×

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!

Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the love-'em-or-hate-'em dept.

United States 409

Late Tuesday, both the 2012 U.S. election (the popular vote at least) and the 2012 campaign season should be over. Tonight, though, whatever your ability or plans to vote are (see the current poll for a peek at what other readers claim about their intentions), you've got the chance to see one more presidential debate, to be moderated by Ralph Nader, and featuring third-party presidential contenders Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution) and Rock Anderson (Justice). Yes, the same ones featured in another debate a few weeks back. (We promise, this is the last debate of this go-round.) If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

409 comments

A Wasted Vote... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875829)

If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?

Because it's MY vote. I'm told at work that I'm "wasting" my vote by not selecting candidate XXX, but to me, a wasted vote is a vote for something I don't agree with. I like Obama for ending the war in Iraq, I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass, but at the end of the day, the candidates have more in common than not: use of drones, no plan to scale back TSA, overfunding the military, corrupted by Wall Street, etc.

That's a loaded question to ask anyway, its similar to asking, "Why use something other than Apple/Microsoft?" Well, its about personal choice, and its about ideas. Sure, Linux will probably never win on the desktop, but you better fucking believe that Windows and MacOS are better operating systems now than they would have been had Linux never come along. The threat of losing to competition forced a better TCP/IP stack, it forced real security options in Windows, and it forced Apple to reinvent itself as a UNIX OS. And oh by the way, I happen to prefer using KDE over Apple/Windows.

Same thing with the political parties, we have come to believe (as a nation) that R/D are the only legitimate choices, and it has lead to stagnation of ideas and of real work being done. The Federal government is broken, and cannot even pass a budget. But you better believe if Mitt Romney loses the electoral college due to the L vote, the Rs will start to distance themselves from the "abortion" issue and religious nutjobs, maybe start courting non-whites for a change and it will be for the better. Just witness how the Al Gore and the D's came around on the environment when my boy Nader took the election from him in 2000. The mandate for MPGs is going to double what it was 10 years ago, and we are finally subsidizing clean energy instead of oil.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875909)

I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass.

Um, you lost me here, why would a greedy venture capitalist give a flying fuck about open-source software? I just did a google search and found nothing relating to WTF you just said, or are you just a Romney-troll in disguise? In that case, you still aren't changing my vote, the O's are in for FOUR MORE YEARS bitch.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876465)

You are an idiot; plain and simple.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (3, Informative)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876529)

I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass.

Um, you lost me here, why would a greedy venture capitalist give a flying fuck about open-source software? I just did a google search and found nothing relating to WTF you just said, or are you just a Romney-troll in disguise? In that case, you still aren't changing my vote, the O's are in for FOUR MORE YEARS bitch.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060313100529485&mode=print [consortiuminfo.org]

Next time, try using a search engine [duckduckgo.com] instead of a fucking ad engine, dipshit.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (5, Interesting)

blackfireuponus (2026394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876031)

I am also a Nader fan and a 3 time Nader voter, and I'm voting for Jill Stein. A vote for a mainstream candidate in a non contested state is the real wasted vote.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876107)

the fact that there are virtually no third party members in any elected office is the real problem. i've never understood why the libertarians who can't get someone elected as mayor somewhere thinks they have a chance to win the presidential election. and on the wild, impossible chance that a third party one there is no party structure to actually get anything done. the only chance a 3rd party has is by starting small. look at the tea party, in the early 90's religious zealots and small gov types(proto tea partiers) started taking over local school boards because those elections are easy to win if one has even a small bit of organization. this is exactly how michele bachman got where she is today. of the greens and libs and the rest would actually engage the political system instead of having these self absorbed ego fests every 4 years then we might actually see a change. if nader really gave a damn about anything but himself he would have run for mayor of oakland or something and worked his way up.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876319)

Hey assbite, Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico twice and limited by term limits. As a Californian, I'm voting for him. Fuck off with your FUD, American discontent with the existing two-party system is at an all-time high and rising. But I wouldn't judge anybody else who chooses to vote for the third-party candidate of their choice, for they are more principled than the assholes who vote just because they want the other guy to lose.

What America needs is a common-sense, fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform. Gary Johnson's personal and professional experience and accomplishments speak for themselves. And before any of you dismiss third-party candidates as being a "lunatic fringe..."

The Republican and Democrat parties both became "lunatic fringes" long ago, far-removed from the population as a whole. You're fucked either way, but the more votes cast as protest votes, the quicker the change. Real change.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:A Wasted Vote... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876383)

For the nth fucking time, Gary Johnson was a Republican when he was governor. He became the Libertarian Party candidate because he lost the Republican presidential primary.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876557)

Exactly. I stopped supporting the Libertarian platform because I grew up and joined the real world, and realized that most of them were just GOP washouts.

