I think the electoral college should be proportional thus giving states weight while allowing voters to have a *real* say in what happens.
Then talk to your state legislature, they're the ones who decide that. In Maine, the "Congressional" electors are awarded to whomever wins each Congressional district, and the two "Senator" electors go to whomever wins the statewide vote, which could result in a more proportional electoral spread. I think such a system would be very effective,
It should be noted, however, that in 2000, Bush won 30 states, and had the electoral votes been broken down across the nation by Congressional district, he would have won 211 of those, resulting in exactly the same Electoral College results as the current system.
Quote:
I hope that Nader does "siphon" off would be democratic voters and "causes" Bush to win. Then maybe we can get some real reform in the voting system. If nearly half (or more than half) the nation feels unheard, maybe we can get our acts together long enough to make some lasting change.
If losing defines "unheard" then in any election more than half or about half would feel "unheard." That's an absurd notion.
What sort of reform are you looking for? Run offs? Never happen. And run offs are the only way to establish a multi-party system (which would still be a disaster due to the Electoral College -- the American method of governing requires two parties).
Quote:
I guess you missed 2000.
No, I saw 2000, and in 2000 the Electoral College did track well with the popular vote. The popular vote was an effective tie -- 0.5% Gore over Bush, well within any election's "margin of error." The Electoral vote was also damn near a tie, about 0.8% separating Bush from Gore. In an election that close, the college can go to the candidate not receiving a plurality of the popular vote. But that's about the only time you can have an Electoral College "breakdown," if you consider it such.
I don't, because the popular vote is meaningless.
Without Nader, the popular vote would have gone narrowly to Gore, probably by a bit more than it did in the real vote. So instead of 48% over 48% it'd be 50% over 49% with Gore winning the electoral college 54% to 46%. The college misfired only because of a fracture on the Left caused by Nader which resulted in a too-close-to-call finish.
1. Elaborate, please, on how a vote for nader is not effectively a vote for bush. I've spent a few irrefutable posts explaining why it is- and Kirkland has confirmed it. "That's not true" doesn't cut it, as you can see.
The assumption that one who votes for Nader would vote for a Democrat is not necessarily true.
Quote:
2. If you had a chance to rank your choices, I'm assuming you'd prefer a Democratic administration to a Republican administration. Yes, they don't fully represent your principles (or mine for that matter), but the point is that Democrats probably come closer to your principles than Republicans. And by voting for Nader, you're helping elect the party furthest from your principles.
You don't know what my principles are or what I consider most important. The "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" logic is based on a lot of assumptions.
In 2000 I would have voted for Bush if Nader were not on the ballot. I do not know about 2004 yet. I think Bush is as dumb as a bag of hammers, but he isn't Satan.
Quote:
I mean there is a significant difference between Kerry and Bush- but only because Bush and company are so extreme and ideological - as opposed to Kerry's moderation. He's no liberal by any stretch of imagination- but I think four to eight years of Kerry is better than eight years of Bush.
An idealogical special interest whore versus a poll-driven special interest whore? Pardon me for not caring too much about which one wins.
giant:
Quote:
If you really care about actually seeing your ideals become reality, especially on a national scale, you have to deal with compromise.
Parties do not move, smaller groups do.
Quote:
The democratic party is ripe for change, but it's not going to happen overnight and running off and pouting with nader certainly isn't going to do it.
To be "running off" I would have had to be around the Democrats. I have never been with the Democrats. I am left-of-center on a lot of issues, but I am not a Democrat. I never have been.
I don't think you understand that, because you persist with the "running off" motif. It is simply not true. There is nothing true about it.
Quote:
That just shows how little his supporters really care about making their fantasies a reality.
Since when does putting a president in the office really change things? And past that, since when is that the only way change happens?
The only selling point I could even think of on the actual change front would be the need to appoint new SC judges and I would not like them to be Bush choices. That is it, though. In 2000 though there was absolutely nothing attractive about Gore.
2004 election hasn't come yet, it is 9 months away. We will see.
The assumption that one who votes for Nader would vote for a Democrat is not necessarily true.
