Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 10:49 AM

Nessuno said:
I think this is a pretty complex issue overall.

The two party system isn't working, clearly. But we can't afford to back a candidate that doesn't have a shot at electability. I mean, in principle Nader is doing us a service by running despite not having a chance in hell. All groups have a right to enter a candidate into a race to represent them. But practically, he's hurting Dem efforts.

And I'm sorry, but blaming '00 on Nader is bullshit. Bush stole that election and stole '04 as well. Gore won Florida according to the final count. Nader hurt Gore's count, but he's not to blame for Bush.



Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

FEB 24, 2008 10:52 AM

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:
I have my doubts that this will do much. Although I agree with much of what the Green Party is based on, Ralphie has already shot his load. He is far too marginalized to effect anything.



He always will be, until he is elected.



But I thought you said someone needed to be a governor before being qualified to be president. So which is it?



SHOULD be, both by precedent and reason. But it hasnt been absolute.


Prove the precedent. I'll help you out. Of the 42 presidents, 17 were governors. Less than half. Not a precedent. Not a majority. FAIL!

And as far as qualifications, the real ones have nothing to do with a previous job (other than, if someone is removed from office, they can't run again, or if they have served twice in a row, they can't run again). They are:

be a natural-born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old
have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

FEB 24, 2008 10:54 AM

martinj_b52 said:

Nessuno said:
I think this is a pretty complex issue overall.

The two party system isn't working, clearly. But we can't afford to back a candidate that doesn't have a shot at electability. I mean, in principle Nader is doing us a service by running despite not having a chance in hell. All groups have a right to enter a candidate into a race to represent them. But practically, he's hurting Dem efforts.

And I'm sorry, but blaming '00 on Nader is bullshit. Bush stole that election and stole '04 as well. Gore won Florida according to the final count. Nader hurt Gore's count, but he's not to blame for Bush.



Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?



Widespread electoral fraud in Ohio?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

FEB 24, 2008 10:56 AM

martinj_b52 said:
Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?



While I'm sure some people wouldn't outright use the term "steal"; there was voter suppression, voter intimidation, fraud, gerrymandering, character assassination of a war hero, fear-mongering, etc...

Corrupt is a more accurate term. Democrats could hardly claim innocence; but the GOP sure set the precedence in that election.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

FEB 24, 2008 10:57 AM

KUNGFOO said:

martinj_b52 said:
Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?



While I'm sure some people wouldn't outright use the term "steal"; there was voter suppression, voter intimidation, gerrymandering, character assassination of a war hero, fear-mongering, etc...

Corrupt is a more accurate term. Democrats could hardly claim innocence; but the GOP sure set the precedence in that election.



Plus the fact that he didn't really win the 2000 election, so he was running as a false incumbent.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 11:11 AM

coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:
I have my doubts that this will do much. Although I agree with much of what the Green Party is based on, Ralphie has already shot his load. He is far too marginalized to effect anything.



He always will be, until he is elected.



But I thought you said someone needed to be a governor before being qualified to be president. So which is it?



SHOULD be, both by precedent and reason. But it hasnt been absolute.


Prove the precedent.

And as far as qualifications, the real ones have nothing to do with a previous job (other than, if someone is removed from office, they can't run again, or if they have served twice in a row, they can't run again). They are:

be a natural-born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old
have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years



16 were. Thats almost 25 percent

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 11:16 AM

KUNGFOO said:

martinj_b52 said:
Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?



While I'm sure some people wouldn't outright use the term "steal"; there was voter suppression, voter intimidation, fraud, gerrymandering, character assassination of a war hero, fear-mongering, etc...

Corrupt is a more accurate term. Democrats could hardly claim innocence; but the GOP sure set the precedence in that election.



War Hero? They couldnt locate anyone who served with him that even LIKED him, much less RESPECTED him. Character assassination?!?! Lets see.... Rathergate...ooops wrong guy.... ummm... tossing medals over the fence at the White House? "those wernt MY medals"-John Kerry

Then there is the divorce of one wealthy white widow so he could marry a wealtheir white widow? Character?!?! Do Gigolo's HAVE character?
As far as voter suppression goes, nobody is asking how a white, elitist female Democrat beat a black, male Democrat in HARLEM in an election.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

FEB 24, 2008 11:19 AM

The problem with 3rd party candidates is that instead of building a base and working their way up, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president. Take 4,8,12 years and build a viable party that people want to vote for and use it to run a state first to show that your party can get shit done. Once you have that kind of backing you can move to the national level.

