Slashdot Mirror
Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb
Today you have the opportunity to ask questions of the
Green Party's candidate for President of the United States,
David Cobb. Standard interview rules apply: we'll select a dozen or so of the best questions and Mr. Cobb will give us his answers next week.
How do you respond to accusations from Democrats that a vote for your party is a vote for George Bush?
In this world of political campaigning via direct attacks and dancing around the real issues, I am curious to know how you and your party have reacted to these attacks.
Additionally, what is your party and personal stance towards using the very methods I'm mentioning as return fodder for the 2 large parties?
"It's not stealing if you don't get caught!"
Obviously with the current unpopularity of Bush and Kerry the final vote is down to either you or Ralph Nader. What decisive advantages do you feel you have over Nader that make you more likely to win the presidency? ;-)
Thank you for taking our questions.
The first of the ten key values of the Green Party is "Grssroots Democracy". Over the past few years, the American Green Party has made significant steps forward, but (as best I can tell) is still growing at a local level. While I understand the appeal of national coverage, is running a presidential campaign really in the spirit or the best interests of the party? Wouldn't those funds be more effective in campaigning for more local offices, or launching a statewide candidate in an area where the Greens have a solid foothold? Isn't that how grassroots is supposed to work--from the bottom up and not from the top down?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
"John Kerry voted for George Bush's War"
makes us right-wingers chuckle, and the lefties cringe.
How does it make you feel to be reading and responding to comments on the computar and thus feeding the demand for electricity that is making us burn fossil fuels?
Is it easy being Green?
In a two-party system like the U.S. has, what is your strategy to draw voters and most importantly have them take you seriously?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
The Green Party is best known for its progressive policies on the environment, however its other policies are often shrouded by this, most people not knowing where the Green Party stands on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
What do you think might be the best approach to educate the masses about the rest of Green Party polices?
If I was a Repubican or Democrat, what would you say to me to make me switch to the Green Party?
Mr Cobb, As a registered member of the Green Party for the past several elections, I am concerned about the verbage in party information I've received concerning the November 2004 election. It seems I am being encouraged (strongly) to vote for the Democratic ticket. Is the Green Party no longer holding to it's grass-roots past and is it abandoning the philosophy of presenting a viable third-party point of view and candidate? Thank you.
What's your opinion of Ralph Nader?
Unknown host pong.
Decentralization.
Does that include divesting the Union government of the powers it has accrued after its formation?
Specifically, would you support decentralizing all environmental law, by leaving it to the states and private citizens?
-Peter
You know what? I agree entirely. Let's put Bush out on the front lines of his war and we'll stand behind him!
(By the way, do the moderators not like free speech? This guy has a perfectly valid viewpoint. He's not a troll or flamebait just because you disagree with him.)
Why bother.
One thing I've wondered about third party candidates is their motivation; do you really think you can win races? Do you think that if you run long enough, eventually you can break through the two party system? Or is it just a "protest candidacy" because you don't agree with the Democratic Party's platform? Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party (for lack of a better way to put it, but you know what I mean; if they had policies more in line with the Green Party). Or do you really and truly believe in your party, and want get them elected and into the political system?
Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
How does the Green Party's view on affirmative action (from what I could gather from your website) coincide with key value #2 (social justice and equal opportunity)? It seems that someone who is pushing for monetary reparations for past injustices as well as affirmative action programs cannot say they also confront things that "deny fair treatment" (also from key value #2).
What is your opinion of Ralf Nader's actions after not gaining the Green Party Nomination for president? Do you think the Reform Party and the Green Party share any ideological common ground? If the first major Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot, is at all representative of the Reform Party platform, I would think there would be a clash of believes between the two parties. Is Nader selling out for another bid at the presidency?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
While I value the thoughts and insight of some of the non-major party candidates in this forum, how about approaching the candidates that actually have a fundamentally real chance of winning the election in November?
(Not that either of them would necessarily do it, and they may even have been approached, but either way it's worth a try.)
Since the Green party (as other minor parties) has no chance of winning the Presidency, how does the party evaluate and justify spending resources on this contest instead of on Congressional and state-level contests?
Is it a PR thing? If you look at the Greens in Germany (granted, very different system) you see that they rose slowly over time from the smallest contests to eventually having Cabinet positions.
What is the American Green Party's overall strategy to increase their representation, and how does an unwinnable Presidential election fit into it?
This Like That - fun with words!
I recently watched your very good and very friendly debate between Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. One issue you brought up was universal health care that taxpayer would pay for. If you are elected president, what do you think is a fair tax percentage for the average American, 10%, 20%, 30%? If you say it depends on how much you make, then for the sake of this question, say I make $75,000 a year. What percentage would a Green party president expect an average American making $75,000 a year pay to support all these social plans?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Thank you for your time. Recently in San Francisco, Matt Gonzalez, a popular local Green Party politico, has been pushing for the ability for noncitizens to vote in some of the local elections. While there are other places that offer this long before SF, it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not. Rather than expanding the franchise this way, why not work to streamline the process for getting citizenship and encourage people to seek it?
Can you expound and explain a bit on your stance on this?
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Hello, Given that the current system of voting tends to reinforce the positions of the two major parties (e.g. you must vote for a candidate or for their closest challenger), have you given any though to supporting election reform as a method of making inroads for your party? It would seem that if all the 'second class' political parties supported election reform you would be able to make larger strides than trying to play the republicrat's game.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Telling someone that they "hate America" because they don't agree with your point of view is Flamebait.