Perhaps not universally, but damn close to it. Bush is so far removed from Nader that to politically back both of them, based on availability, is the political equivelent to schizophrenia. The Democrats are an entire order of magnitude closer to Nader's positions than the Republicans are, particularly knee-jerk, gay-hating, environment-raping, economy-screwing, deficit-busting Republicans like Bush.
Quote:
You don't know what my principles are or what I consider most important. The "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" logic is based on a lot of assumptions.
It is based on the presumption that, were there not a fanatic left wing nutjob candidate on the ballot, most Nader voters would have voted for the leftmost majoritarian candidate, which is Gore. That presumption is sound, based both on logic (Gore is closer to Nader than Bush, and on polling data which showed that Nader votewasters also cast ballots for Democrats further down the ticket).
Quote:
In 2000 I would have voted for Bush if Nader were not on the ballot.
Why?
How, if you buy into Nader's nonsense, could you then turn around and vote for the candidate who is pretty much as far as you could get from Nader's positions?
On what was your vote for Nader based that Bush was the best "second option"?
Quote:
An idealogical special interest whore versus a poll-driven special interest whore? Pardon me for not caring too much about which one wins.
Oh, don't give me that crap. There are major, substantive differences between the GOP and the Democrats on issues both domestic and foreign. Differences where the Democratic position is much closer to that of the Nader/Green "party" than the Republican position. You can't deny this, it's as plain as day.
Quote:
Parties do not move, smaller groups do.
What are you talking about?! Parties move all the time. In the 1960s, the Democratic Party moved to the left on social issues and in a libertarian direction on personal freedoms. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Republican Party moved to the right on personal issues and away from libertarianism. In the 1990s, the Democrats moved towards the political center in general, and backed away from some of their traditional statist tendencies. Over the past four years, the GOP has drifted towards both the right and towards statism.
Parties move all the time.
Quote:
Since when does putting a president in the office really change things?
Well, there were the 1860s...
But, in general, the presidency is a horrible position for a third party to hold (same with a governorship). As president, Nader would have failed at least as miserably, if not more so, than Ventura did as governor.
Quote:
The only selling point I could even think of on the actual change front would be the need to appoint new SC judges and I would not like them to be Bush choices. That is it, though. In 2000 though there was absolutely nothing attractive about Gore.
And retroactively, you think Gore would have led us into the debt, war and despair Bush has?
Those who think there was no difference between Gore and Bush are self-delusional.
Bush is so far removed from Nader that to politically back both of them, based on availability, is the political equivelent to schizophrenia. The Democrats are an entire order of magnitude closer to Nader's positions than the Republicans are, particularly knee-jerk, gay-hating, environment-raping, economy-screwing, deficit-busting Republicans like Bush.
In 2000 we did not know Bush would be so aggressive in his social conservatism or his deficit-expanding. In 2004 I am not even close to being convinced that Kerry will reverse those two trends. And besides, I do not think running a deficit is a major problem.
I am of the opinion that the economy is more removed from the presidency than people like to think. I am for a strong economy, but I have no idea how Kerry will fix anything.
Quote:
It is based on the presumption that, were there not a fanatic left wing nutjob candidate on the ballot, most Nader voters would have voted for the leftmost majoritarian candidate, which is Gore. That presumption is sound, based both on logic (Gore is closer to Nader than Bush, and on polling data which showed that Nader votewasters also cast ballots for Democrats further down the ticket).
I voted for Greens, Libertarians and Republicans. I have never voted Democrat for a major office.
Bitter, bitter little Democrats.
When you assume you make an ass out of "u" and "me". :-)
Quote:
How, if you buy into Nader's nonsense, could you then turn around and vote for the candidate who is pretty much as far as you could get from Nader's positions?
Nonsense?
Interesting.
Quote:
On what was your vote for Nader based that Bush was the best "second option"?
Nader stands for something, he is intelligent and has integrity in his ideals. Bush seemed similar to that on some level in 2000. His record here in Texas showed a guy who worked to build consensus and cut through the political bullshit. I had no idea he would do a 180 in the oval office.
Quote:
And retroactively, you think Gore would have led us into the debt, war and despair Bush has?
