that, but I didn't really think *anybody* would own up to thinking such a thing in this context. Crikey!

Okay, here's my tortured analogy... Say you're coaching a baseball team. The guy at the plate swings at a pitch and misses. Well, of course the rules of the game are that he gets another chance. So this time he refuses to swing at the pitch, runs off to the bullpen where some other pitcher is warming up, and swings at *that* pitch. Well, that's a bit much, but it is still his turn at bat. On the next pitch, he starts hitting you in the face repeatedly with the bat. Do you, at this point, think to yourself "You don't switch the horse in midstream" or do you have him banned from the game for life?

Yes, that really is about how I see it.

Re:AAARGH!!! (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 9 years ago | (#9312221)

Holy crap, what kind of reasoning is that? "You don't switch the horse in midstream"???? I mean, I realize Bush/Dick '04 has said that, but I didn't really think *anybody* would own up to thinking such a thing in this context. Crikey!

And to his second point:
The Iraq war was sold to the American public, Congress, and the world as a war of pre-emptive self-defense because of the WMD threat. If you think otherwise, you have a very short memory.

It's been gradually revealed that the WMD "threat" was concocted by mixing old and/or unreliable intelligence data. Not to mention that the one single piece of actual chemical weaponry found was one shell containing sarin gas that didn't even work properly. Contrast this with the ridiculous pre-war estimates [veteransforpeace.org] of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons.

In light of this drastic gap between reality and the original reasons for war, as given by the Bush administration, it seems perfectly reasonable to change your mind as to whether the war was justified. It seems at least 25-30% of Americans have indeed changed their minds [gallup.com].

But that's all irrelevant. Just go back to screaming "waffler" and flip-flopper [americanprogress.org], and everything will be just fine. Just fine. [/Jello Biafra]

Re:AAARGH!!! (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#9313727)

... the one single piece of actual chemical weaponry found was one shell containing sarin gas that didn't even work properly. Contrast this with the ridiculous pre-war estimates of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons.
I've got to address this point by point:
  • The shell didn't work properly because it wasn't used properly; binary munitions mix their poison-precursors when they are fired from a gun, and not before. If you blow it up you just scatter the precursor chemicals.
  • There probably are hundreds of tons of chemical weapons out there. There have been large stashes of empty chemical shells found, and the shell used in the roadside bomb was not marked. There could be (and given Saddam's record, probably is) lots of stuff even in the arms caches that we've found, and plenty more in those we haven't.
  • It's patently obvious that Saddam was maintaining the capability to produce WMD as soon as the heat was off him. Why else would he keep large numbers of weapons scientists on his payroll and refuse to let them travel outside Iraq?
Nope, Bush was more right than wrong on Iraq (though his execution was bungled twenty-seven ways to a Sunday). Where Bush is wrong is in his failure to oppose the dangerous increase in government spending and his use of pressure to suppress science that doesn't agree with his politics (mercury emissions, stem cells). That is enough to make 100% certain that I will not vote for him.

Illegible to vote (1)

wcbarksdale (621327) | more than 9 years ago | (#9340069)

because the pencil smeared. (Yes, I have nothing better to do than make fun of other people's typos.)

why i changed (1)

Geno Z Heinlein (659438) | more than 9 years ago | (#9368539)

I normally vote libertarian, but my support for libertarian views has been moderated by seven years in the private sector. The Adam Smith assumptions of free information flow, no barriers to entry, and so on, aren't realistic. The most important assumption, that people make the decisions that maximize their long term profits, just isn't true; they maximize their short-term satisfation.

Also, the Republicans have been manipulating elections and making secret deals since at least Watergate. Watergate, Iran-Contra, the 2000 election, the post-9/11 deprivation of civil rights, and the non-existent WMDs in Iraq are the major highlights. Even if I were still leaning libertarian, I would be voting Democrat as emergency surgery to reduce Republican influence.

Plus, Kerry is a self-described internationalist. He comes by this in the most straightforward way possible: he has relations overseas, so he *knows* they're just people like us. This is really important in a world intimately linked by strong economic ties and instantaneous communication. Kerry's internationalism will be a better approach to opening communications and trade than The Pentagon's New Map [esquire.com] and the like.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...