And don't give me crap about people not wanting to wait that long or some crap the fundies spent the last 30 years getting their people into position slowly and methodically so it can be done if someone simply had the will to do it.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

FEB 24, 2008 11:19 AM

martinj_b52 said:
As far as voter suppression goes, nobody is asking how a white, elitist female Democrat beat a black, male Democrat in HARLEM in an election.



Yes, they are.

Wow, do you get a nickel for every time you're wrong about something?

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 11:27 AM

Uncognitive said:

martinj_b52 said:
As far as voter suppression goes, nobody is asking how a white, elitist female Democrat beat a black, male Democrat in HARLEM in an election.



Yes, they are.

Wow, do you get a nickel for every time you're wrong about something?



Havnt seen THIS article in the evening news (guess I havnt been watching enough Fox News lately, they MIGHT be covering it) What page was this on in the print edition? Buried so far down that even the parrot couldn't shit on it?

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

FEB 24, 2008 11:31 AM

In the 2004 election, Nader won 0.38% of the vote, which roughly tied with Libertarian Michael Badnarik at 0.32%. The Green Party candidate showed up at 0.096%.

I don't think Nader is anything to worry about.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 24, 2008 11:33 AM

oyaji said:

martinj_b52 said:

Uncognitive said:

martinj_b52 said:
As far as voter suppression goes, nobody is asking how a white, elitist female Democrat beat a black, male Democrat in HARLEM in an election.



Yes, they are.

Wow, do you get a nickel for every time you're wrong about something?



Havnt seen THIS article in the evening news (guess I havnt been watching enough Fox News lately, they MIGHT be covering it) What page was this on in the print edition? Buried so far down that even the parrot couldn't shit on it?



So, even though the New York Times, the "liberal" standard bearer of the media, which is conspiring to focus only on conservative-orchestrated corruption, and which endorsed Hillary Clinton, is covering this issue, that equals "no one is talking about it."

And what does that have to do with fraud in Ohio in 2004?



My question is, HOW are they covering it? This isnt a headline anyplace.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

FEB 24, 2008 11:34 AM

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:

coyotemike said:
I have my doubts that this will do much. Although I agree with much of what the Green Party is based on, Ralphie has already shot his load. He is far too marginalized to effect anything.



He always will be, until he is elected.



But I thought you said someone needed to be a governor before being qualified to be president. So which is it?



SHOULD be, both by precedent and reason. But it hasnt been absolute.


Prove the precedent.

And as far as qualifications, the real ones have nothing to do with a previous job (other than, if someone is removed from office, they can't run again, or if they have served twice in a row, they can't run again). They are:

be a natural-born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old
have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years



16 were. Thats almost 25 percent



Calling 16 out of 42 (actually, I counted 17, but anyway) a qualifying precedent is roughly equal to Bush calling his 51% victory over Kerry a "mandate from the masses." In other words . . .

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

FEB 24, 2008 11:41 AM

martinj_b52 said:

My question is, HOW are they covering it? This isnt a headline anyplace.



Feel free to let us know when it reaches troll standards.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

FEB 24, 2008 11:44 AM

FearTheReaper said:

martinj_b52 said:

My question is, HOW are they covering it? This isnt a headline anyplace.



Feel free to let us know when it reaches troll standards.



Troll standards are to use capslock for every word. Caps Lock is Cruise Control for Cool. This idiot is nothing more than an Imp-level Troll.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

FEB 24, 2008 12:02 PM

martinj_b52 said:

KUNGFOO said:

martinj_b52 said:
Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?



While I'm sure some people wouldn't outright use the term "steal"; there was voter suppression, voter intimidation, fraud, gerrymandering, character assassination of a war hero, fear-mongering, etc...

Corrupt is a more accurate term. Democrats could hardly claim innocence; but the GOP sure set the precedence in that election.



War Hero? They couldnt locate anyone who served with him that even LIKED him, much less RESPECTED him. Character assassination?!?! Lets see.... Rathergate...ooops wrong guy.... ummm... tossing medals over the fence at the White House? "those wernt MY medals"-John Kerry

Then there is the divorce of one wealthy white widow so he could marry a wealtheir white widow? Character?!?! Do Gigolo's HAVE character?
As far as voter suppression goes, nobody is asking how a white, elitist female Democrat beat a black, male Democrat in HARLEM in an election.



Hey, you're not on the line with Rush... You're going to have to actually be relevant instead of relying on Rovian talking points.