I do not think Gore would have averted 9/11 or the economic collapse, not at all.
I am of the opinion that the economy is more removed from the presidency than people like to think.
Almost everything the president does is directly related to economics.
Quote:
His record here in Texas showed a guy who worked to build consensus and cut through the political bullshit. I had no idea he would do a 180 in the oval office.
It was pretty hard to miss that the bush admin would turn out the way it did.
Quote:
I do not think Gore would have averted 9/11.
But that's not what the issue is. The problem revolves around how royally the Bush admin has screwed up, particularly with afghanistan, and that those screw ups sit sqarely in the ideology and strategy of the bush administration.
Depending on what the other folks would do, it could be.
Quote:
And besides, I do not think running a deficit is a major problem.
So you think it's okay to crush future generations with massive debts to pay off so that we might enjoy excesses today?
Quote:
I am of the opinion that the economy is more removed from the presidency than people like to think. I am for a strong economy, but I have no idea how Kerry will fix anything.
Well, actually doing something would be a good first start. Bush hasn't lifted a finger to help out of work Americans. Getting the government's books back in balance would be another. If the government isn't sopping up hundreds of billions of available funds, more money is available for economic expansion.
Quote:
Nader stands for something, he is intelligent and has integrity in his ideals.
Nader is an attention whore and a narcissist who doesn't give a damn about the 'issues' he's supposedly spent his life fighting for.
Quote:
His record here in Texas showed a guy who worked to build consensus and cut through the political bullshit. I had no idea he would do a 180 in the oval office.
He didn't do a 180. Think about this backwards, filthy, rotten state, this Hell on earth, that we live in: even the Democrats are, pretty much, Republicans. Bush didn't reach across ideological lines to be a "uniter." He just cut deals with the right-wing GOP and the less-right-wing Democrats. That's not tough. Plus, he didn't do much at all of that, but instead got a good relationship with Bob Bullock together and let Bob due the lifting.
Quote:
I do not think Gore would have averted 9/11 or the economic collapse, not at all.
There was a plan in place to depose the Taliban in December 2000. Gore had been briefed on it repeatedly throughout its development after the attack on the Cole in Yemen, and was very supportive of it.
The Bush team threw it in a drawer because it was from the previous administration, ignored it, finally set up a committee to discuss it in August, and didn't get around to holding their first meeting, which the president decided was beneath him, until September 10.
Had we moved in early-2001, the Twin Towers might still stand. Maybe. We can't know for sure. But since Bush's pre-9/11 foreign policy was a general cluster**** interspersed with moments of outright inanity, it would be hard for Gore to have done much worse.
And as for the economy, the way to fix that is through direct economic stimulus. Gore would have been able to do this, unlike Bush, because he wouldn't have blown our entire budget for the next ten years on a needless, excessive, deficit-creating tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
Quote:
I was/am pro-war.
Yes! Woo Hoo! Let us waste American lives to get rid of a government that had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11! Yee haw!
Almost everything the president does is directly related to economics.
I strongly disagree. But whatever, you believe what you like.
Kirkland:
Quote:
Depending on what the other folks would do, it could be.
No, the numbers above were 2-1 (Gore-Bush) for Nader voters. That's 66%. That is not "damn near" universal.
Quote:
So you think it's okay to crush future generations with massive debts to pay off so that we might enjoy excesses today?
I think "crush" is a melodramatic description.
Quote:
Bush hasn't lifted a finger to help out of work Americans.
That is very true. But then again, I am obviously not a Bush fan.
Quote:
Nader is an attention whore and a narcissist who doesn't give a damn about the 'issues' he's supposedly spent his life fighting for.
You are kidding, right?
It's been nice talking to you. You don't have to worship Nader or anything, but to be that purposefully stupid is evidence that you are not interested in any kind of honest debate.
If anything, bitter, angry and backbiting little Democrats just jade me to the party even more. Why the hell would I want to be associated with someone like you? Why would I want someone like you speaking for me? Political party allegiances are bad, just ask George Washington.
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
It's been nice talking to you. You don't have to worship Nader or anything, but to be that purposefully stupid is evidence that you are not interested in any kind of honest debate.