While we would all love to believe that everything would be better if the government stepped out of the way, that isn't true. Human history is inconsistent with this fantasy, and Atlas Shrugged is just about as realistic as Harry Potter. With rare exception, countries with weak central governments are hellholes that no modern American would enjoy living in. Anyone who thinks we can get away with deregulation after 2008 is either a complete moron or at best deluding themselves. Taxes are the price of civilization, and regulatory forces are necessary in order to keep things in check. We need moderates on both sides of the aisle who are willing to balance out how we spend our funds and ensure our policies don't go off the deep end in either direction (Fascism and Communism are equally dangerous).

Re:A Wasted Vote... (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876357)

A vote for a mainstream candidate in a non contested state is the real wasted vote.

I think that a vote for a D or R in a contested state is even more wasted than in a non-contested state. Because the D&Rs dominate the only way to make them adopt change is to scare them into thinking they won't win the state - they have no fear in the states that are not contested.

So if you vote 3rd party based on your conscience this time around and the D or R that you disagree with more wins the state you have exercised the only leverage you have - that a party that doesn't represent you could have had your vote but they effed it up. If they want your vote next election, they need to adopt some of the positions of the 3rd party that you did vote for. Winners keep doing what they were doing because it worked last time. Losers change their tactics in order to try to win next time.

BTW, this is why I think the Tea Party is a sham - they aren't a real party, just a wing of the republican party. You can't vote for a tea party presidential candidate the way you can for a real 3rd party candidate.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876359)

From the perspective of the individual voter, no state is contested. The probability of changing the outcome of a presidential election based on your single vote is astronomical. I.e. the nation as a whole must come down to your state's electoral votes and your state must be within one vote of going either way.

Now, third parties should be careful about campaigning in closely contested states, but this isn't a concern for the individual voter. For example, the Green Party should probably have left Florida alone in 2000. By splitting the environmental vote they allowed Bush to beat Gore. While I support environmentalism, I must say that environmentalists can be one of the most counterproductive groups imaginable...

Re:A Wasted Vote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876523)

Tactical running and voting as you have described is systemic of a broken system. In such a case even considering taking part is morally questionable.

The only tactical argument I accept is the one in favour of efficiency, stating that it is not worth the personal cost of voting (time, gas, et cetera) for the extremely small chance of a change your vote might bring.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876059)

It is nothing like asking "Apple or Microsoft?" You, as an individual, can choose Linux, but it's not like you're gonna get to have Johnson or Stein as your own personal president.

Our election system sucks. It's just about the worst way to choose elected officials. It forces all elections to come down to a binary choice. But wishing and dreaming won't fix it. The rules are the rules, and you have to pick the best strategy within them. Insisting on only moving your pawns one square at a time will lead to disaster, no matter how much you may disagree with the double-move rule.

Now, that said, if you're among the 85% of Americans who don't live in a swing state, then your presidential vote doesn't matter so much anyway, so you might as well try to get some extra funding for your third party of choice for the next cycle.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876147)

Maybe not this election, but if candidates see that X% of voters want $IdeologyOfThirdParty, they'll start pushing that way more, because that few percent could be what wins them the election. So it still has influence, just more long-term.

(There's also that federal funding given to any presidential campaign whose party earned over 5% of the vote in the last election. So once a party reaches that threshold, it could jump up rather quickly.)

Re:A Wasted Vote... (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876539)

Long-term thinking like that doesn't work. If you give up a few presidential cycles working for your twenty year goal, then you'll find that the Overton window has shifted against you, the Supreme Court is stacked with idealogues who'll rule your every move unconstitutional, and the districts are gerrymandered to make taking over Congress impossible.

Like I said before, if you're not in a swing state, then 3rd parties are the way to go, if only to get them federal funding. But if you are in a position where your vote could set the course of the nation for years to come, you'd be a fool to throw that away for some long-term plan that may never come to pass.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876223)

It is nothing like asking "Apple or Microsoft?" You, as an individual, can choose Linux, but it's not like you're gonna get to have Johnson or Stein as your own personal president.

From the POV of the Linux user, it's exactly like Apple or Microsoft. As the Linux user, I am not gonna get Office or Photoshop. I *am* going to be influenced by patent litigation and proprietary codecs, however.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (2)

Molt (116343) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876353)

The majority of desktop machines run Windows, does yours? If not then it's not like the Presidential election where the votes of others count just as much as yours towards who you personally are governed by.