What aspects of the Green party platform differentiate it from the other parties? Aside from an open primary, what other interesting new things would the party promote?
"By the way, do the moderators not like free speech?"
Sure they do. As long as it's Slashdot APPROVED free speech.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
As President, you would at best be able to veto bills and direct some agency policies (within the confines of legislation).
Why are you seeking the presidency, particularly? Why is it the best strategy for achieving your goals?
Thank God that happened because I can't ever remember oil prices being so LOW. It's great. I'm getting a gallon of gas for 2.50 and a barrel of crude for $48.65. Thanks to the Iraq war. In case you can't tell, I'm being SARCASTIC! MORON! The war was never about low oil prices you fucking TARD!
It is a legitimate question. Why bother in an election that is geared to a 2 party system? How does this candidate keep his passion?
Let's start by stating, as we are all smart people here, that you will not win this election.
Given your party's platform (and name), people who'll vote for you would have voted for Kerry, and not Bush. So, you are effectively helping Bush, who has a dismal record when it comes to protecting the environment.
So, why run at all? Won't you feel guilty if Bush wins to continue his polluting and predatoru policies?
Why are so many of the people in your party, and so many of the party officials, former members of the socialist and communist parties of America? Isn't the 'Green party' in fact just the old 'Red party' with a new name and all the same old faces?
This is not a troll, this is a serious question based on what I've seen of the Green Party in my state.
Mr Cobb,
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
There's much talk about the security and reliability of current electronic voting machines. What do you think needs to be done about it (if anything), and can it be done without being elected by them in the first place?
Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)
Bush was elected. Only one of fifty vote-sections was decided de-facto judicially
And the Constition doesn't care HOW a president was elected for terms of eligibility. If Bush & Cheney had been killed on 9/11, Collen Powell would only be able to be elected once more, not twice. (You can't run if you would wind up serving over a total of 10 years.)
No, technically he was elected.
The Florida Supreme Court tried to apply alternate vote-counting rules not allowed under Florida law to ballots in specific counties. This was overturned on a 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court. The FSC also tried to extend the date of certification when the certification date also was clearly stated under Florida law. This is the vote that was overturned on a 5-4 decision. The USSC basically said that the election results as then-currently counted under Florida law had to stay put, because the FSC was trying to rewrite election law on its own, which is not its role in the system.
And to correct your other point, the limit is ten years in office, which usually translates to two elected terms as president with some overlap in case the VP is moved up a notch. So no, even if you were right, he wouldn't be able to run twice more.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
No, he was elected. I'm so sick of people saying that "Bush stole the election" and a bunch of other leftist bullshit. You should read this before you go on FUDing the president:
Recount analysis by NYT (no reg required)
I don't like Bush either, but you don't see me resorting to FUD to try to sway people's opinions.
-Jem
On the Green Party website, it states that you support "reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation."
Where would this money come from, if this plan was enacted and how would the recipients be determined? If the money would come from tax dollars, what do you say to people, such as myself, whose ancestors had no part in slavery or major racial discrimination and don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these reparations?
Supposing the usual 2-party congress, what would be the most realistically achievable yet significant accomplishment a Green president could hope to make in the first hundred days ... or the first year?
"But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
Obviously we here at slashdot are a bit on the techie side. I know that I have personally watched my rights being taken away from me over the past few years. Mainly my right to fair use. Under current law it is illegal to watch CSS encoded DVDs under Linux or any other Open Source operating system. What are you and your party's feelings on loosening certain restrictions to make the act of fair use a right again.
Also, on the concept of intellectual property and copyright laws. What are your party's and your feelings on the current trend of extending the length of copyright terms? Do you have any plans to reverse the current trend or perhaps to set the lengths back to their original terms?
Thanks.
---Nick Fury
The Green Party has real solutions to our society's complex problems. The Greens will create jobs, address racism, protect the environment, improve education, repair our healthcare system and protect public resources.
The only solution to big government is bigger government! Woooooohoooo
"Address racism"? What does that mean? "Hi Racism, My name is Jim! Nice to meet you", or more ridiculous "hate crime" laws?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Is St patrick's Day your favorite, or least favorite holiday
This
I love it when people claim that they have free speech when someone who doesn't share the same viewpoint yells/screams/blocks their right to speak.
Also remember, censorship can only be done by ONE entity...the Government, not business, not a single person or group, GOVERNMENT. Learn it, understand it.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
What is your stance on the use of medical-marijana? What do you think can be done to change the way in which the war on drugs in America is being fought, either legalizing/decriminalizing and taxing or otherwise?
Furthermore, How will you deal with our budget deficit and reform the GOP's relentless tax cuts and the Democratic Party's exorbanent spending?
What is your stance on the DMCA and surrounding issues (upcoming acts like the INDUCE act)? Should legislation like this be curbed, watered down, or tightened?
AccountKiller
Not really. The court decided that he was elected. While that means that he was effectively appointed, from the legal standpoint it wouldn't be appointment, it would be election.
My Bad got sidetracked there and cut the first question out....
Mr Cobb,
What is your view of our national debt versus
current entitlement programs? How would you
balance the federal budget and would you support
paying off the national debt?
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Why doesn't the Green Party support nuclear power?
Not trying to be an overall pessimist, but one of the most difficult parts of being the president is that having a very partisan congress makes any proposed "good idea" from anyone a big target. I would really like to see legislation for Industrial Hemp, Biodiesel, and many other non-fossil fuels take root as an energy policy, but special interest lobbying groups would make passing any major changes through the legislative branch almost impossible.