Fixer

Fixer

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

FEB 24, 2008 01:22 PM

Colinism said:
The problem with 3rd party candidates is that instead of building a base and working their way up, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president. .



The problem with big party candidates is that instead of actually having their own opinions and standing for what they personally believe in, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president.simply because of lot of voters can't see beyond the words "democrat" or "republican", as if all thoughts and opinions on the way governance should happen can be distilled down into one of these two groups.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

FEB 24, 2008 01:47 PM

Fixer said:

Colinism said:
The problem with 3rd party candidates is that instead of building a base and working their way up, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president. .



The problem with big party candidates is that instead of actually having their own opinions and standing for what they personally believe in, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president.simply because of lot of voters can't see beyond the words "democrat" or "republican", as if all thoughts and opinions on the way governance should happen can be distilled down into one of these two groups.



Agreed, however the big two have alot of power because they can write the rules. A third party candidate needs to have that same base to build upon or they could have the best ideas in the world and the other two will simply steal them.

_panda_

_panda_

I'm lost
November 2005

FEB 24, 2008 02:04 PM

Hooraydiation said:
So just for the record, we're all okay with the two party system, right?

If we just had every American who knows for a fact that he or she will never vote outside the big two state declare, perhaps in the form of a petition, such intent, then we can dispel the illusion of viability that sustains third parties and all agree to compromise our true values together.

I'm willing to vote Democrat forever, even if little more than fear of a Republican motivates me at times. Who's with me!?



There is nothing stopping a legitimate multi-party election - gosh there are many parties. But, they will need to gain supporters and funding to make a difference.

It is highly possible to have a legitimate 3-4-5 way race, but it will take many years to evolve. First step is likley to get some seats in the house.

_panda_

_panda_

I'm lost
November 2005

FEB 24, 2008 02:05 PM

oyaji said:

bald_eagle said:
I'm one of those who still partially blame him for the outcome of the 2000 election. Fortunately, I think Obama's charisma will counteract the disaffection that sent voters to Nader that year. This is a non-event.

But if Clinton manages to get the nomination, all bets are off.



Blame Al Gore. He couldn't carry his own state. He couldn't capitalize on being the VP of a popular outgoing administration. He ran a terrible campaign. He should have eaten George W. Bush alive. He didn't. Nader hurt Gore, but if Gore hadn't sucked so bad in 2000, Nader wouldn't have been able to hurt Gore.



Write this day down. I agree with Oyagi

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

FEB 25, 2008 04:34 AM

Fixer said:

Colinism said:
The problem with 3rd party candidates is that instead of building a base and working their way up, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president. .



The problem with big party candidates is that instead of actually having their own opinions and standing for what they personally believe in, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president.simply because of lot of voters can't see beyond the words "democrat" or "republican", as if all thoughts and opinions on the way governance should happen can be distilled down into one of these two groups.



I disagree. Twenty years ago, I might have agreed, but that argument doesn't work anymore. Independents are the fastest growing group in American politics. And with cable news and internet media making the candidates much more highly visisble, it's not the same blind vote that you had back in the days of political machines and party bosses. Obviously many people are inclined to vote for one party or the other, simply because they polarize themselves on the issues. But individual candidates are very much in the public eye at least a year or two out from the Presidential election. Just look at this year's crop. Hillary has been around for almost twenty years. McCain ran in the last election and was highly visible in politics before that. The only relative newcomer is Obama, and he's been an elected official for a long time, though mostly at the state and local level. Also, most Presidential candidates, if they appear to come out of "nowhere" are actually just making themselves known in the public eye that spends most of its time not paying any damn attention. Ask most Americans who their reps in Congress are, and they couldn't even tell you.

Then you have Nader, who announces his candidacy about eight months out. It's not such a big deal there because 1)everyone who cares is pretty much aware of his platform and 2)not that many people care.

but none of this changes the fact that Nader hasn't made a real effort to build a viable third party as an option, nor the fact that he will, again, be completely defeated in the general election.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

FEB 25, 2008 05:31 AM

He looks like my homeless ex-roommate.

smokebombhill

smokebombhill

Providence, RI
January 2008

FEB 26, 2008 09:03 AM

Nader has long since gotten too old and self-absorbed to realize that no one gives a fuck about his "point" anymore. In fact, so few now give a fuck, that his running will have a negligible effect on this election. He's kind of an activist morphed into a megalomaniac, but whatever. Ralph Nader? Meh.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next