When it comes to choosing which OS to run you are allowed to make your own decisions, in Presidential elections you aren't allowed to choose your leader- you'll be getting the same one as the rest of your nation. As you point out issues with more mainstream OSes will bleed over to affect you but that's in no way the same.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (5, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876133)

Technically, since the Republican and Democratic parties have taken turns, term by term, doing eventually, exactly the same thing the other would do, perhaps sooner, perhaps later, for around a century, we've no reason to consider them separate parties. Minor differences between them have supplied the illusion of a separate entity, all smoke and mirrors, this is a one party system: The Repubmocrats.
        To continually do the same thing over and over, then to expect different results each time is crazy and stupid. Therefore to cast a vote in favor of the presiding one party system is logically a waste of a vote for an improving break of this mad cycle.
You can argue that radical changes would be made by the other parties, I give you that radical changes must be corrected due to our incompetence over the last century. Yeah , it could hurt. Wanna pawn it off on your kids? Grandkids? Want more of the same ol' downward spiral for you and them? Just keep voting Repubmocrat if you do. Frankly, I would vote for a one eyed, hump backed, anarchist Hobbit, if I thought it would mean an end to Repubmocrat tyranny.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876717)

Technically, since the Republican and Democratic parties have taken turns, term by term, doing eventually, exactly the same thing the other would do, perhaps sooner, perhaps later, for around a century, we've no reason to consider them separate parties. Minor differences between them have supplied the illusion of a separate entity, all smoke and mirrors, this is a one party system: The Repubmocrats.

I believe you mean The Democratic-Republican Party [wikipedia.org]. The party split into Democrats and Republicans because the Republicans opposed slavery and the Democrats supported it. Now that slavery's no longer an issue, they can be one happy party again (except the Dems still see racist bogeymen everywhere because they are still racist at heart).

Re:A Wasted Vote... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876261)

I was fully with you until the lack of a car analogy.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876343)

A third-party vote, even if it is not destined to designate the winner, can also be a strategic decision, not just a "wasted vote".

A significant vote for a third party sends a very strong message to the powers-that-be: you are messing up.

They listen. They have to, if they want to be elected again.

Further, a vote for a third-party candidate can help set up a better atmosphere for another third-party candidate 4 years from now.

According to polls, approximately 20% of the voting American public identify themselves as "independent" (in this case meaning they do not support the "Big 2"). That is the largest number in history.

According to other studies, it only takes 10% to make major changes, if they are persistent and sincere. We have twice that now.

Look out, Big 2.

And you can bet that I won't be voting for either of them. They're both so bad as to be laughable. Or they would be, if it weren't so tragic.

--
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Re:A Wasted Vote... (2)

swampfriend (2629073) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876377)

Keep in mind that Obama took 55% of the popular vote in 2008, but with a 62% turnout, only about 34% of eligible citizens supported him enough to go vote for him. The two major parties simply do not represent majorities in this country.

Re:A Wasted Vote... (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876435)

I live on the west coast. So by the logic people use against 3rd parties, any vote not for whatever Democrat is running this time is also a wasted vote.

OHHHHH canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876643)

it was real nice up here in canada when we had a minority govt ergo the party with most seats had not a majority. IT meant they actually had to work together to get stuff done and stuff that would not lose any of them votes should a election be forced or called. IT also means bad legislation can't get done....or gets a better look at and killed....

Waves form the 6th best nation on earth ( yea them peeps form norway are still number one )

Re:A Wasted Vote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876647)

Votes for Democrat or Republican candidates are the real wasted votes.

Tomorrow night? (3, Informative)

tooyoung (853621) | about a year and a half ago | (#41875871)

Won't the election be over on Tuesday?

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

aaron44126 (2631375) | about a year and a half ago | (#41875889)

For most of the world it's already Monday, so tomorrow is Tuesday. :-)

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876185)

Most of the world isn't participating in the U.S. elections*.

*Unless they're trans-national corporations, courtesy of the Citizens United decision.

Re:Tomorrow night? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876201)

For 100% of the nation whose election, being discussed here, is on Tuesday, it is Sunday for at least 4 more hours. It's fine to talk from your own time zone perspective on many topics, but an American election should probably be discussed from the time zone perspective of America.

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876239)

Right. And it wasn't Monday in most of the world anyway, when OP wrote his piece.

So it's just wrong. Tomorrow is not election day. Tuesday is.

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875977)

Won't the election be over on Tuesday?

Yes, except in Florida.

Re:Tomorrow night? (2)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876125)

Won't the election be over on Tuesday?

The President is elected by the Electoral College [wikipedia.org]; the Electors, chosen by the voters tomorrow, meet in their own state capitals on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 12, for this year) and cast their votes on separate ballots, one for the President and the other for the Vice President. Unofficially, we'll know tomorrow night. If it's an unusually close or controversial election, then we'll know after December 12, 2012.

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876265)

"... the Electors, chosen by the voters tomorrow, meet in their own state capitals..."

No, even though that is the way it is described in Wikipedia, that is incorrect.