If anything, bitter, angry and backbiting little Democrats just jade me to the party even more. Why the hell would I want to be associated with someone like you? Why would I want someone like you speaking for me? Political party allegiances are bad, just ask George Washington.
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
I think you forgot to delete a couple of paragraphs there at the end. You know. The stuff after "you are not interested in any kind of honest debate."
I don't get why Nader thinks he's the only one that can "address the issues"... Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich were addressing the EXACT same issues as well as the rest of the Democratic candidates... they were debating the issues... and still are.
One of the reasons that alot of democrats are pissed off is that he claims there's little difference between democrats and republicans...
which we all know from what goes on at AI... couldn't be further from the truth... we agree on a few things occassionally... but there's big differences.
Does he want a third party? Does he just want the system to accept independant candidates? Which it does all the time... anyone remember... "We know what's wrong... we just gotta fix it" Perot?
Does it come down to the fact that this is when Nader can get the most attention for his ideas? So rather than talk strictly about the issues... he has to go on a slash and burn campaign?
Some people seem to have party aversion... which is fine... but spare us the whining when you throw away your vote and don't like who does get into office.
One of the reasons that alot of democrats are pissed off is that he claims there's little difference between democrats and republicans...
which we all know from what goes on at AI... couldn't be further from the truth... we agree on a few things occassionally... but there's big differences.
I'd like to think that by similarities drawn between republicans and democrats he is more talking about how they seem to be at equal odds with each other and go about it in more or less the same way. And if you look at this board you'll see good examples of that being the case.
(aside from the obvious connection with corporations and money)
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Don't go there pablum.. I mean Jezebelum.
Wow. Mocking my handle. That's mature. It's OK, you have no clue about it anyway.
Which Witch are you speaking of?
ooo I hope she runs for senator.
Originally posted by torifile
I think the electoral college should be proportional thus giving states weight while allowing voters to have a *real* say in what happens.
Then talk to your state legislature, they're the ones who decide that. In Maine, the "Congressional" electors are awarded to whomever wins each Congressional district, and the two "Senator" electors go to whomever wins the statewide vote, which could result in a more proportional electoral spread. I think such a system would be very effective,
It should be noted, however, that in 2000, Bush won 30 states, and had the electoral votes been broken down across the nation by Congressional district, he would have won 211 of those, resulting in exactly the same Electoral College results as the current system.
I hope that Nader does "siphon" off would be democratic voters and "causes" Bush to win. Then maybe we can get some real reform in the voting system. If nearly half (or more than half) the nation feels unheard, maybe we can get our acts together long enough to make some lasting change.
If losing defines "unheard" then in any election more than half or about half would feel "unheard." That's an absurd notion.
What sort of reform are you looking for? Run offs? Never happen. And run offs are the only way to establish a multi-party system (which would still be a disaster due to the Electoral College -- the American method of governing requires two parties).
I guess you missed 2000.
No, I saw 2000, and in 2000 the Electoral College did track well with the popular vote. The popular vote was an effective tie -- 0.5% Gore over Bush, well within any election's "margin of error." The Electoral vote was also damn near a tie, about 0.8% separating Bush from Gore. In an election that close, the college can go to the candidate not receiving a plurality of the popular vote. But that's about the only time you can have an Electoral College "breakdown," if you consider it such.
I don't, because the popular vote is meaningless.
Without Nader, the popular vote would have gone narrowly to Gore, probably by a bit more than it did in the real vote. So instead of 48% over 48% it'd be 50% over 49% with Gore winning the electoral college 54% to 46%. The college misfired only because of a fracture on the Left caused by Nader which resulted in a too-close-to-call finish.
Kirk
Originally posted by Jubelum
Yea, following established state election law SUCKS!
Are you implying none were broken? You'd have to be stupid to believe that.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you implying none were broken? You'd have to be stupid to believe that.
Plenty were broken. Thus the crisis. I had *just* emerged from my coma... 8)
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/003814.html
1. Elaborate, please, on how a vote for nader is not effectively a vote for bush. I've spent a few irrefutable posts explaining why it is- and Kirkland has confirmed it. "That's not true" doesn't cut it, as you can see.
