Politicsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Sleeptalking : One Thread
Please feel free to vent, agree, disagree. Free speech, baby! Carry on.
-- Molly Zero (email@example.com), August 04, 2000
My Constant Reader RK sent private email about my decision to vote Nader in 2000, and I wanted to share a bit of my response. He chides me, trotting out the old arguments about third parties that we've all heard before...
Here's the deal - massachusetts, where I reside, has 12 electoral votes. In the current system, if the majority of the popular vote is for Gore, which it almost certainly will be, then Gore gets all 12 electoral votes. Hence, he "carries" the state. my vote for nader will definitely NOT lead to Bush taking massachusetts. But it will allow me to increase the possibility that Nader will get 5% of the popular vote or more... leading to federal matching funds for the Greens in 2004.
It's a crappy system, but right now it's the only one we've got.
I like the idea of proportional representation a lot.
Oh, and Anderson got 7% total of the popular vote in 1980. I doubt that Carter lost because of that.
-- Molly Zero (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 05, 2000.
Oh wait. mayb e he did.
-- Molly Zero (email@example.com), August 05, 2000.
The Republican Convention has been a source of great amusement to me, last night they trotted out "The Rock" from the WWF. Which seems kind of funny, considering the Republicans are the most worried about "violent entertainment". Yeah, professional wrestling is all about family values.
I also enjoyed the great show of diversity, to quote Jon Stewart:
"All nine African-American members of the Republican party were at the Convention last night: six danced, two sang, and the other of course is Alan Keyes."
Dubya: "We will lead."
Uh, what exactly does that mean?
-- John (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 04, 2000.
Here's a link to a good series that Time did on corporate welfare: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/981109/cover1.html
Corporations are slowly destroying democracy in our country through corporate welfare and special interests groups, and all that Pollyanna conservatives can think of is the antiquated "American dream." I would rather be comfortable in the knowledge that my future children will get a good education and good health care regardless of what economic status they happen to be in, then tell them that there is a near impossible chance they will one day be rich.
Corporations find political campaigns so they can have access to one of the largest supplies of cash in the country; our tax dollars. They also fund campaigns so laws can be passed that our beneficial to them. Last time I checked, I thought laws were supposed to be passed for the people and taxes were supposed to be spent to benefit the people. Hmmmm....
-- Molly Reader (email@example.com), August 05, 2000.
Oh, I'm so *relieved* -- I was beginning to think that I was the only one paying attention. Nader's getting my vote, though I'm a lifelong liberal (bleeding heart pinko) democrat. I think Gore's gonna get creamed, and Bush scares me worse than Reagan did, and for similar reasons. Corporate money is very bold this time -- $60 million before the first primary!?! Usually they are a tad more discreet, and their puppets are more, um, lifelike.
-- Kate Kirchner (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 05, 2000.
You make a very provocative point. I am a member of the Green Party, and I was always operating under the assumption that REGISTERING Green and VOTING Gore would be my way to have my cake and eat it, too.
I still like Gore an awful lot (though I liked Bradley better), but I'm not going to dismiss the idea of voting for Nader if I want to.
-- Monique (email@example.com), August 08, 2000.
I would vote for Nader in a heartbeat if I didn't think that the most important concern, the one all other issues pale beside, is Keeping George the Younger Out Of Office At All Costs.
Given Gore's recent VP announcement, this gets tougher and tougher (see my rant from this morning and its replies), but the bottom line is that maybe Gore can beat Bush and certainly no one else can. Too bad. Nader's a cranky old bastard but I rather like him.
-- Columbine (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 08, 2000.
I agree with those people who are revolted by thoughts of Bush winning the election. What a light-weight nobody! I could picture some odd-ball third party (sixth or seventh party?) nominating him, but a real genuine major party? C'mon, you must be kidding me.
Unfortunately, the alternative to Bush is Al Gore. A proven prevaricator, two-faced bullshit artist, moaning about "special interests" and the need for campaign finance reform while sucking up all the illegal and questionable contributions he can (as he always has), a man who can use his own sister's death from cancer as a theme in an anti-tobacco speech while failing to mention (a) much of the Gore family fortune came from tobacco farming and (b) that he had continued to accept tobacco company contributions for years after his sister's death, a man who makes campaign promises that are even more outlandish than the nonsense that Bush babbles.
It is difficult to decide between these two. Pick the lesser of two weasels.
I'm going third party. I usually do. Nador has always struck me as being a sanctimonious prig so I probably won't vote for him. I think I'll go with the Libertarian Party (even though I can never seem to remember the name of their candidate).
Bush vs. Gore? Just say "no" to both of them.
-- Jim (email@example.com), September 09, 2000.