The people vote for who they want to win the election. Not for Electors. The Electors then decide who THEY will vote for. They are not bound by the choices of the people. Regardless, the people vote for political candidates, not electors.

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876297)

Actually several States have passed laws requiring Electors to cast their votes for whomever wins the popular vote in their State. Thus several ARE bound by the choices of the people. In theory, anyway.

Re:Tomorrow night? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876469)

I should have qualified that. There is no Federal requirement that electors vote any particular way. But as far as I know there is nothing keeping states from passing such legislation.

Re:Tomorrow night? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876495)

Yes, the election is on Tuesday, but by late tomorrow all of the voting machines will have been rigged.

Re:Tomorrow night? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876519)

Yes, election is Tuesday Nov. 6th.

I'm voting AGAINST Romney (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875893)

Because I don't want a Mormon nutjob who treats women like
objects and carries his dog on the roof of the car and does his level best to
dodge taxes and screw the little guy while he himself makes many millions.

Romney is not fit to lead a country. If he is elected, you will find out that you made
a terrible mistake if you voted for him.

If Romney is elected it may well be the spark for revolution in the US. Don't say I
didn't warn you. There are a lot of have-nots and they are tired of seeing scum like
Romney live off their sweat.

Re:I'm voting AGAINST whitey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875937)

Romney is such a fucking white douche, too bad his daughters are sucking off brothas.

Re:I'm voting AGAINST whitey (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876015)

Does Romney have any daughters? I know that he has five sons.

Re:I'm voting AGAINST whitey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876459)

None that he can afford to admit.

Odds of some hanky-panky that resulted in a crying baby? High.

Odds of one of them being a girl? Moderate.

And that's not even speculating his secret polygamy.

Pompous idiot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875915)

Nader is the pompous idiot who gavels 8 years of George Bush

Re:Pompous idiot (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876321)

Nader is the pompous idiot who gavels 8 years of George Bush

I'm going to dream of a mallet wielding Nadar smacking George, with a clown horn sound every time he connects. Not because of your post, that's just the way I roll.

ON DELETING POSTS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875931)

So who has the power to just outright delete posts here on Slashdot? I thought moderation is in the hands of random users.

I made a comment back in the Chinese Stealth Fighter thread, and my post was deleted, but all the responses to it were kept intact.

Sometimes the first comment I'll read in a thread is "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" or some such, and stuff like that the moderators couldn't care less about. But as soon as you post a "subversive" political view, then your post magically disappears. WTF is that all about??

For a sight that styles itself on no-holds-barred expression of opinions, the Thought Police are very active here.

Re:ON DELETING POSTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41875989)

Just FYI, the post which magically disappeared was a comment by me about how the last time Obama ran for election, the Repuglican Whitehouse pulled an "October Surprise" maneuver by getting their overseas flunky Saakashvili to start a war with Russia, so that McCain could quickly pounce on the event and scare voters to vote Republican (aka "Oh Noez! The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! VOTE GOP!!!"

My post was magically deleted, but all the rebuttals to it were kept preserved. That's pretty corrupt "moderation", if you ask me.

Re:ON DELETING POSTS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876395)

So who has the power to just outright delete posts here on Slashdot? I thought moderation is in the hands of random users.

I made a comment back in the Chinese Stealth Fighter thread, and my post was deleted, but all the responses to it were kept intact.

...

For a sight that styles itself on no-holds-barred expression of opinions, the Thought Police are very active here.

So I'm not the only one to notice this; this started happening to me a couple weeks ago. After making a meaningfully informative but politically contrary comment about a mainstream special interest group (thin skinned isolationist beyond constructive criticism), an AC "working" at Slashdot misinterpreting the comment, made a classic hater reply that put more into it than it deserved, then proceeded to "disappear" a lot of my posts, block/disappear additional posts and prevented my ability to view any additional comments made in the same story. Also, in other articles I'm following, I've occasionally noticed other unrelated comments or whole threads disappearing.

Who cares? (0)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#41875941)

Disgruntled dead enders for the most part. Between the stoners, anarchists, angry trustafarians, millionaire communists and all the rest, who gives a shit.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876001)

The millions of people who don't give a fuck about the main two parties and their destructive partnership. Keep being that uninformed voter voting for the same people each election only to ask why hasn't it gotten better.

Re:Who cares? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876301)

Well in my country (Australia) we have preferential voting. Every vote for a minority 'counts' in that each electorate ultimately selects which of the 2 candidates is the least bad.

2 years ago an interesting phenomenon occurred. Loosely aligned to the two party system Labor (Democrats), Liberal/National (Republicans) - our two main political groups both 'lost' the election. A deal was done with a handful of independents and a Green to form a minority government. Ever since, the ones forming an opposition have whined constantly about being held hostage to a few despite a majority of voters too rejecting their agenda and having unveiled only 1 policy (on maternity leave) in that time.

