Well, I'm supposed to believe because I'm going to
vote for Nader that ultimately I'm voting for Bush...
This only encourages me more that the democratic party
is really frightened by Nader... I say GOOD!!!
Nader is an advocate for the consumer which though
hashed over again and again is a good viewpoint to
have. He is also for economic equality and maybe most
importantly, removing the corporate control of our
representative government. Oh, occasionally the
government smacks a corporation with a fine or a fee
AFTER the many wrongs that they've committed but for
the most part elected officials work for the money.
Nader has been fighting big business for 37 years and is responsible for
pushing through congress many laws including, but not limited to, the Freedom
of Information Act.
We need to have an alternative to the republican/democrat duoploly. With the
support that Nader has today, he has the best chance of any of the alternate
candidates to achieve the minimum 5% populist vote that will make the Green
party a recognized party and earn federal funding in the 2004 election.
Harry Browne and the Libertarians are the way to go. Government should be
about national defense and public protection and that's that.
In my opinion, Ralph Nader would be the ideal candidate to waste a vote
on. Even if you don't agree with anything he has to say, he is most
likely going to recieve the most votes of any and candidate other than
Gore or Bush. Enough votes for a third party will hopefully do two
things: raise awarness that there are alternatives to the major two
parties, and hopefully make the Democrats and Republicans nervous enough
that in the future they'll listen more to the people than to the corpies
Neither Gore nor Bush will get my vote. This registered Democrat is
going with Nader. I am very concerned about what kind of place America
will be for my kids, and I don't think I want it to be the sort of place
where men like Gore or Bush can even get NOMINATED, never mind elected.
I'd go for Ralph Nader of all the possible candidate he's
the one that freaks me out the least. Now I'm not actually living in
America, so my angle is a little different, but Nader seems to be a lot
less megalomaniacal than the other candidates. George Bush is esp. scary.
Also I understand Nader is the outsider with the best chance of actually
winning (at least he's the only "alternate" candidtate we've heard about in
the media over here.)
I have several reasons I am voting for him, but to avoid a long email, I'll
just mention two very important ones. I am voting for Nader because he sees
the problems with these megacorp powers, and I think he will fight for the
people (Gore and Bush are both Valenti-like corporate puppets). I am also
casting my vote for him because of all third party candidates, I feel he has
the best chance of getting that crucial 5% of the national vote so that the
Green party will have federal funding for the next election campaign.
Candidate: Harry Browne
Why: Smaller government
I will be voting for Harry Browne in this upcoming election. I have been
a Libertarian for quite some time, and maybe that has shaped the
direction of my research for this election. I believe that our
constitution does not call for a huge and bloated government like the
one we have now.
One of the biggest appeals of Harry Browne is that he wants to abolish
all the laws that our federal government does not have the power to
make. This would include the DMCA.
Any vote for a third party is a
vote of distrust for the two ruling parties. When they start losing
enough votes to third parties they might start to pay attention to the
desires of Americans and not Political Action Committees.
NO argument from me about your premise that a vote for
either Gore or Bush is a vote for the status quo. Both of
these guys owe their political souls to the largest
corporations in the U.S.
Seats at their thousand-dollar-a-plate fund raiser/dinners
are filled with the very same people.
I'm voting for Ralph Nader. His record is a long string of
accomplishments that put individual civil liberites and
consumer rights at the top of the list of national
priorities. One of his concerns is elections themselves. He
wants to end our current insanity of selling the presidency
to the highest bidder. His plan is to give all
duly-qualified presidential cnadidates equal air time.
Of course, he won't win this year. One of the reasons he's
running, however, is to win five percent of the vote, which
will qualify his party (Green) to receive federal funds in
the next race. Another of his goals is to establish a solid
national base of support made up of people who will serve as
watchdogs, watching whoever does win this year's election,
holding their feet to the fire, as the expression goes.