Are you against the green party accepting help from conservative organizations hoping to detract from the democratic party by drawing votes to a third party? This has been happening with another third-party campaign and I would like to know your take on it. Thank you.
Well, gee aren't you just mister know it all.
Mr. Cobb,
What do you believe is necessary for your party or any other to become a viable third party in American elections? Even though George Washington warned against having a partisan political system in his farewell speech, America seems to have developed a two-party system that forces third-parties out of the political process.
Also, what do you think of the Democratic and Republican parties shift away from what's good for America toward what is good for their respective parties and the businesses / people that support them while leaving the majority of Americans out?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
What do you see as the greatest problem with US News media? What do you think is the best way of restoring more objective news outlets? How would you change current media regulations and how would you encourage independant non-profit news outlets?
Thanks!
Where do you get this (the "appointed not elected" stuff)? Seriously. IANAL, but my understanding was that the US Supremes disallowed a recount, so the representatives to the Electoral College voted based on the original counts. So technically wasn't Bush in fact elected, not appointed?
Can you provide a link that specifies that Bush was technically appointed? Or are you just using the term technically in a non-rigorous way?
I know people are awfully bitter about what happened in Florida, but are we doing anyone any favors by making false assertions?
What is this desire to aim directly for the Whitehouse? Why not pool resources and fight the local battles? By aiming for the presidency (and ignoring the local politics), you are setting yourselves up for a fall. We all know that in a 2-party system, rigged the way it is, your chances of winning the Whitehouse are somewhere between 0.00 and 0.000. Then why waste the resources on this race?
How many members of Congress do you have? How many locally elected officials does the Green Party have? How many judicial appointees do you have? See the pattern here?
Maybe this isn't a question as much as a rant, but if you feel like, please answer why you are wasting the time and effort on a run for the Whitehouse, when the same resources, applied at local levels, would yield immensely more benefit.
what the purpose of allowing snowmobiles in national parks is
I think it's acceptable in some parks not in all. You can't ride in all areas... ask a better question. A park isn't museum, it's also a recreational area.
what the point is behind conflict of interest stanzas in employment contracts
what do you think the point is?
ask him why we have a national oil reserve
We have a national oil reserve so that if the production of oil stops and there is a dire need for oil, we will have some. dire need does not include assholes w/ SUVs who are sick of paying $2/gal at the pump. It's dry friendly wells and a world war where real American's need to put their lives on the line in tanks, planes and boats to save your sorry ass while you sip a mochachino and debate which broadway play you liked better you noodle armed nancy pants.
Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically
According to the laws of this country Bush was elected. Get over it.
Meanwhile MTV has their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american youths to vote a certain way...
I'd love to know (not with some bullshit poll, but with some cosmic brain that knows all or by asking god or something) what percentage of voting americans (or anyone) actually knows anything about the candidate they are voting for, except for what they've seen on TV commercials or other biased media?
How many go out and actually look at the record of this person's voting in the senate? Or the bills that this person vetoed/approved while in his last term? Or this persons personal actions in life? Bush has made some fuck-ups and so has Kerry... almost every politician has, because they're generally power hungry and assholes to boot.
"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)"
:)
What?
He can't be elected for two more terms. Only one. Despite the "appointed" crack, he was in fact elected by THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, which is the vote that really counts in presidential elections. The Supreme Court merely ruled that the endless vote counting should stop in Florida. And, as others have repeatedly pointed out here before, every single credible attempt to count those so-called lost votes STILL ended up with Bush winning. Every-Single-Time.
So, rest your paranoid little head. Dubya can only win this upcoming election.
Then you get to look forward to Rudy Guliani beating the piss out of Hillary Clinton in 2008
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Thanks for your time, Mr. Cobb. How do you reconcile your more socialist-leaning positions with the letter of the U.S. Constitution? Meaning, how are they a valid function of the Federal government, as opposed to, say, state and local jurisdictions? Also, I understand that "social programs" are a large part of what comprises the GP platform, but how do you plan to actually create these new programs, remain fiscally responsible, and at the same time quell the [very] valid arguments against large increases in taxation? Please define what compells your candidacy to further a notion of "greater good" while perhaps others do not share your definition thereof.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
I think it is now becoming conventional wisdom among the American Left that America politics as a whole has moved rightwards (more conservative) in the last 30 years. Among the most cogent analyses of the move to the right are those that trace the flow of money (over $2B) from the ultra rich and the large multinational corporations to conservative rightwing foundations and thinktanks (see for example the essays at www.tcfranks.com, and google "tentacles of rage").
The more visible component of this propaganda machine are the talk radio shows and the cable tv news shows. But they sprang from, and still largely depend on, fodder from the think tanks and foundations.
Many on the American Left now accept that unless this inexorable flood of rightwnig propaganda is somehow countered or neutralized, electoral politicking (e.g., fighting to elect Kerry, or voting 3rd party) is somewhat moot, because this decades-old flood of propaganda has also moved the Democratic party to the right much the same as the GOP. Also, the undemocratic structure of the electoral political machine in America (single member, winner take all districts, etc) would seem to disempower 3rd parties except for a spoiler role.
Given the situation outlined above, what good does it do to engage in 3rd party electoral politics?
And more to the point, what can American leftists do to move America to the left, given the power that 3 decades of rightwing propaganda has had on the American political mind?