Some of us would hope the status quo remains and neither achieves a majority at any subsequent election.

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876019)

go fuck yourself.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876111)

Disgruntled dead enders for the most part. Between the stoners, anarchists, angry trustafarians, millionaire communists and all the rest, who gives a shit.

You sir, are a complete douche-bag troll. At the very least, 10 percent of the nation has become aware of their surroundings in the past few years. It is people like you who hold all of us back by promoting a system of corruption. Most of those "stoners" and "anarchists" that you reference have magnitudes of order more to offer than yourself when it comes to intelligent assessments of our current system and ideas to improve it.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876281)

They have deliberately twisted things so that you don't care.

So... that makes you not care? That makes you not just a sheep, but a manipulated, castrated sheep.

Anybody for some mutton?

Easy answer (5, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41875967)

If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?

Easy: Romney wants to control your bedroom (marriage, abortion, etc), and Obama wants to control your bank account. Not to mention in the debates they both have either lied out of their asses or refused to provide real answers/details to any policy question.

Bollocks (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876037)

Obama wants the top tax bracket to go up 3%. That's it. It was higher under Reagan.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876287)

He also is increasing taxes on the lower and middle class with the health care plan. First of all, I am against a national plan. I can't afford health insurance right now, and would rather do without as I don't feel it is right for everyone else to subsidize it and pay for it for me. What makes it worse is that I am penalized for not even being able to afford the insurance. I can't afford it so they are going to fine me for it?

Re:Bollocks (4, Informative)

lexman098 (1983842) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876385)

I can't afford health insurance right now, and would rather do without as I don't feel it is right for everyone else to subsidize it and pay for it for me. What makes it worse is that I am penalized for not even being able to afford the insurance.

This pretty much sums up the misinformation surrounding obamacare. Let me guess, you're too poor to afford insurance without your employer helping out, but still not poor enough to qualify for medicaid. The affordable care act was built with you in mind, my friend. It's actually less efficient for everyone else to let people like you go without insurance, so the affordable care act is going to (hopefully) make it cheaper for you to buy insurance from the exchange or at least require your employer to help out. You won't be "fined for being poor" unless you're ignorant ideology prevents you from taking advantage.

Re:Bollocks (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876455)

I can't afford health insurance right now, and would rather do without as I don't feel it is right for everyone else to subsidize it and pay for it for me. What makes it worse is that I am penalized for not even being able to afford the insurance.

This pretty much sums up the misinformation surrounding obamacare. Let me guess, you're too poor to afford insurance without your employer helping out, but still not poor enough to qualify for medicaid.

Nope. Work part time, live at home, and turn 26 this month. No company provides health care for part time employees, and with this shitty economy I can't get a full time job even with a Master's degree.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876397)

I can't afford health insurance right now, and would rather do without

yeah, yeah, and then when your appendix explodes you're not going to just lie there and die, you're going to call 911 and get rushed to the hospital and rack up $50,000 in medical bills and declare personal bankruptcy and then everyone else has to pay for your care anyway.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876423)

I can't afford health insurance right now, and would rather do without

yeah, yeah, and then when your appendix explodes you're not going to just lie there and die, you're going to call 911 and get rushed to the hospital and rack up $50,000 in medical bills and declare personal bankruptcy and then everyone else has to pay for your care anyway.

No. If that happens, they can take all my assets, and go after my family's assets as well. It's called personal responsibility. If I make a choice, I should have to deal with the consequences.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876547)

They can only go after your assets, not your family's. And if you can afford to pay $50000 for appendix operation through your own assets, why not pay for insurance?

Re:Bollocks (1)

glwtta (532858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876591)

If you can't afford health insurance, I'm not exactly salivating over the prospect of collecting your vast assets.

And what does your family have to do with anything? Were they responsible for your decisions?

Like it or not, your choices do affect the rest of us in this case.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876629)

If you can't afford health insurance, I'm not exactly salivating over the prospect of collecting your vast assets.

Car, furniture, various electronics, some firearms that were given to me by relatives, etc. It all comes out to a decent amount of money, probably around 10k, but they aren't things that I can easily give up or turn into liquidity to purchase insurance, or anything else for that matter.

Personal responsibility is great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876723)

Personal responsibility is great. We just need to change the law, so that you can't take the easy way out and change the classification of healthcare expenses to non-dischargable debt and get rid of the bankruptcy option and just garnish your wadges till shit's paid for.

You know personal responsibility.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876563)

You're not penalized for that, idiot. The healthcare law specifies that if you're too poor to afford health insurance you will receive a tax credit towards paying for it.

