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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 607

He had much better numbers than either Johnson or Stein and even he got soundly trounced.

He was running below Johnson heading into the first debate, which the major candidates unwisely invited him to. He also had millions to spend on prime time TV infomercials.

Johnson is woefully ignorant on foreign affairs

He's certainly not as strong as a former Secretary of State! I mean, few people alive are going to have as much expertise as Hillary in that department. But his brain farts notwithstanding, he was at least a governor from a border state. He's probably more qualified than Bill Clinton was in this area. I mean, this is why there is a Secretary of State - the president doesn't need to be an expert on all things. He could certainly smack Hillary around on immigration.

So I'm voting strategically.

Yes, but in the process you are supporting the status quo. That's fine if you think it is your best option, but I think we are on the wrong path in the areas of foreign policy, debt, civil liberties (especially domestic spying and the dual wars on drugs and terror), corporate and union money in politics, "free trade" rather than "free markets", etc. Hillary is essentially a living embodiment of the establishment.

And it's ignorant to not recognize and understand that.

That's not very nice.

Comment Re:Least worst (Score 1) 607

Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time.

The practical difference is exactly the same as voting for Trump in California. It's pointless and a waste of time, but millions will still do it. He can't win in CA - it's effectively a one-party state as far as presidential politics go and it's winner-take-all to boot.

There are far better ways to make yourself heard than through a protest vote for a fringe candidate.

I'd be terrible in politics, but I did donate money and if the Libertarians get enough votes they'll be marginally less "fringe" next time around, qualifying for federal funds and automatic ballot access.

It's an inevitable function of how our voting system is set up.

It's only set up that way because we keep voting for people who like it the way it is.

In this election Hillary is clearly the least worst option when the alternative is Trump

I'll agree that she's by far the more qualified candidate. But I'm not sure the country would be better off in the long term with her as president. Trump would, I think, be a disaster and would result in a lot of change. Some of that change might be good. At the very least, it would be a release of some steam. Hillary will continue with the status quo, pressure will continue to build up, and the next election will be even more dangerous than this one.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 607

I wasn't comfortable with Bernie's demagoguery and pandering to the people who think all of life's problems begin on Wall Street, but I voted for him because he had a lot of other good points (mainly on foreign affairs, protection of liberty, and his amendment to end corporate and union citizenship). Don't get too hung up on a politician trying to toe the line on turning off a block of potential votes - all the incentives are wrong for that.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 607

I'm not going to defend Trump, but you are just speculating. He might go all Ronald Reagan and delegate everything, like he has done with his business. Who knows? He has no track record to judge him on. I reckon he'd be a disaster, but not in a world-ending sense.

My point wasn't to defend Trump, but rather to point out that the problems that brought him to prominence are not going to go away with the election of Clinton. In fact, they would probably continue to get worse. Letting off some pressure now might be preferable to letting it build, that's all.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 607

could very well end democracy.

I'd argue that the forces that created the possibility of a Trump/Sanders presidency are more dangerous than those candidates individually. As such, a vote for Hillary is probably worse in the long term. At least Trump would be such a disaster that it would force change. Trump might not be back next time, but someone adept at harnessing pent-up frustration and anger sure will be.

Comment Re:Two candidates (Score 4, Insightful) 607

If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.

Or to put it another way, you wouldn't tell a Trump voter in Massachusetts not to vote. Trump has a zero percent chance of winning in Massachusetts, but millions will still vote for him even though their vote is "wasted". You can say the same thing about Hillary voters in much of the south. Their candidate can't win in their state, but they'll still go out to the polls and make their voice heard.

The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 607

I'm not a fan of Stein, but she seems like a reasonable alternative if you liked what Bernie was saying, and she's definitely not a career politician if that's a turn-off. She has no experience, but neither does Trump. Johnson is a pretty solid ticket. Yeah, he was a Republican governor, but in a Democratic state. And he apparently was not polarizing, getting elected to a second term and working hand-in-hand with the Democratic legislature to leave the state in good shape. His running mate Weld has a similar story in Massachusetts.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 607

Your ire is directed to the wrong countries. The USA has been reducing it's nuclear stockpile since the 70s. Russia since the late 80s. The same is true of France, the UK - hell, even China has been stable since the 80s. The countries that you criticize have been doing the right thing, more or less, for decades. India, Pakistan, and North Korea are the ones building new capacity. Modernizing existing capacity is necessary - you can't very well maintain 50-year-old missiles in perpetuity.

Comment Re:Agreed and Disagreed (Score 1) 651

Medicine is not perfect. Thalidomide did in fact harm people. But unlike quackery, the scientific basis behind medicine caused people to stop using thalidomide on pregnant women. With quackery, they still dilute magic potions 100 years after the concept was debunked. Obviously if I can't convince you that vaccines work, we can't really progress along the line of how they are best implemented. If we're past that point, why even bring it up?

Slashdot Top Deals

Unix will self-destruct in five seconds... 4... 3... 2... 1...