The assumption that one who votes for Nader would vote for a Democrat is not necessarily true.
2. If you had a chance to rank your choices, I'm assuming you'd prefer a Democratic administration to a Republican administration. Yes, they don't fully represent your principles (or mine for that matter), but the point is that Democrats probably come closer to your principles than Republicans. And by voting for Nader, you're helping elect the party furthest from your principles.
You don't know what my principles are or what I consider most important. The "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" logic is based on a lot of assumptions.
In 2000 I would have voted for Bush if Nader were not on the ballot. I do not know about 2004 yet. I think Bush is as dumb as a bag of hammers, but he isn't Satan.
I mean there is a significant difference between Kerry and Bush- but only because Bush and company are so extreme and ideological - as opposed to Kerry's moderation. He's no liberal by any stretch of imagination- but I think four to eight years of Kerry is better than eight years of Bush.
An idealogical special interest whore versus a poll-driven special interest whore? Pardon me for not caring too much about which one wins.
giant:
If you really care about actually seeing your ideals become reality, especially on a national scale, you have to deal with compromise.
Parties do not move, smaller groups do.
The democratic party is ripe for change, but it's not going to happen overnight and running off and pouting with nader certainly isn't going to do it.
To be "running off" I would have had to be around the Democrats. I have never been with the Democrats. I am left-of-center on a lot of issues, but I am not a Democrat. I never have been.
I don't think you understand that, because you persist with the "running off" motif. It is simply not true. There is nothing true about it.
That just shows how little his supporters really care about making their fantasies a reality.
Since when does putting a president in the office really change things? And past that, since when is that the only way change happens?
The only selling point I could even think of on the actual change front would be the need to appoint new SC judges and I would not like them to be Bush choices. That is it, though. In 2000 though there was absolutely nothing attractive about Gore.
2004 election hasn't come yet, it is 9 months away. We will see.
Originally posted by groverat
The assumption that one who votes for Nader would vote for a Democrat is not necessarily true.
Perhaps not universally, but damn close to it. Bush is so far removed from Nader that to politically back both of them, based on availability, is the political equivelent to schizophrenia. The Democrats are an entire order of magnitude closer to Nader's positions than the Republicans are, particularly knee-jerk, gay-hating, environment-raping, economy-screwing, deficit-busting Republicans like Bush.
You don't know what my principles are or what I consider most important. The "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" logic is based on a lot of assumptions.
It is based on the presumption that, were there not a fanatic left wing nutjob candidate on the ballot, most Nader voters would have voted for the leftmost majoritarian candidate, which is Gore. That presumption is sound, based both on logic (Gore is closer to Nader than Bush, and on polling data which showed that Nader votewasters also cast ballots for Democrats further down the ticket).
In 2000 I would have voted for Bush if Nader were not on the ballot.
Why?
How, if you buy into Nader's nonsense, could you then turn around and vote for the candidate who is pretty much as far as you could get from Nader's positions?
On what was your vote for Nader based that Bush was the best "second option"?
An idealogical special interest whore versus a poll-driven special interest whore? Pardon me for not caring too much about which one wins.
Oh, don't give me that crap. There are major, substantive differences between the GOP and the Democrats on issues both domestic and foreign. Differences where the Democratic position is much closer to that of the Nader/Green "party" than the Republican position. You can't deny this, it's as plain as day.
Parties do not move, smaller groups do.
What are you talking about?! Parties move all the time. In the 1960s, the Democratic Party moved to the left on social issues and in a libertarian direction on personal freedoms. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Republican Party moved to the right on personal issues and away from libertarianism. In the 1990s, the Democrats moved towards the political center in general, and backed away from some of their traditional statist tendencies. Over the past four years, the GOP has drifted towards both the right and towards statism.
Parties move all the time.
Since when does putting a president in the office really change things?
Well, there were the 1860s...
But, in general, the presidency is a horrible position for a third party to hold (same with a governorship). As president, Nader would have failed at least as miserably, if not more so, than Ventura did as governor.