Re:Bollocks (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876363)

There are many more ways to reach into your wallet than just taxes (which you would know if you knew anything about the subject at all). And Obama has been pushing ALL of them.

Get a clue.

Re:Easy answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876345)

Obama wants to control just your bank account? Could you explain all those ads that he's been running then especially the "lady parts" ads, and "voting is like virginity" ads, and not to forget that they've tied up with Fluke who can't afford $9/mo for birth control(that's cheaper than it is here in Canada). Seems to me that's more control than Romney.

obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876675)

no far worse he wants to control the mind ergo IP law
romney wants to point a gun at you and obama wants to point a lawyer at you.
both destroy you one way or the other.

its why everyone should stop voting and get a pitch fork

It's a $1 one vote system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876033)

... so unless you are extremely wealthy, good luck changing anything in DC.

for some things, less is not more! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876035)

I am Greek - in my country (birthplace of Democracy... but you know that!), and in our last elections few months ago, we had about 35 parties to choose from, and from them there are 7 in the parliament (there is a 3% minimum of total votes requirement for geting there), and from those 7 parties 3 of them are forming the goverment... and still, for many citizens there is not a party that fully represents them.
I believe that you have a much better Democracy in the USA than ours, but thats because you are better quality citizens - you should really check this multiple parties thing... it will make your Democracy even more better.

Re:for some things, less is not more! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876233)

Look how well it's working out for Greece... Oh, never mind, i'm sure your democracy will be great in your soon to be 3rd world country

Re:for some things, less is not more! (1)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876249)

I believe that you have a much better Democracy in the USA than ours, but thats because you are better quality citizens

Uh, what? Care to elaborate?

Re:for some things, less is not more! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876389)

"... you should really check this multiple parties thing... it will make your Democracy even more better."

We already have multiple parties. Some of them have people in Congress. We just haven't had a President from any of them lately. But... although we are traditionally a country of 2 main parties, there is no actual law to that effect. And in fact the "Big 2" parties have not always been the same 2 parties. They can be, and have been, replaced.

But the current "Big 2" have put in place barriers for others. If we want to have real change here, we MUST have a 3rd-party President. That will get the ball rolling.

South Florida independent voter here... (5, Interesting)

belgo (72693) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876095)

... and I was just voting my conscience (last Sunday, during early voting, as it happened). The two 'major' parties both want to send your children to die in countries that did not attack us in 2001, and both parties enjoy ordering record numbers of wiretaps, both with and without warrants, every single year. Both 'major' parties are also huge, huge fans of welfare, as long as the recipients are banks. I know one of them will win (and given their similarities, it doesn't matter which). But I'll sleep better knowing I had no part in endorsing their sociopathy.

Re:South Florida independent voter here... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876405)

"... and both parties enjoy ordering record numbers of wiretaps..."

Not to mention hookers. Also without warrants.

Peace (3, Insightful)

JackPepper (1603563) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876121)

If I can get a ballot, I am voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. He would pull all the troops (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.) home right away and stop the drone strikes. That's enough for me. How do Democrats or Republicans expect people to believe in their government, when their government continues to murder innocent civilians in other countries?

Dammit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876137)

Just stop already. a 3rd party is a fucking joke. and it's an old joke now. a sad joke at the expense of hope.

Voting is just the bread and circuses to keep us busy. AND IT KEEPS FUCKING WORKING!
The system is not going to change until we ALL stop voting D and R.

Fuck even here on slashdot every damm topic devolves into a D/R flamewar.

There is no '3rd party'. Its just some other people who would like to get elected and stand no chance in hell of that happening. Just stop already.

7:30pm ET techincal difficulty? (1)

colfer (619105) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876143)

The debate is supposed to have started at 7:30pm Eastern. The sites are not working.

I don't know about you all (0, Troll)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876215)

But I'm voting for Romney [wikimedia.org]!

Re:I don't know about you all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876607)

Troll

Hey, idiot moderator, did you even try to check the guy's real name?

Why vote third party? (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876231)

If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?

Maybe it's because I only see minor differences between the two major parties. Under both the D's & R's, the size & scope of government has increased, and our liberties are being decreased. What liberties you ask? How about the right to have medical marijuana in a state where the voters have decided it should be legal, but the Feds are conducting record numbers of raids? How about not having a presumption of guilt when trying to travel via airplane? How about the right to not be spied on without due process? That's just the start. I'm not 100% libertarian, but I'll still be casting my vote for all of the LP's candidates on my ballot. We need competition in the political marketplace just like we do in the financial marketplace.

