Nadar

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 60
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Well-said! I always like it when people reason from the exception, don't you?



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 42 of 60
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member




    I guess I concede this discussion to Kirkland!
  • Reply 43 of 60
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kirkland

    Why in God's name would we not want a two party system? Two party systems are the most stable political entities out there. It avoids the need to form messy and unstable "coalition" government. The only potential weakness is the risk of "cohabitation."



    I'll take the American/Britain democratic experience over that of the older French republics or Italy any day of the week.







    To participate in the debates you must be polling at least 15% in the Gallup polls. What you're thinking of is presidential matching funds from the Federal government. Those funds would have gone to the Green Party, not Nader. And they'd have done as little good for the Greens as they did for Buchanan's Reform Party in 2000 ? they're whacko far afield from the American center, which is a bit right of the Democrats, a bit left of the Republicans.



    I hope Nader chokes on a sandwich or something and ends up in a coma for the next eleven months.



    Kirk




    The man wins a prize for being absolutely correct. (I would have said right, but I know how much things from the right upset Kirk. )



    That being said, I don't hope Nader chokes on a sandwich and goes into a coma. Disagreement shouldn't equal wishing hateful actions.



    Nick
  • Reply 44 of 60
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    I have been thinking about this Nader thing since I woke up. I support the idea of a third party, however, i don't feel it makes any sense to vote for Nader because, even if Nader won the election, he wouldn't be able to make one gram of change due to constant political blocking, etc. from the Dems and the Reps...thus he would be out in four years and americans would be soured to the idea of a third party and we would be back to a duopoly for the next 50 years.



    of course, there is no way in hell he will actually be elected, and this leads me to my second point. true political change cannot be done from the top-down, it must be done from the bottom up. if you want to start making a difference, support local and district Greens or whatever party you choose...this is how to start change in America, not voting for a third presidential candidate in order to make you feel good or feel like you are making a change. voting for Nader will not change anything, it will only increase the likelihood of Bush getting reelected.
  • Reply 45 of 60
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    So you think Greens and others like them should focus on local elections only.
  • Reply 46 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by progmac

    true political change cannot be done from the top-down, it must be done from the bottom up. if you want to start making a difference, support local and district Greens or whatever party you choose...this is how to start change in America, not voting for a third presidential candidate in order to make you feel good or feel like you are making a change. voting for Nader will not change anything, it will only increase the likelihood of Bush getting reelected.



    Another great point.



    I'd also like to add that Kirk's post at the top of this page, is the best political topic post I've ever read on AO.
  • Reply 47 of 60
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I think I know what a Nadar is. It's your ability to sense whether someone is a Nader voter just by looking at them. It's kind of like a gaydar.
  • Reply 48 of 60
    So he IS gonna run again, but without the Green Party this time....



    CNN



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    So you think Greens and others like them should focus on local elections only.



    Not sure if that's exactly what he meant, but it makes sense if you think about it. The biggest barrier to a third party candidate - $$$$$ - is a much smaller factor in local elections than in the multi-million national elections.
  • Reply 49 of 60
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Before, I could at least see his point in running as a Green party candidate. By getting at least 5% of the popular vote, he'd allow the Greens to participate in debates - a very important stepping stone to gaining power. However, this time he's not running with the Green party. It makes it seem as though Nader's just doing this for his own benefit, because he won't accomplish ANYTHING this time. He doesn't even have a goal. Maybe he secretly likes Bush and wants to help him win again.
  • Reply 50 of 60
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    So you think Greens and others like them should focus on local elections only.



    basically, yes. the only way a third party movement will get anywhere is with a legitimate grassroots movement. if as much money were spent across localities as on a national campaign destined for failure, there would be a more feasable attitude shift and political change. i would strongly, strongly support a third party in local politics, but on a national level it just does not make sense yet. from a citizen perspective, what difference does it make if i vote for an obscure candidate? none. however, if i rally behind and support a community political movement, legitimate difference can be made. this all traces back to my belief that true democracy begins with the community.
  • Reply 51 of 60
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Until there's a third party active in Congress and other levels of government, Nader's run means nothing. It's an ego-trip. The power-structure has to be there *before* anyone running for president can hope to get elected IMO. The system needs to be overhauled before "other parties" can have a shot in hell of winning.