Would it be more productive trying to land a talk radio gig somewhere?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Do you think that it is in the longterm interest of your party to align itself with the Libertarian Party to help force a revitalized political system? Or do you believe that it would be better to focus on putting pressure on the Democrats to enact some of your politics by costing them elections? Basically, do you see a better future in working with other minor parties to create an essentially totally new political system or to act as a "powerful spoiler" capable of putting pressure on left-of-center democrats to listen to your supporters?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I'll ask the same questions I posed to the Libertarian candidate:
Would you approve of, and what would you think would be the results of, the following election reforms:
1. Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Lastly a question: is the democratic system as instituted in the United States hopelessly mired in a two-party stranglehold, leaving corporate interest in defacto charge of the discussion? Is legal election reform necessary, or even possible?
MORTAR COMBAT!
Who???
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
We have a current sitting President that see's nothing in his instance of over ruling scientific findings on stem cell research and yet claiming that other Islamic fundamentalism is wrong..
How does your party stand on the issue of going forward into a secular modern USa society in the US or going into civil war between competing fundamentalism explotation of the world's resources??..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I think Perot proved this. Perot was a very viable 3rd party candidate until people really got to know him. He seemed like a great candidate for President from many aspects, but then he whipped out all the charts and cliches.
Perot proved that $$$ is what wins political campaigns nowadays - that combined with a good head on your shoulders. It has little to do with party affiliation or constituency in this era.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
What makes you more qualified to be the president, and what do you have to offer to those that are most likely voting for Bush and are for the war on Terror?
Is it an advantage to you that most people who are voting for Kerry are doing so because they "hate" President Bush?
Your answers are much appreciated!
By how many degrees will the average global temperature rise by the greenhouse gases that will be emitted from the bullshit that comes out of the mouths of all the presidencial candidates? Wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly just to declare the US to be a loose conglomeration of anarcho-syndicalist communities, rather than waste all the money, time, effort on elections?
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
(By the way, do the moderators not like free speech? This guy has a perfectly valid viewpoint. He's not a troll or flamebait just because you disagree with him.)
In case you haven't noticed, you can still browse at -1 and read his comment.
The people who run Slashdot are not in any way obligated to provide anyone with a forum to speak their mind. The government doesn't have a right to jail you for speaking an unpopular opinion; on the other hand, people who own private property certainly do have the right to kick you off it if they don't like what you're saying. That's not censorship. They're not depriving you of a right to say it anywhere; they're just depriving you of a right to say it there.
Anyway, all that being said, the moderation system of Slashdot doesn't even deprive you of a chance to speak your mind, no matter how offtopic or inane. It just lets people choose to read only comments that the community agrees are of a higher level of quality, if they choose.
Does the green party platform still call for a Max wage that would tax at 100% any income over 10 times the min wage?
If it does not, do you support such a plan?
Firstly, thank you for responding to our questions.
The name "Green Party" conjures images of a party interested in environmental concerns. Of course, environmental legislation isn't the only issue to have environmental impacts; international trade and energy policy both have substantial environmental ramifications. However, it seems some Green issues aren't environmentally related. For example, while I too believe that gender equity and diversity are good values, why are they part of The Green Party's Ten Key Values, given they don't appear to be substantially related to environmental issues?
Why does it seem that the Green Party takes on issues that aren't related to "green-ness"? Is it essential for a modern US political party to have a stance on every issue, even those not seemingly related to core beliefs?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
man, you guys have no sense of humour... it's supposed to be funny!
I'm one of those under-fourty-year-olds who never expects to see a check from Social Security. Do you believe that Social Security is heading for insolvancy (due to radical demographic shifts in the US population), and if so how would you resolve the problem?
I really want to get an answer on this one. Every Green I've heard has grandiose plans for what Government should provide, but I never hear much about how much they intend to charge us taxpayers for these services.
Tell that to the neocons, you pinko hippy!
Declare that if you win, you'll give the Whitehouse an environmentally friendly paint-job, so we can then call it the "GreenHouse".
Will make it a more difficult target for terrorists too. Camoflague!
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
America is ready for a third party -- the Democrats seem to have lost their thunder, and many Republicans feel that their party isn't meeting their needs.
However, the name "Green Party" invokes in many people images of socialism and even ecoterrorism. The ecological movement has been painted as an anti-worker and even anti-American concept by people who believe that conservation and the reduction of pollution should be voluntary undertakings. I know that's not what the party is about, but that's doesn't stop older voters like my father from equating the movement with, for lack of a better term, neo-hippism.
How does the party plan to improve its public image and distance itself from more radical anti-corporate, anti-ecological groups? And how do you intend to endear your humanistic social goals to the institutions that currently fund the political system, namely rich individuals and corporations?
Hey freaks: now you're ju
They are so by definition.
The entire world is moving away from socialism, these nutjobs want to move towards it.
The Green's are made up largely of former members of the Communist or Socialist parties. Same shit, new name to try and trick people. (Gator becomes Claria).
People hear "communist" and it conjures up pictures of standing in line in freezing rain for toilet paper. People hear "green" and they think they're saving whales and fixing the ozone layer.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
no where on your site where do you stand on this hot issue?
What exactly does that mean? Registration? Licensing? Confiscation?
better red than a brainwashed American slave....
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Yeah, but the Bushies like to take so many damn vacations, he's actually only "served" three months of his term! He could run yet again!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
well, glad that your able to keep the tone of a grownup. And i must say that i'm not surpriced that you chosed to post that comment as Anonymous Coward. I'll stay away from coming with any personal statements on that behalf. And i never said that Mr. Bush actually made his goals.
How do you feel about women getting paid time off from work when they have a baby ? In Canada women get a year of paid leave.