Well, this has been quite the moral dilema. Living in Minnesota, a
supposed "swing state" it has been tough to avoid the "lesser of two
evils" line of reasoning and vote Gore merely because Bush gives me
nightmares. However, Gore is also an evil man, and I have decided that I
could not feel like a good person having voted for him..
Now.. one less vote for Gore means a slightly higher chance of a Bush
victory. A Bush victory could be disasterous - I'm guessing the kind of
supreme court justices that would repeal Roe V Wade would probably not
understand DeCSS. So.. what does that mean? Perhaps its time for an
American revolution. It is my belief that if Dubya is elected, we may see
a revolution along the lines of those that swept Europe in the 19th
century. What makes america immune to a coup? Only time will tell I
Here's my vote, and my reason...
Ralph Nader - "Government Of, By, And For The People ... Not Monied
I will vote for GW Bush because I think that Gore has trouble telling the
truth and he has been painted with the same brush as Clinton. The country
needs a change and lets reduce big government once and for all.
I am a registered Libertarian and I will be voting for Harry Browne this year
because he is the "ONLY" candidate that wants to get the government out of
our lives. Big Government has gotten the government into our daily lives,
and the only way to stop that is by electing candidates that will support
You can't go East by heading West, so if you want the government out of your
life you must not vote for those making government bigger. That only leaves
one candidate, and that is Harry Browne.
I'm definitely voting Ralph Nader, and I believe the hacker community has
excellent reasons to support him:
Nader is the most outspoken critic of the increasing power of corporations;
he firmly advocates reforms to hold them accountable for their outrageous
behavior. (Nader has in fact battled massive corporate entities in court,
most notably the US auto industry--whom he forced to adapt long-needed
safety measures in cars.)
Nader vehemently opposes the two-party duopoly. He demands reforms against
all corporate political donations--which are obviously paid back by
Republicrats with laws such as the DMCA. Nader being amongst the most
uncompromising consumer advocates, he would no doubt fight such outrageous
legislature (that so readily passed through the Republicrat congress.)
Finally, Nader really scares the big parties. They were afraid enough of
him SPEAKING to America to shut him out of the debates, twice, even as
spectator with a ticket! Why? Because Ralph could bring their comfortable
sleepover with corporations (at the expense of our rights) to an end.
Nader advocates adding .sucks, .union, and various other domain extensions,
which would make it impossible (and illegal) for companies to silence their
critics--sound familiar? ;-)
i think nader is the best pick (though still not
perfect). right on the front page, it says "put the
interests of workers, consumers, and the environment
above those of multinational corporations."
nader, as most people know, has been an advocate of
rights of the consumer instead of huge corporations
for decades. he also favors campaign finance reform,
which would change the way that campaigns are funded,
disallowing huge bribes (or "donations") which then
lead to things like the DMCA getting passed,
legislation that probably would never have even been
considered without heavy corporate lobbying.
nader is also supported by jello biafra (who was also
nominated to the green party ticket) who spoke at the
HOPE conference and has been an activist against
censorship for almost as long as i've been alive.
biafra himself was sued for putting a poster a record
album by his band that was deemed obscene by certain
people in power (including the PMRC).
it is my opinion that neither the reform party nor the
libertarians would be very beneficial to the hacker
community, as they believe a "free" market to be more
important than anything. the freer the market, the
more powerful the corporations within that market.
which will only lead to bills even more draconian than
the DMCA with which to "protect" their profits. they
are also opposed to campaign finance reform.
i can't say much for the other parties mentioned, but
nader is certainly the best recognized third party
candidate (besides maybe buchanan, who truly is
psychotic) and the best chance for creating an actual
third party that can get into presidential debates so
that more voices can be heard.