    That means you have to convince your congressional reps that room for a third or even fourth party is needed and that legislation needs to be enacted to make it happen. Of course, your rep got into Congress by being a part of the broken system, so this is easier said than done. Will he/she be undermining their chances for re-election by doing this?



    Which brings me back to the same point I always make: no real term limits, no curb on the desire to be "a career politician". No limits on that, no change. Only when we as a nation decide that you don't get to be a Senator or Rep for more than say 6 years, will the aspirations of the elected (and therefore what kind of legislation they're willing to enact) change.



    If you know going in that you won't be there more than a few years, that you can't take money or gifts from corporations, and that you're not going to get any special treatment for your service... then most of the people going in will actually be treating their job like it's something that goes on their resume and therefore, they had better accomplish something.
  • Reply 52 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    [B]Which brings me back to the same point I always make: no real term limits, no curb on the desire to be "a career politician". No limits on that, no change. Only when we as a nation decide that you don't get to be a Senator or Rep for more than say 6 years, will the aspirations of the elected (and therefore what kind of legislation they're willing to enact) change.



    While this sounds great on the surface, what it ignores is that some of our best legislation comes about because of the experience Senators and Congressmen accrue after years and years in the Capitol. Given the complicated and important duties of the Speaker of the House, I wouldn't want the Speaker to be someone with less than at least 8 years of Congressional experience.



    When you force term limits, which is an undemocratic move which limits the choice of voters (what if people like their Congressman and want him to stay?), what you do is empower the bureaucrats who work in the Congress. They'll end up being the only ones who really know the system, and the Congresscrittes, who'll be wet behind the years during their entire six-year stay in Washington, will be dependent upon the bureaucrats for procedural issues. Oh, and far more reliant on lobbyists for help with the legislative side, since the lobbyists will have been there for decades and will know how to get the bills passed -- something none but the most superlative Congressmen will ever have the time to figure out.



    Term limits are like the Balanced Budget Amendment. Boy, it sounds good on the surface, but in practice it'd be a disaster that far worsens the situation, not far improves it.



    I'd like to see them undo the term limits for the president as well.



    Kirk
  • Reply 53 of 60
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    As I understand it, this is the problem with the CA legislature. they're all term limited, and so the state is *literally* run by people who don't know what they're doing, and haven't been in office long enough to amass political capital.
  • Reply 54 of 60
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I understand there are potential pitfalls, but *something* has to be done that will let the incoming or existing congresspeople know it is not to their benefit to pander to corporations and the like. Maybe the answer is dramatically restructuring how people in Congress are paid and not how long they can hold office... hard to say. Obviously, my 6 years thing was just a number I threw out. I don't know what the actual numers should be, only that the system needs changing.



    I only know that until you take away the lucrative aspects being a career politician, nothing will change. Maybe re-elections should be possible but are you telling me assholes like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms legitimately belonged in and contributed to Congress for the last couple *decades*?



    No term limits is just as short-sighted and useless as "short term-limits".



    There has to be a happy medium somewhere... maybe a ten year maximum or something. And no one says that if you serve as a representative for 10 years, that you can't then be a Senator or Governor or President for example. I'm just saying they should not be allowed to sit on one post indefinitely and just let the corporate lunches and donations and all the rest fatten them up.



    There's no accountability for what these people do while they're there, re-election aside. If someone has lets say a four year term and in the middle of year two its clear they are incompetant, they should not be allowed to just "hang around" for two more years. Outta here, baby! You're gone. That's the way it should work....
  • Reply 55 of 60
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    It looks like Nadar is planing to again elect George Bush by having himself, Nadar, run for president



    what a jerk . . . didn't he do enough damage?!?!