Re:Why vote third party? (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876571)

You should be glad you're not getting the full attention of the federally mandated "civil liberties", like the one to indefinite detention [wired.com]. Once your right to be a free citizen can be taken away without a trial, the rest of your rights are pretty minor, and you'll need more than medical marijuana to make the detention trip fun. If anything I'd like to see more state rebellion against the mandates of the federal government, in hopes our whole government deadlocks rather than keeping up the Change it's been enacting recently.

not the last debate; one more 11/5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876253)

There is another presidential debate between Jill Stein and Gary Johnson tomorrow night (Monday 11/5), hosted by Free&Equal.

You faIl i&t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876273)

All majo_r markEting

Vote 3rd party (1)

FrankHS (835148) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876317)

Neither of the candidates represent me. I am a liberal who wants maximum freedom. While I will vote peace and freedom, I have much more in common with both the peace and freedom part and the libertarian party than either the democrats or the republicans.

Both the democrats and the republicans are owned by special interests (read people richer that 99% of the people). It's not even a secret. the solicit campaign contributions (bribes) openly.

So why give either one your vote?

The key issue for me is integrity (1)

jtw78 (2555926) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876337)

I voted (by mail in Oregon) for Johnson (LIB). Though there are some things he's for that I don't agree with, he's consistent with his beliefs and actions. I can't say the same for either Romney or Obama. I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who lies, goes back on their word, and doesn't feel like it's a big deal. I realize that I'm basically saying I don't want to participate in the American political system since so many of the politicians are without integrity. I'm not quite ready to give up on the whole thing, but it's getting close.

I wish I could give up on my party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876379)

But the issues that President Obama has taken a stand on, like gay marriage, are too important for me to pass up right now. I mean, we all talk about personal liberties being taken away-- imagine if you were gay! Not being able to see your spouse in the ****ing hospital. That's not acceptable. That's a clear choice, for me. I know, I wish we could have so many other things right now.. but there enough issues at stake here that even though I wish we had more parties, or better yet a direct democracy and no politicians at all.. I've got to vote against bigotry and hatred, and the way for me to do that is pretty obvious.

Re:I wish I could give up on my party (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876623)

Yes, Obama has been very clear, you're allowed to see your gay spouse, no problem, unless one of you is considered a terrorist. Then it's off to indefinite detention [aclu.org] for them with no trial, as approved by the man himself. The reason to support a third party here is very simple. Obama has trashed the ultimate civil liberty, the right to be a free citizen. The only acceptable platform for Romney would start be "I will eliminate Obama's destruction of civil liberties". Since it's not, a vote for either is agreeing that's acceptable behavior. That's why 3rd-party candidates are needed, to provide some alternative to the madness of both existing major parties. Picking one based on trivia like gay rights is ridiculous when this situation exists.

Conscience (3, Informative)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876381)

I'm voting Gary Johnson (L) because I'm impressed with his accomplishments and agree with his philosophy.

End the wars, legalize and tax drugs, practice fiscal responsibility.

He's a self-made millionaire businessman who also has an excellent record as a 2-term governor. He was praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike for being able to work with all parties and get the job done.

His bio and record speak for themselves:

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about [garyjohnson2012.com]

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record [garyjohnson2012.com]

Here's the Problem (4, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876425)

I agree that you should vote for somebody you believe in, even if they have no chance of winning. My problem is that I can't believe in any of these bozos. Just picture any one of them in the White House. Could they govern? They could not.

  The U.S. isn't an elected dictatorship — POTUS has to govern in tandem with Congress. If you're not satisfied with the current crowd, you need to replace the whole crowd, not just one guy. You have to work on electing Congresspeople who reflect your views. If you're not willing to do that, all this crap with fring Presidential candidates is a waste of time.

In case anyone missed it... (4, Informative)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876443)

In case anyone missed the 4-way debate moderated by Larry King in Chicago on 2012-10-23:

https://kat.ph/torrents/20121023-full-third-party-presidential-debate-yt-avi-t6769764/ [kat.ph]

All of the presidential candidates' social/economic ideologies are graphed here. [politicalcompass.org] [Note the proximity of the two corporate parties' candidates.]

Please—especially if you live in an uncontested state—vote for the best candidate, not the second-least-worst candidate; our country (and especially our civil liberties) have taken just about all the "lesser evil" that can be withstood.

This quiz can help you determine which candidate best matches your own ideology. [isidewith.com]

Why I don't limit my votes to "major" candidates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876471)

I'll be voting Libertarian (Johnson). My preferences fall between the stereotypical Republican and Democrat -- I agree with each of them on some issues, but I lean towards Democrats. Since I don't have a strong preference for one over the other, it's easy for me to vote for neither. I am opposed to the two-party consensus on a number of important issues and want to open up the debate on those issues. The major issues that concern me are our global military deployments, the concentration of power in the Presidency, and the drug war (and the associated destabilization of Mexico). I hoped Obama would make progress on these points, but he hasn't. With the Fiscal Cliff, the established parties have demonstrated that they are not the "responsible grown-ups" that they pretend to be.