I want to vote Gore even though he isnt the greatest candidate. I have
considered voting for Nader, but i believe it is a waste of a vote. I look on
the elections as the choice of two evils. The evilest and worst choice being
Bush. When i look at him i think man, he is an idiot. He relates everything
to Texas, and who cares about Texas? I do not. I am also concerned about the
choices Bush will make over such problems as the Israel and Palestine. I think
he lacks the personality and will to make a difference in such a place. Bush
is just an absolute idiot, we do not want someone in charge who is totaly
dominated by his advisors. I can see why it looked like Al Gore wanted to
beat him up during the third debate. The man will give the US a bad rap. He
will be the laughing stock of governements around the world. The question in
my mind is "Do i want an idiot for a President? " My answer is NO. I know i
have not addressed free speech/computer related issues, but everyone knows the
alternative candidates will not win, so we must choose out of the two who have
the best chance, and decide which one do we want.
I think it should be obvious to all
who are intersted in privacy that
Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate
for President is the only choice.
This man would fight to remove all of the invasive
techniques used by the current governments to monitor
He would also, hopefully, enact more severe penalties
for those that are apprehended for malicious
I am a 16 year old and know most of everything about politics. I have
made my choice of Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate. He preaches
responsibility and small government.
The Libertarian Party has been a long-time supporter of online freedom (see
Big intrusive government is the problem and the Libertarians want to reduce
Choosing who I am going to vote for this year has been incredibly hard. I
absolutely despise the thought of bush's corporation friendly, anti-choice,
bigotted sexual orientation views,and upper class orientated platform. So
then the obvious choice would be Al Gore, right? Wrong. Although Al Gore
seems to be the antithesis of everything Bush is, he is cleary not. Al Gore
wants to continue wasting huge amounts of money on a military that is,
except for peacekeeping in non-nuclear countries, effectively useless. He
has not acknowledged or made any statements about the clinton
administration's continual efforts to squelch free speech on the net (I.E.
CDA,and continuous FBI efforts to undermine privacy). So now we come to the
green party. I must say that at first I dismissed Ralph Nader as another
lunatic third party candidate that we so often see running for the communist
and socialist parties, nevermind that I hadn't even read anything about his
platform. But as the election comes down to the wire, many friends urged me
to take look at what he had to say. So I did, and all I can say to my
friends is "thank god you don't rely on the mass media to spoon feed you
like so many other Americans, including myself do at times." Ralph Nader is
the embodyment of everything that was once and is good in America. He
promotes non-discrimination for gender, race, and sexual orientation. He
wants to get tough on big business, reduce goverment military spending by
50%, legalize industrial hemp, ensure complete privacy in the online arena,
repeal the death penalty, help the nation become much more environment
friendly, and supports the right to choose. And that is just a short list.
So how is it that if Nader is such a good candidate you havn't heard of him?
Election two-party politics is why. The Commission on Presidential Debates
(CPD), a commission run by the democrats and republicans, refused to allow
Nader to debate, in fact they didn't even allow him to watch the debates
when he had a ticket! "Big deal" you say why should they let some third
party candidate in on the debates? Well it just so happens that Nader could
capture 5% of the popular vote and get matching federal funds for the next
election, in this election. Don't you feel that a candidate who is about to
capture millions of votes should be let into the debates?! Oh and you'll
also notice that nader is going to capture these votes with practically no
mainstream media attention. If you go to the New York Times, Chicago
Tribune, or CNN online you'll notice that the only articles involving Nader
are those that have the gore campaign blasting him on some issue or another.
Why is this? Well unfortunately, the powers-that-be decided giving Nader
coverage could jeopardize Mr. Gore's chances of being elected, since most of
Nader's supporters usually vote democrat. Don't you feel it's a sad day so
called idealistic and responsible reporters decide it's in your best
interest to not know about a viable candidate? Well let me tell you, I am
mad as hell and I'm not going to take it. When election day comes I'm going
to march down to election poles and vote Nader, with the hope that enough
people can also see through the stagnation of america's current two-party
system,do likewise, and give Mr. Nader his 5% so that next election he can
have his matching federal funds, and give the bigwigs a run for their money!