    NADIR




    go ralphie its your birthdat yip yip yehaw

    Bush in a landslide!!!

    4 more years

    4 more years

    4 more years

    AND TAX CUTS FOR ALL.



    gotta love nadar, such a nieve little tree hugger (dont squeeze the charmon)!!!
  • Reply 56 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    I understand there are potential pitfalls, but *something* has to be done that will let the incoming or existing congresspeople know it is not to their benefit to pander to corporations and the like. Obvioulsy, my 6 years thing was just a number I threw out. I don't know what the actual numers should be.



    If you want to make a politician uncorruptable, you pay them very, very, very well for their public service. Increase the pay of all Senators and Representatives to around $750,000 a year, and the president to $1.2 million, and you price them out of the market of most lobbyists.



    In fact, I'd say that short term limits make it more likely that congressmen will sell their services to the highest bidder. Since they know they'll be out of work in six (or ten or whatever) years, they'll go apeshit about pushing through lobbyist-backed bills, and then take an industry job as they walk out the door (look at the Republican who helped write the Medicare bill and is now retiring to go work for the pharmaceutical industry).



    Quote:

    Maybe re-elections should be possible but are you telling me assholes like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms legitimately belonged in and contributed to Congress for the last several decades?



    Yes, so long as their constituents want them there. Who are you to tell me that I have to change my congressman or senator?



    Quote:

    No term limits is just as short-sighted and useless as "short term-limits".



    No, a lack of term limits is democratic. Term limits are an autocratic dictation to the electorate which needlessly removes qualified candidates from the ballot.



    Kirk
  • Reply 57 of 60
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kirkland

    If you want to make a politician uncorruptable, you pay them very, very, very well for their public service. Increase the pay of all Senators and Representatives to around $750,000 a year, and the president to $1.2 million, and you price them out of the market of most lobbyists.



    I *seriously* doubt that... for one thing I suspect a great many on Capital Hill are of the "too much is never enough" variety, when it comes to having their palms greased, vacations paid for and the like. If I go into politics for money (because I know I can make 750 large every year), am I'm going turn aside those "generous extras" from food conglomerates like ADM or pharmacuetical companies like Pfizer or some huge insurance company, just because I make more money than the last batch of Senators?? No f-in way! I'm gonna take everything I can get my hands on, because almost by definition now, the money is why I'm there.



    Paying them much more than say $150,000 annually will invite the kinds of people who are not seeking to serve but to EARN. Lawyers who figure they got a better shot at "getting rich" by being Congressman than by being a trial lawyer for example... paying huge amounts is horrible idea IMO.



    I agree they should be well-compensated for their hard work but they should also be banned from accepting any kind of gift or donation -- whatsoever -- from a corporation. That includes during elections IMHO. Corporations should have zero option to give money to one candidate or another (or to one party or another during Presidential election years). Elections are about the people, not the companies.



    Quote:

    In fact, I'd say that short term limits make it more likely that congressmen will sell their services to the highest bidder. Since they know they'll be out of work in six (or ten or whatever) years, they'll go apeshit about pushing through lobbyist-backed bills, and then take an industry job as they walk out the door (look at the Republican who helped write the Medicare bill and is now retiring to go work for the pharmaceutical industry).



    If artificially short, I agree. As I noted before, I'm not sure what the "right number" of years is, but I suspect 10 or 12 would be a good place to start. Also, with regards to people like Thurmond and Helms, you know darn well they have political machinery in place in their states to guarantee re-election after a certain number of years in office. Don't even pretend they didn't "own" the system in North and South Carolina. No one had a prayer of beating those guys once they were entrenched. And that's the point, to keep things fresh enough that no one has that temptation or opportunity.



    Quote:

    No, a lack of term limits is democratic. Term limits are an autocratic dictation to the electorate which needlessly removes qualified candidates from the ballot.