Thank you for taking questions. I am newly registered as a green party member, and am curious what sort of network exists within my community in Arizona? Where is a good place to get information about local events and gatherings? Thank you for your time and best of luck with the campaign.
When The Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik was interviewed on Slashdot, there was a comment made about how disruptive it would be to implement his (and his party's) ideas. His response, in essense, was that since the only way he would get elected was if hell had frozen over, that it made sense to create a platform for that situation. While that makes for a nice way for people to give the finger to "the man", it hardly provides a real alternative to the current system.
My question is: are you guys ready or able to play on the same stage as the Democrats and Republicans, can you get the attention of the media, and can you sell your message to the average american? Convince me that voting for you would be of more use than voting for the lesser of two evils.
What have your experiences been with trying to get media recognition of your candidacy and your goals without having the kind of budget the two major parties have?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
You mention support for public financing of elections, how would you stop private financing of the candidates but still allow freedom of speach? For example would Fahrenheit 9/11 classify as private financing or comercials that are critical of candidates?
Boxers, or briefs?
Given the current two-party lock on national politics, would it be better to spend money (and win some) in municipal, county, and state elections? While not as glamorous as their national counterparts, politicians at the lower level can have a more immediate effect on peoples lives. In off year elections many of these positions go unchallanged or even unfilled, a small investment in organization could lead to significant political inroads.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
Since the green party platform calls for the banning of homophobia would you make it illegal for Christian preachers to preach on that topic? It has happend in Europ.
Mr. Cobb,
Some future technologies may deliver unparalleled energy efficiency, resource utilization, and the ability to reduce or reverse many of the ecological problems that current technologies and societies have created. As examples, molecular nanotechnology may enable atomically precise manufacturing and widely adopted fusion power would reduce greenhouse gas emisions from burning fossil fuels. However, both of these technologies also present major risks to the planet and the human species. Nanotech gone wrong may lead to grey goo that would destroy the biosphere, while fusion power requires (moderately) radioactive materials that could poison water supplies if released. Given that such technologies both serve to meet the Green Party's goals of energy independence and environmental responsibility, and could seriously jeopardize those same goals, where do you stand on advanced technologies?
And, because I'm curious, a space question: If affordable space travel becomes available and people can easily colonize other planets or moons, how would you answer calls for teraforming to help ensure the spread and long term survival of humanity?
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
My personal belief is that taxation and government involvement in peoples lives is inherantly an intrusion upon our liberties.
While a certain level of both is necessary to run a nation, but at what point do you believe they become an unacceptable burdon to a country's people?
Given that many Green Party ideals stem from increased government involvement, and would rely on higher levels of taxation to fund, please justify to us how such increases contribute to a free society.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
why should I vote for you?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"Income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive wealth."
That is from http://www.gp.org/issues/index.html
What dollar amount is excessive?
I beleive one most important issue is implementing IRV on all levels, because it is the way to have Green Party and everyone else outside of two major parties have a say in this country on any other issue at all. So, knowing that you do support IRV, I am asking: do you have a plan to make it a reality? It does seem hardly feasible to me since the two major parties (who are in control) would obviously be reluctant to change a system which supports their monopoly.
...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
Why are there so many songs about rainbows?
you must understand, now is not the time for social experiments regarding the feasibility of >2 parties running for president. Making politcal stances is fine, I mean - I hate Bush and John Kerry is a douche bag (but im voting for him anyways.com), but it's not worth having Bush for another 4 years, because let's face it -- republicans are lemmings that hear nothing else and are much less likely to take independent stances. It's a sad state of affairs we live in now, but we free-minded people must band together a defeat this buffoon monster.
I know I'm going to be modded up on this
"We call for a graduated supplemental income (negative income tax) that would maintain all adult incomes above the poverty level. "
http://www.gp.org/issues/index.html
How did the Nader candidacy in 2000 affect the Green Party? Did it provide the boost the Greens were expecting in terms of local and statewide support? How much money was spent on Nader's candidacy vs. local elections?
Hi there:
I'm wondering why ALL third parties in the United States don't band together on one issue that would help all of them: changing our voting procedure.
Whether you are Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, Natural Law, Reform, or anything else...you would benefit if the United States adopted a voting system similar to Australia's, where instead of voting for one (and only one) candidate, we could put our candidates in order of preference, so that if our preferred choice wasn't a contender, our vote would automatically be cast for our second choice, and so on.
It seems to me that our two party system is guaranteed by the mathematics of the constitution, and that a simple modification like that would make third parties more viable, in that even though they still probably wouldn't win, at least people would feel free to vote for the candidate who most represents their ideals, thus enhancing the visibility of the platforms you espouse.
Wouldn't it be in your interests to spearhead public debate with all third parties (even if you don't agree with them on other issues) in order to make change like this possible?
gameDB
How do you respond to charges that that you'll never win and you're just taking away votes rom Ralph Nader?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So you don't mind sacrificing the notion democracy for the sake of getting rid of Bush?
Because you think Kerry will do better? Kerry isn't going to pull troops out of Iraq, you know.
Thank you for taking our questions, Mr. Cobb.
Your party's issue statement on nuclear power calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new, safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?
Thank you.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
the Green Party and your candidacy in particular has been accused of being dominated by Democratic Party insiders who seek to undermine Nader's campaign using un-democratic methods.
A well-researched example of this is Marnie Glickman, one of the three members of the Green Party's National Co-ordinating Committee, who has a history as a committed and succesful (over $10 million) Democratic Party fundraiser.