I would vote for Ralph Nader because he seems least corrupted and a better
leader. He's been down here in Santa Cruz, Cali and he seems pretty cool, i
mean, none of the other candidates have come down here.
the 200 vote is of vital importance in establishing a legitimate third
party. we need alternatives to the right wing republicans and the right wing
democrats. we need Ralph Nader in the presidential office! he's against the
WTO, he supports a living wage for all americans, he dosen't take shit from
corporate amerikkka. he is THE alternative choice for the 2000 election. i'm
voting for him because if i don't do it, the two-party system which has
taken control of american politics will never be overthrown.
1. He's wary of legislation against imaginary threats that really just
minimize personal freedoms (e.g., his opposition to the War on Drugs).
2. He doesn't side with big business, who, fearing loss of info and
income, pressure the government to outlaw hacking. (He's openly and
repeatedly criticized Bill Gates, even referring to him as a thief. I
think that outdoes even Izaac's admission that "Microsoft sucks"!)
3. In a related issue, he opposes the current neoliberal worship of "free
trade", which has done much to help criminalize hacking.
4. He seems to keep a skeptical view of technology as something worth
critically examining (e.g., cars).
5. Finally, you only need to listen to him for a minute to tell that he's
an intelligent guy, unlike so many other candidates to whom a speech is
the repetition of sound-bites crafted specifically to marshal support in
My choice is Ralph Nader.
Without dethrowning big business from our government, we cannot hope to
prevent legislation like the DMCA. Ralph says he'll do that, amoung other
Also, he would pull the US out of the WTO - which would further limit
business' power to buy legislation.
What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about
taking away your constitutional rights:
"I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of
these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out
reverse engineering; he threw out linking."
- Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America.
The fundamental problem with our government is that corporations have
too much power. If you have enough money you can buy legislation, much
like what the MPAA has done with the DMCA. Disney has successfully
extended the length of copyright protection to 95 years after the
author's death or longer (the exact figure escapes me, but it is for all
intents and purposes unlimited since it will get extended again). The
copyright on Mickey Mouse was set to expire in a couple of years, thus
the legislation. Copyrights originally were meant to last for 7 years.
But I digress. The bottom line is that citizens do not have a fair say
in the way our government operates. Ralph Nader is the best candidate to
stand up for the rights of citizens. Pat Buchanan is basically a fascist
and the Libertarian Party advocates getting rid of public education and
many regulations that protect us from corporate power. I do not know
about the other parties you list.
Ralph Nader has been an advocate for consumer and citizen rights for his
entire life. It would be difficult to argue that any single person has
been a more consistent advocate for people and against corporate power.
Although I do not know whether or not Nader has voiced any opinion on
the DMCA, his stand in support of low powered radio stations against the
FCC and corporate broadcasters demonstrates his priorities.
If you want freedom, Harry Browne is the man to vote for. The
libertarians core beliefs are smaller government, period. This
means less government programs taking away your money to give
it to the undeserving, Less government agents kicking down your
door to steal your dvd players, and finally, less American citizens
being sent to death traps in foreign waters. He, and the libertarian
party (www.lp.org feel free to add that under his name too) are the
only clear choice for total freedom. Nader is a socialist (that means
no personal wealth) and Buchanan does not even truly know his
party's platform. There's my two cents, which i hope to be able to
keep some day:)
While other candidates have to incessantly condition their beliefs in
freedom with "but", "except for", "only when", etc., Harry Browne is the
only candidate (and the LP is the only party) that believes 100% in the
rights enumerated by the Constitution and that government should be limited
to those tasks so ordered by the Constitution.
The LP & Harry Browne do not put conditions on Rights. And believe that
people are far more capable than our government gives them credit for.