    In a perfect democracy I agree there should be no limits, but this system is far from perfect I think you'll agree, and so if it doesn't behave like one, why pretend it is one? Let's get rules in place to prevent abuse of power, given the imperfections in our system... that's really what I'm getting at.
  • Reply 58 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    I *seriously* doubt that... for one thing I suspect a great many on Capital Hill are of the "too much is never enough" variety, when it comes to having their palms greased, vacations paid for and the like.



    Most people on Capitol Hill are decent folks. Yes, there are slimy politicians, but there are also a lot of good people who just want to help their communities.



    Quote:

    If I go into politics for money (because I know I can make 750 large every year), am I'm going turn aside those "generous extras" from food conglomerates like ADM or pharmacuetical companies like Pfizer or some huge insurance company, just because I make more money than the last batch of Senators??



    You will if getting caught taking cash or vacations or anything else will cost you your $750,000 a year job.



    Quote:

    I agree they should be well-compensated for their hard work but they should also be banned from accepting any kind of gift or donation -- whatsoever -- from a corporation. That includes during elections IMHO. Corporations should have zero option to give money to one candidate or another (or to one party or another during Presidential election years). Elections are about the people, not the companies.



    I agree. And the same goes for unions, trade guilds, environmental groups, etc. Only individuals should be able to give money to any political party, organization or candidate.



    Quote:

    If artificially short, I agree.



    Any term limit is artificially short.



    Quote:

    As I noted before, I'm not sure what the "right number" of years is



    It's as many as the voters in that state or district choose to send that particular representative up for. No more, no less.



    Quote:

    Also, with regards to people like Thurmond and Helms, you know darn well they have political machinery in place in their states to guarantee re-election after a certain number of years in office.



    So you are accusing Thurmond and Helms of rigging their elections? Prove it.



    Quote:

    Don't even pretend they didn't "own" the system in North and South Carolina.



    Any ownership is through political patronage and fostering networks of supporters, which is NOT machine politics, and is totally legitimate.



    And you can beat entrenched politicians. It does happen. It takes a great candidate, but it's more common that you might think.



    Quote:

    In a perfect democracy I agree there should be no limits, but this system is far from perfect I think you'll agree, and so if it doesn't behave like one, why pretend it is one?



    Our system is excellent. It is stable and generally effective. I see no reason to deny voters their congressman of choice just because YOU think having him serve a career's worth of time might make him corrupt.



    In my experience, it makes a congressman effective.



    But if you want to hand power over to the bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists, like in California, be my guest and try. It'll just run this country into the ground.



    Kirk
  • Reply 59 of 60
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    Quote:

    And you can beat entrenched politicians. It does happen. It takes a great candidate, but it's more common that you might think.



    isn't that why third party canidates will always be an option? i understand that having a winner take all system usually breaks things down to a few individuals, but i don't think it excludes another canidate outside of the Dems or Reps.



    all you need is someone who's well funded or otherwise famous and you're off.



    hell, Jesse just pulled it off last time around against two well funded, well entrenched Republican and Democratic canidates.



    his biggest hurdle was people saying he couldn't win because he was a third party, not because they had issues with what he was running on.
  • Reply 60 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    isn't that why third party canidates will always be an option?







    Third parties are an option, in a few small, monoculture districts, and as flukes sometimes in larger regions.



    But that has nothing to do with the topic of entrenched or powerful incumbents.



    Quote:

    i understand that having a winner take all system usually breaks things down to a few individuals, but i don't think it excludes another canidate outside of the Dems or Reps.



    It does in most areas.



    Quote:

    all you need is someone who's well funded or otherwise famous and you're off.



    hell, Jesse just pulled it off last time around against two well funded, well entrenched Republican and Democratic canidates.



    I never said it didn't happen. But Ventura was a fluke (and a failure, like most third party government). Flukes can happen, but not on a presidential level, since you can't have a president without 50% + 1 electoral vote. You have to have a majoritarian candidate.



    You can be elected governor just by getting 1 more vote than both your opponents. Not so for president.



    Kirk
Sign In or Register to comment.