The only selling point I could even think of on the actual change front would be the need to appoint new SC judges and I would not like them to be Bush choices. That is it, though. In 2000 though there was absolutely nothing attractive about Gore.
And retroactively, you think Gore would have led us into the debt, war and despair Bush has?
Those who think there was no difference between Gore and Bush are self-delusional.
Kirk
Perhaps not universally, but damn close to it.
66% doesn't seem "damn close" to universal to me.
Bush is so far removed from Nader that to politically back both of them, based on availability, is the political equivelent to schizophrenia. The Democrats are an entire order of magnitude closer to Nader's positions than the Republicans are, particularly knee-jerk, gay-hating, environment-raping, economy-screwing, deficit-busting Republicans like Bush.
In 2000 we did not know Bush would be so aggressive in his social conservatism or his deficit-expanding. In 2004 I am not even close to being convinced that Kerry will reverse those two trends. And besides, I do not think running a deficit is a major problem.
I am of the opinion that the economy is more removed from the presidency than people like to think. I am for a strong economy, but I have no idea how Kerry will fix anything.
It is based on the presumption that, were there not a fanatic left wing nutjob candidate on the ballot, most Nader voters would have voted for the leftmost majoritarian candidate, which is Gore. That presumption is sound, based both on logic (Gore is closer to Nader than Bush, and on polling data which showed that Nader votewasters also cast ballots for Democrats further down the ticket).
I voted for Greens, Libertarians and Republicans. I have never voted Democrat for a major office.
Bitter, bitter little Democrats.
When you assume you make an ass out of "u" and "me". :-)
How, if you buy into Nader's nonsense, could you then turn around and vote for the candidate who is pretty much as far as you could get from Nader's positions?
Nonsense?
Interesting.
On what was your vote for Nader based that Bush was the best "second option"?
Nader stands for something, he is intelligent and has integrity in his ideals. Bush seemed similar to that on some level in 2000. His record here in Texas showed a guy who worked to build consensus and cut through the political bullshit. I had no idea he would do a 180 in the oval office.
And retroactively, you think Gore would have led us into the debt, war and despair Bush has?
I do not think Gore would have averted 9/11 or the economic collapse, not at all.
I was/am pro-war.
Despair... I don't know what you mean by that.
Originally posted by groverat
I am of the opinion that the economy is more removed from the presidency than people like to think.
Almost everything the president does is directly related to economics.
His record here in Texas showed a guy who worked to build consensus and cut through the political bullshit. I had no idea he would do a 180 in the oval office.
It was pretty hard to miss that the bush admin would turn out the way it did.
I do not think Gore would have averted 9/11.
But that's not what the issue is. The problem revolves around how royally the Bush admin has screwed up, particularly with afghanistan, and that those screw ups sit sqarely in the ideology and strategy of the bush administration.
Originally posted by groverat
66% doesn't seem "damn close" to universal to me.
Depending on what the other folks would do, it could be.
And besides, I do not think running a deficit is a major problem.
So you think it's okay to crush future generations with massive debts to pay off so that we might enjoy excesses today?
I am of the opinion that the economy is more removed from the presidency than people like to think. I am for a strong economy, but I have no idea how Kerry will fix anything.
Well, actually doing something would be a good first start. Bush hasn't lifted a finger to help out of work Americans. Getting the government's books back in balance would be another. If the government isn't sopping up hundreds of billions of available funds, more money is available for economic expansion.
Nader stands for something, he is intelligent and has integrity in his ideals.
Nader is an attention whore and a narcissist who doesn't give a damn about the 'issues' he's supposedly spent his life fighting for.
His record here in Texas showed a guy who worked to build consensus and cut through the political bullshit. I had no idea he would do a 180 in the oval office.
He didn't do a 180. Think about this backwards, filthy, rotten state, this Hell on earth, that we live in: even the Democrats are, pretty much, Republicans. Bush didn't reach across ideological lines to be a "uniter." He just cut deals with the right-wing GOP and the less-right-wing Democrats. That's not tough. Plus, he didn't do much at all of that, but instead got a good relationship with Bob Bullock together and let Bob due the lifting.
I do not think Gore would have averted 9/11 or the economic collapse, not at all.