The article referenced above concludes:
Given that your campaign would appear to have a number of recent "ex Democratic Party" activists and that your campaign seems mainly to have served to attack Nader's candidacy do you feel that you've been played for a patsy by more experienced politicos?
* PGP = Pacific Green Party
"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)"
You could only wish. If Bush manages to get re-elected this term around, since he'll be out in 4 years no matter what, he can do whatever he wants... which would make this term in office seem relatively benign.
Wouldn't it be better to ask candidates the same questions? Sure, there may be some questions that are candidate specific, but having 5-10 standard ones for all candidates would be nice in order to get a true "rotten apple" to "crab apple" comparison.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Wrong, LBJ was eligible for re-election in 1968. If he had run for reelection and won, he would have served a total of 11 years as President, barring any unforeseen circumstances (death, resignation, removal from office, etc.)
-mkb
Very good question.
Especially when you consider that coal plants release more radiation into the air than nuclear plants due to traces of isotopes encountered during normal mining.
In addition, the new generation of nuke plants no longer use the metal oxide but the metal reactant. If the reaction starts to head out of control, the heat expansion of the metal lowers the density, which in turn lowers the rate of reaction.
My 2 bolgs.
- phantom of the operating system
What do you say to accusations that Ralph Nader was purposely not selected as the Green Party candidate because the party was afraid he would take to many votes away from Kerry? In other words, what good is a party that does not try to maximize the number of votes it receives, why even bother at all?
"#
We oppose those who seek to divide us for political gain by raising ethnic and racial hatreds. "
Does that extend to groups like MEChA? or does it only apply to groups that are pro American?
--FROM the NET--
What does MEChA stand for that is so radical? They express contempt for people of European ancestry and advocate returning Texas and the other Southwestern U.S. states to Mexico. Their "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán" (which can be found at the MEChA website) declares:
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán."
Why doesn't the green party run for more and more competitevely for senate/house seats?
It would seem to be more prudent to try to build the party up before running for president. Once people are better acquianted with the party and what it stands for and how it gets the job done, then maybe you'll have a better shot at the presidency.
Right now, however, the few % points the green party gets seems to be more of a political statement than any actual attempt at change. Just a bigger soapbox.
The Green Hornet or the Green Lantern?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Greetings,
Could you share with us how you would use the US Presidency to leverage your environmental initiatives here and abroad? Especially in terms of countries such as Taiwan and parts of China, where computer/proccessor manufacturing is a huge economic factor and ecological disaster.
Thanks,
G'day, I was just wondering that what do you think about the fact that your party is almost unknown in Europe, and generally neglected in almost every news flash about the elections or American political field in general? And yes, I do know that the elections take place at the States, but it would be nice if at least one player at those games would be keen to do some cooperation with the Europe.
Mr. Cobb,
The Green Party platform states in section II.A.2 that,
"Education starts with CHOICE and within public education we believe in broad choices. "Magnet schools," "Site-based Management," "Schools within Schools," alternative models and parental involvement are ways in which elementary education can be changed to make a real difference in the lives of our children."
Since the Green Party believes so strongly in school choice, do you support giving parents the option of receiving vouchers with which they can send their children to private schools (secular or religous) or to pay for the expense of home schooling? If not, why do you only support choice within government-controlled schools?
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood.
a graduated supplemental income, or a negative income tax, that would maintain all individual adult incomes above the poverty level, regardless of employment or marital status(from green party platform) With things like income redistribution, caps on how much income you can earn and universal healthcare in your party platform it appears that your party is nothing more than a socialist party with a distracting name. Is this the case and if so, why isn't the word socialist more prominent in your party's literature?
How can you run for president when you know that realistically you can't win and will simply be diverting votes away from the main candidates?
Mr. Cobb:
I am what is usually described in the United States as a 'liberal' or 'progressive'. As such, I share most, if not almost all of your party's ideals and goals.
Nevertheless, neither I nor anyone I know who shares my political views plan to vote for you in November. While your positions on the issues may match my own more closely than any other candidate, I believe I have a better chance of seeing at least some of my positions enacted as public policy if I vote for John Kerry.
With all due respect, Mr. Cobb, you are not going to win the election this year. To a certainty, the winner will be either John Kerry or George Bush. If George Bush is the winner, then he will continue to govern according to his extreme right-wing beliefs. Most, if not all progressive causes that you and I support will suffer significant setbacks. As President Bush will most likely be able to nominate one or more Supreme Court judges during a second term, those setbacks would long outlive his administration.
If, on the other hand, John Kerry is elected, he will govern according to the political preferences of the Democratic party. While Kerry and the Democrats are, in general, quite a bit more conservative than I am, the simple fact is that the progressive causes I support would fare far better under Kerry than they would under Bush. I am sure that a President Kerry would do things that I strongly disagree with, but I am also sure that his goals and mine are not fundamentally incompatible. In short, I am certain that I can live with Kerry, just as I am certain that I cannot live with George Bush.
According to the polls, this election is going to be extremely close. If John Kerry is to win, he needs every vote he can get. I do not have the luxury of knowing that whoever ultimately wins the election will be at least somethat acceptable to me. Bush must be defeated or the ideals I stand for will be in serious jeopardy.
Thus, my question to you is: How is voting for you, as opposed to Kerry, make it more likely that the ideals I support will be reflected in public policy? Is there a *pragmatic* reason why I and other progressives should vote for you?