Hello everyone, I'd like to explain my reasoning in deciding to vote for Ralph
Nader this year. First of all, I'd probably vote for Ralph even if I wasn't
so concerned about the freedom of information (I live in a community where
nearly every car has a Green Party sticker and everybody knows who Michael
Moore is), but I was also impressed by Nader's stand against the Microsoft
monopoly during the anti-trust hearings. I'm a hard-core windows user and
agreed with Microsoft at the time, but whether or not Nader was wrong about
that issue, his attitude was right--he opposed Microsoft when it appeared it
was getting too big to be legal. And given Microsoft's attitude after getting
hacked, we might need someone like Nader to keep corporations like Microsoft
from getting too much power. I don't think Nader's campaign, as some people
have said, has anything to do with his ego. There are plenty of ways to do
indulge your vanity without spending money on a presidential campaign. And he
was in a pretty good position to do that even before entering the race. Oh,
yes, and as for that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" crap, that didn't
fool me in the Bush/Perot years and it's not gonna fool me now. Unless you
expect me to believe that my one vote, when added to everyone else's, is going
to be exactly the right amount to take away votes from Gore without actually
giving enough to Nader to win.
I've been doing lots of reading, and Harry Browne (Libertarian party) is
the only candidate that I would want in office. I know that my vote won't
put him there, but its still my opinion. He is strongly against
censorship, invasion of privacy, and making stupid laws that benifit only
the rich. Of cource, Nader has these same strengths. What puts Browne
over the top is that he wants to put the complete power of the nation back
to the people. He wants the government to stop spending billions of our
dollars to enforce their thousands of regulations on the people every
year. If our current government trend continues: I would have to walk a
regulated speed to my favorite fast food place, order a government
regulated nutritionally valued meal, packed in government approved
containers, pay a government approved price, and eat it in a government
approved mannor. Things should not be this way. I should be able to buy
whatever I want and do whatever I want with it, as long as I don't
infringe on the basic rights of others. Right now I could go buy a BigMac
and wear it on my head if I want. But who knows, next year congress could
pass the BMCA (Big Mac Copyright Act), that says you can't use a BigMac in
ways it was not intended for, as written in the BMCA. This all sounds
rediculous, but it is exactly the same thing they are doing now. The
corporations rely on the fact that the general public doesn't understand
technology, they use this ignorance to pass laws that would otherwise be
as obviously stupid as the BMCA. We need people in power that have
interests other than money. People that are against regulating everything
we do in life. The president alone can't do this. We need to elect
similar congressmen as well. I believe Browne is sometimes a bit extreme,
but that is OK with me. And extreme in one direction in power will in
some ways balance out the hundres of others.
Ralph Nader may be the most ignored and yet
most qualified candidate out there. After they
excluded him from the debates, and the media
giving him less than no coverage, It makes me laugh
watching the Democrats apealing to Ralph to step
down from the race now that he has nearly 10%
support in some states. And seeing the "evil" Republicans
Donate $100,000 to support Ralph's campaign in order
to take votes away from Gore!
Two days ago I went to my local APO Post Office and
retrieved my mail. Upon sorting through my mail, I
found the piece of mail from my county clerks office
that I had been waiting for nearly three weeks to
receive. My absentee ballot had arrived.
Being in the military overseas allowed me the
opportunity to cast my vote a little early. There was
no doubt in my mind about who I wanted my vote to
represent. I had been converted to a "Naider Raider".
There is several different reasons why I chose Mr.
Naider. The biggest reason is his sincere honesty and
willingness to give his stance on all the issues. A
quick check of his website gives all of his views on
the major issues. The second reason is his record. Mr.
Nader has been involved with helping people and
participating in the political scene since the
sixties. The work he did to protect consumers from the
auto industry is just one example. The third reason is
a simple statement he made on Larry King Live that I
agree with. Even though I don't have the exact quote,
it was in regards to looking at the two candidates and
noticing that there is no real difference in many of
the issues. That for real change, your vote should go
to him. The fourth reason is, I agree with most of the
stances that he takes. Even though I won't say I
support 100% of his views, I agree with a good 90%.