More fundamentally, I think that voting is wholly symbolic. It is irrational to treat it as a strategic decision.

My voting plans? (3, Informative)

King_TJ (85913) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876487)

I, too, have no plans to vote for either Obama or Romney. I think a vote should only be cast for someone you're confident is a good choice for running the country. Neither one of these people have shown they deserve the title of President, IMO.

I really dislike that "vote for the lesser of two evils" concept. People have been doing that for a long time now, and that's largely how we got to the mess we're in today!

It seems to me that the current system has a razor sharp focus on ensuring everything quickly comes down to only 2 remaining viable candidates, at all costs. If a 3rd. party shows promise, the media or members of one of the two established parties pull out all the stops to discredit him or her. They want politics to run just like our sports teams ... only 2 teams on the field fighting it out to see who wins. No matter how many teams play each other in a season, it has to come down to only two in the end, to declare someone the winner.

Until this changes, the American people really aren't able to vote for the type of government they want. They're only able to pick from two people pre-selected for them by the elite (meaning those with enough money and influence to boil the choices down to the final two they want to see you pick from). And sure, you CAN vote for a 3rd. party candidate (and I almost always do so). But we all know it's currently nothing more than a small display of contempt for the status quo system. I really doubt any sane person voting for, say, Gary Johnson, believes he really has a decent shot at winning.

Still, that's fine with me. You don't earn a prize for having voted for the guy who winds up winning.

Voting Democrat or Republican is a spoiler vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876507)

Dem or Repub, what a waste of a vote. You being afraid to cast your vote for the candidate/party that comes closest to your own positions is a wasted vote, and only ensures more of the same corruption and corporate kowtowing we see with the Dem and Repub politicians.

Anyone who votes Dem or Repub, and has misgivings is the problem. You are to blame for the mess we have in politics.

Lets break the corporate parties' stranglehold on politics in this country. Then we can make institutional changes that will protect our interests long-term: proportional representation, rank choice ballots, classify private campaign contributions as what it is-- bribery, real debates, etc.

Vote for one of these (unless you're in FL or OH) (3, Interesting)

jemenake (595948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41876635)

If you're at all interested in getting more ideas out into the national consciousness (and if you're living in a state that Obama or Romney has a lock on), consider voting for a third-party candidate. Because of the electoral system, it's not going to change who wins the election, but it can increase the chances that one of these candidates gets a spot at some future televised debate. Once upon a time, the debates were sponsored by the National Organization of Women... and now they're run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (which is run by the Democratic and Republican parties). Being a bit of a cartel, they've managed to stipulate that the only invitees to debate must get at least 15% representation in various national polls (another classic case of the successful pulling up the ladder they used to climb to the top).

Now, we could argue the game theory of elections and I'd have to concede that it's always going to devolve into two parties (like how tea-partiers, when the chips are really down, vote for the republican because the alternative, a democrat, would be, to them, the apocalypse), but part of how those two parties stay on top is by having a "big tent" and trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of views (okay... and also by not really specifying what their views are). And I think that, if other candidates are able to get up with the "big boys" and put forward their views, then that's more exposure... and maybe some of those views might have to get some recognition from one of the major parties.

Frankly, after visiting ISideWith.com, I was blown away at how congruent my views are with the Green candidate, Jill Stein... to the point where I really wish more people knew that there was a candidate that was, potentially, so suited to their views. Same goes for Gary Johnson. He's not my cup of tea, but I really wish the socially-liberal/economically-conservative republican voters out there were more aware that they didn't necessarily need to throw gays and women under the bus in exchange for getting capital-gains and inheritance taxes abolished. And maybe a stronger-than-expected showing in the election will provide the social proof for some more people to look into what's up with this (Libertarian|Green|Justice| Constitution) thing.

Of course, as I said in the subject, if you live in a swing state, then ignore the preceding rant and get your state swinging.

Symbolic voting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876651)

Voting in the U.S. is symbolic in many ways mostly since we are voting ambiguously for the electoral college not for the president. However, despite a common ground between the parties on many issues I disagree with (security state, neoliberal policies), there are enough differences (regulating sexuality and womens' bodies) that I am voting for one of the big 2. Furthermore, I would argue that since we don't have parliamentary system which allows small parties to form coalitions among themselves, voting for a 3rd party at the national level is throwing away the vote. The smarter strategy is to build organizations that can move the national parties in desired directions. Both parties are coalitions in and of themselves, so the influence at this time is to organize within the power blocs.

Waste of a vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41876689)

Half of America doesn't even know there's more than two parties. Voting is a waste of a vote regardless because America is nothing but a one party system with two identities.

Load More 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...