When Ross Perot was stealing votes from George Bush... it was OK. Now that Nader or whomever is stealing votes from Kerry... it's a crime.
commie
Would the Green Party's purposes be better served by aligning with one of the major parties? Delivering votes drives politics, whether it is via money or via campaigning. If the Green Party pulled for a major party candidate (and thus delivered votes), wouldn't it have a LOT more pull when an issue it cares strongly about came before the legislature and/or executive? By running its own candidate, an alternative party takes away, rather than deliver, votes and so it seems they dillute their influence significantly. What is your take on this theory of the power of alternative parties in general?
"We support universal health care and a single-payer insurance program, that is publicly financed at the national level, administered locally, and privately delivered with freedom of choice of provider. It would cover all standard medical procedures, as well
as drug treatment, dental care, medication for chronic and terminal illness, equal coverage of
mental illness, and abortion."
Does this mean that you would make it illegal for a person to pay for medical care themselves? If not, how do you plan on inforcing the 'single-payer' portion of your plan?
What about wages in the medical field? Would you limit how much hourly workers like nurses are paid?
The Green Party's economic platform disagrees with most of the major economic theories put forth in the last 300 years, from Smith to Keynes to Friedman.
How do you reconcile the Green Party platform with the lack of science supporting nationalized programs and high(er?) taxes?
Demonstrate you understand an issue or two important to the technical community. Say something techie.
On a similar train of thought, do you feel that Nader's campaign in 2000 will be more helpful or detrimental to the Green party going forward? Clearly there's been a backlash against Nader, but how much of that has carried over to the greens. Is the backlash offset by the higher visibility that the green party might now possess because of it?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Do you plan to force Home School and private schools to teach your diversity plan? IOW, to you plan to force religious schools to teach that other religions are just a good as the religion they believe in?
Alan Greenspan needs to learn green economics. It's that simple!
Some Islamic economics would not hurt either! Converting debt to venture capital...
NFL, and what party? Oh, you mean the AFC/NFC thing...
While I am a big supporter of the 3rd or many party for elections and I dislike the 2 party system and I always vote for a 3rd party. But I don't the green pary seems to take a direction of extrame left. While I respect and agree with some of your views but other views seem to be far to left for my taist. There is a large population including myself are in the middle of the road in politics. To Right to be considered Left and to Left to be considered Right. Having your party centered around the far Left seems counter productive because you are only following the views of one group of people. While the people who are in the middle of the road (the Swing voters) feel left out because there is no candate that really supports there direction they want the government to go. So they will choose Democrat or Repbulican because unfortunatly they are the closest to the middle of the road. I was just looking at CNN Special on the elections that puts the partys in a chart based on issues. It seems like the green party has almost the save views as the democrats but More left. Shouldn't our nation be more unified then polarized my pushing politics more left then before causes more polarization in political ideals and makes compremise harder.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
With over 400 Green Party candidates in 40 states in 2004, wouldn't it be wiser for the Green Party to be building local support throughout the nation as opposed to quixote quest for the Presidency which could be considered a waste of money and talent as well as a lack of focus?
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
What is your position on the Electoral College?
What is your position on alternative voting methods such as Approval Voting?
Do you also plan to ban sports?
http://www.gp.org/issues/index.html
And are your 'after school' and pre school programs mandatory? What if parents do not wish to have their kids in them, is that allowed?
Stop constantly playing the victim.
Stop blaming EVERYTHING bad on the evil corporations and conservative think tanks.
Stop claiming ANY viewpoint you don't agree with is propaganda (makes you sound as bad as the Republicans)
If you don't like FOX, change the channel.
Presidential Election != Grass Roots. Now is the time for him to try and get national air time and get the issues of the green party out. That way, when the public votes for local officials, they might be more likely to pick a Green if they agree with the platform. In other words, "For president, vote for Kerry, but if you like what i'm saying, vote Green for local seats. They can do more for you, faster, than this poor bastard."
Your campagain seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
Given that Political Campaigns have been reduced to which side can out-litter the other with non-biodegradeable liver-poisening plastic signs on public property, roadsides, intersections, lamppoles etc - how does a responsible environmentalist participate in an (illegal)littering campaign?
If the price of admission is trashing the environment - so how does the good side compete?
(Arrested in NC for cleaning up illegal signs - including political signs.)
AIK
Do you support the following part of the Green Party's platform?
"Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income, regardless of source, over ten times the minimum wage. With this Ten Times Rule in effect under today's extremely unequal distribution of income in the U.S., a 100% tax on income above ten times the minimum wage would allow us to cut the income taxes of everyone in the bottom 99%, by over half for the top brackets, by over three-quarters in the middle brackets, and totally for the lower brackets--and still generate about 40% more tax revenues than under the current income tax structure."
According to the laws of this country Bush was elected. Get over it.
Which laws are you referring to?
The Constitution, which prohibits electors from a state from voting for a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate if both are inhabitants of their state (Texas)?
Or the ones meant to protect citizens from disenfranchisement by their state government (Florida)?
In the current system, a single fraudulent vote cast in the following states would have the corresponding introduced error:
I meant to say could have the corresponding introduced error.
Also, a third proposal to electoral reform which I have read elsewhere goes a little further to rewarding the "popularity contest" winner of a statewide election, by awarding the 2 "senatorial" electoral votes to the outright winner, and dividing the remaining "representative" electoral votes proportionally.
Still other proposals advocate awarding electoral votes on a district-by-district basis, but I believe this defrauds "political minority" members of those districts of their presidential vote, much as the "political minorities" in nearly every state are currently defrauded today. Ask the 35% of Californians who voted for Bush if they feel their vote was counted.