There was a plan in place to depose the Taliban in December 2000. Gore had been briefed on it repeatedly throughout its development after the attack on the Cole in Yemen, and was very supportive of it.
The Bush team threw it in a drawer because it was from the previous administration, ignored it, finally set up a committee to discuss it in August, and didn't get around to holding their first meeting, which the president decided was beneath him, until September 10.
Had we moved in early-2001, the Twin Towers might still stand. Maybe. We can't know for sure. But since Bush's pre-9/11 foreign policy was a general cluster**** interspersed with moments of outright inanity, it would be hard for Gore to have done much worse.
And as for the economy, the way to fix that is through direct economic stimulus. Gore would have been able to do this, unlike Bush, because he wouldn't have blown our entire budget for the next ten years on a needless, excessive, deficit-creating tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
I was/am pro-war.
Yes! Woo Hoo! Let us waste American lives to get rid of a government that had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11! Yee haw!
Kirk\\
Almost everything the president does is directly related to economics.
I strongly disagree. But whatever, you believe what you like.
Kirkland:
Depending on what the other folks would do, it could be.
No, the numbers above were 2-1 (Gore-Bush) for Nader voters. That's 66%. That is not "damn near" universal.
So you think it's okay to crush future generations with massive debts to pay off so that we might enjoy excesses today?
I think "crush" is a melodramatic description.
Bush hasn't lifted a finger to help out of work Americans.
That is very true. But then again, I am obviously not a Bush fan.
Nader is an attention whore and a narcissist who doesn't give a damn about the 'issues' he's supposedly spent his life fighting for.
You are kidding, right?
It's been nice talking to you. You don't have to worship Nader or anything, but to be that purposefully stupid is evidence that you are not interested in any kind of honest debate.
If anything, bitter, angry and backbiting little Democrats just jade me to the party even more. Why the hell would I want to be associated with someone like you? Why would I want someone like you speaking for me? Political party allegiances are bad, just ask George Washington.
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
Originally posted by groverat
It's been nice talking to you. You don't have to worship Nader or anything, but to be that purposefully stupid is evidence that you are not interested in any kind of honest debate.
If anything, bitter, angry and backbiting little Democrats just jade me to the party even more. Why the hell would I want to be associated with someone like you? Why would I want someone like you speaking for me? Political party allegiances are bad, just ask George Washington.
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
I think you forgot to delete a couple of paragraphs there at the end. You know. The stuff after "you are not interested in any kind of honest debate."
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
I strongly disagree. But whatever, you believe what you like.
Then disagree. The world will keep catching you off-guard.
One of the reasons that alot of democrats are pissed off is that he claims there's little difference between democrats and republicans...
which we all know from what goes on at AI... couldn't be further from the truth... we agree on a few things occassionally... but there's big differences.
Does he want a third party? Does he just want the system to accept independant candidates? Which it does all the time... anyone remember... "We know what's wrong... we just gotta fix it" Perot?
Does it come down to the fact that this is when Nader can get the most attention for his ideas? So rather than talk strictly about the issues... he has to go on a slash and burn campaign?
Some people seem to have party aversion... which is fine... but spare us the whining when you throw away your vote and don't like who does get into office.
Well you have it quoted now, it is inescapable!
I have little patience or respect for hysterics. I am not always nice.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
One of the reasons that alot of democrats are pissed off is that he claims there's little difference between democrats and republicans...
which we all know from what goes on at AI... couldn't be further from the truth... we agree on a few things occassionally... but there's big differences.
I'd like to think that by similarities drawn between republicans and democrats he is more talking about how they seem to be at equal odds with each other and go about it in more or less the same way. And if you look at this board you'll see good examples of that being the case.
(aside from the obvious connection with corporations and money)
Originally posted by groverat
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
Originally posted by groverat
I have little patience or respect for hysterics.
Originally posted by groverat
Well you have it quoted now, it is inescapable!
Zing! Pow! Crash! Bang!
I have little patience or respect for hysterics. I am not always nice.
Does your lack of patience and civility always coincide with thoughtful, well-informed, point-by-point rebuttals like Kirk's?
Cheers
Scott