I choose Browne because he supports smaller government. He wants to pull the
federal gov. out of things like Welfare and Social Security, and I support
this. He also thinks the government has no place in the personal affairs of
lives, such as gay marrriage and abortion. While stating that he disagrees
with abortion he doens't see why the gov. should dictate the morals of the
country. Also while listening to a speach he gave over the internet he
outright said that he disagrees with the control of the internet, amd
control of digital music. He stated that it represses the freedom of speach,
and the freedom of freedom. What good is "freedom" if you can't do anything
I think that with them (the Libertarian Party) at the Federal level, we could
finally make some
inroads to reversing years of Republican influence (Big Business interests) and
(Big Government interests).
I'm not a die-hard Libertarian or a die-hard anything, actually. For me it's a
that the Libertarian agenda clicks very well with the way I want things to be.
My vote goes for Harry Browne, the only candidate who will extract the
painful talons of government from our backs and allow people to be people.
Individual entities. Most importantly, the excess power of our law
enforcment will be stripped, with citizens allowed to defend themselves
against predators. Information barriers too would be weakened under Harry
Browne, making obfuscated legal "protections" like DCMA and ridiculous
"process" patents invalid. Harry Browne will serve to restore government
to its original and ONLY position, to protect and serve its citzenry.
When a politician receives 5% of the popular vote he/she is able to
receive federal funding, Nader seem to be holding on to the number three spot
according to the polls, I feel like my vote for Nader is a challenge to the
two-party system. And although I know that Nader will not win (this election
anyways) and although I don't agree with all his policies, My vote has a much
stronger chance of changing things for the future then voting for Bush or
the problem with corporations
owning our next president is pretty blatant. if a corp. owns our next
president, we'll never have free speech. everything will come from the
corporations best interest. if you vote for gore or bush, you might as well
elect the mpaa into office.
The Libertarian "slogan" is 'Less government in you life, more money in your
pocket'. I've seen their plans for when they make it into office. I tell
ya.... it looks pretty darn good.
The Constitution Party believes the government was formed with the mandate
to protect our borders and our citizens, who have freedom to life and
liberty. Other than that, get out of our lives.
Sounds good to me.
As the election looms, I stongly encourage readers of 2600 to vote for Harry
Browne of the Libertarian Party. His platform is most beneficial to hackers
and all Americans for one simple reason - personal freedon and
The Libertarian Party's core belief is that the federal government's
role is clearly defined by the Constitution. Anything not mentioned in the
Constitution is not the federal government's business. Therefore, the only
crimes that can be prosecuted by the feds would be treason, piracy (in the
swashbuckling sense, not the MPAA sense) and counterfeiting.
A Libertarian government would end the insane war on drugs. According
to the FBI's own records, 704,812 Americans were arrested last year on
marijuana-related charges, while only 635,990 people were arrested for the
crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The war on drugs
is one of the main reasons our privacy is regularly violated.
Hacking would not be a federal crime, unless a hacker acutally
materially altered financial data (electronic counterfeiting). (i.e.
Examining the security of you bank's on-line systems would not be a federal
crime; only altering account balances for gain would be a crime.)
Gore, Bush, Nader, Buchannan, and Hagelin all have proposed more
government intrusion into your lives. The Constitution Party wants to
restrict the federal government to its original powers, but still wants to
be able to fight the drug war. Nearly every reader of 2600 has directly or
indirectly seen how giving more power to government nearly invariably leads
to more abuses of citizens. A Libertarian candidate appears on every ballot
in the United States. I encourage every reader of 2600 to defend his
freedom by voting Libertarian this year.
Our country deserves a choice among candidates that have more variation
than Coke and Pepsi. I _still_ have yet to hear any meaningful difference
between Gore and Bush. I know that some will contend that a Libertarian
vote is a wasted vote, But I know that for the first time since I began
voting, I will not feel like I need to wash the filth off of me when I leave
the voting booth.
the libertarian party has me very convinced.
they're who im voting for. Less government is the only solution, and as
far as i can see, only the libertarians and the constitution party offer
that... aside from smaller government, we must realise that throughout
history, good change has always happened in large bounds, not small
improvements... what harry browne offers might seem quite radical, but
if it works, as it seems it might, what a great world it would be.