Some interesting maps:
Map: 2000 Popular Vote: Bush
Map: 2000 Popular Vote: Gore
MORTAR COMBAT!
Giving that the GP platform says " We do not place faith in paternalistic "big government." how do you explain all the additional goverment programs that would be required to impliment the rest of your platform?
,antipolution research and housing assistance isn't that the very definition of Big Goverment?
If you have the goverment paying for all education, all medical care, a min wage level, energy research
Regardless of what anyone thoguth about getting involved in the first place, the current situation needs be dealt with. I'm sure you were against it, but thats not a reason to elect you now. We can't go back in Time and correct any mistakes that we have made. What would you do to achive a peaceful resolution in Iraq? Do you have any idea on how to deal with radical millitant Islamic fundimentalism in regards to the danger it represents towards the rest of the world that do not share their beliefs?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Do you support the banning of Guns?
If I or Mr Cobb get a leftwing talk radio show, I can assure you that I will refer to it as propaganda. Propaganda is not necessarily a perjorative/derogatory term with me. It is simply an interpretation of the world with respect to politics. ALL good propaganda has some element of truth to it--from both the Left and Right.
And regarding victimhood, how should the lamb regard the lion? Let me assure you that unless you are well off, independently wealthy, or among the top 25% of earners for a long period of time, it would be wise and healthy for you to regard yourself as a potential victim. Becasue you are one. Try reading _Tunnel in the Sky_ by Heinlein. You aint as Big and Hairy as you think you are.....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Best.... insult.... ever!
"Respect for diversity" must necessarily start with biodiversity if there is to be any respect for the natural world, nature's services or the cohesive ents of the biosphere at all.
Starting with any other concept of diversity (social, cultural, religious) would permit the destruction of biodiversity to suit human aesthetic or narrow status or cultural goals.
This necessarily leads to conflict and results in disrespect at least for that diversity which leads one group to leave the water alone, and another to drink all of it up.
Thank you for answering our questions David.
I was a Nader supporter in 2000, and will likely be voting for you this time around. (In no small part because Nader will not be on the ballot in Massachusetts.) One criticism I've heard from Nader supporters, who are also Greens is that you aren't running to win this election. Certainly, I'm not crazy enough to think that either you or Nader can possibly win this time around, but Nader supporters have a some good points.
Nader is actively campaigning in all states, including the swing states and he doesn't shy away from swinging at Kerry, who he is also running against. You often seem to only be running against Bush, and offer little of the needed criticism of Kerry. Your reluctence to campaign in swing states, though admirably in some ways, leaves many would be supporters with a bad taste in their mouths. Are you at all concerned about alienating your base through what many see as a half-hearted campaign?
assholes w/ SUVs
It humors me that people on slashdot trash people who drive SUV's because they are fuel inefficient. And then we think it is really cool to roll our own routers, tivos, WAPs, etc using power sucking, off the shelf PC hardware rather than buy more power efficient dedicated devices. We never turn off our PC's and some of us run mini data centers out of our homes just because we can. And then we say SUV's waste precious resources. Yeah.
'Same speed C but faster'
"According to the laws of this country Bush was elected. Get over it."
Bush broke the laws of this country when he committed election fraud to make it appear he was elected (and the fact the he STILL almost lost despite this indicates that the election obviously wouldve gone the other way if not for the florida shennanigans they pulled)
America is no longer a democracy, & thats pretty hard to get over.
Meanwhile the xtian churches have their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless americans to vote a certain way...
Meanwhile MTV has their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american youths to vote a certain way... Uh, I work for MTV Networks and that is not true. Their campaign along with other ones (like http://headcount.org>Headcount[headcount.org], http://www.rockthevote.com/home.php/[rockthevote.c om], and many others are doing a good job of sending the message that young people's votes count and they do have a voice. I think its great.
And MTV is not biased in their coverage and at all. I think you are just making broad comments about the sterotypical people who are viewers of MTV.
Just because people don't dive into the records of the canidates doesn't mean they don't have the right to vote. My dad does not do that - he votes purely for the party. Hell the benefit of being in this country is that we have the right to vote for whoever we want for whatever reason. I can vote for Bush becuase I love Texas or I can vote for Kerry because I love Ketchup. The point should be that people are actual voting it doesn't matter who they vote for.
But then again maybe my opinion doesn't count on this issue either becuase I must be a "already-mindless american youth" becuase I sometimes watch any of MTV's networks or worse I work for their IS&T department.
you must understand, now is not the time for social experiments regarding the feasibility of >2 parties running for president. Making politcal stances is fine, I mean - I hate Bush and John Kerry is a douche bag (but im voting for him anyways.com), but it's not worth having Bush for another 4 years, because let's face it -- republicans are lemmings that hear nothing else and are much less likely to take independent stances. It's a sad state of affairs we live in now, but we free-minded people must band together a defeat this buffoon monster.
Take your statement. Switch the sides. You have exactly what some other of my friends believe.
You have been taken in the professional wrestling match that the media has presented. They are both 99.99% the same. They also would ALWAYS have you believe "now is the not the time to experiment" because they would prefer to POSSIBLY lose to the other party than DEFINITELY lose to a third.
Make your vote count! Vote Independent. Green, Libertarian, Freedom, WHATEVER!
Vote for real change.
Much of your campaign focuses on wealth distribution, and I agree with you that corporations have no rights, only actual people do. But what I have not been able to resolve with the Greens is the role corporations play in producing the goods and services that satisfy society's needs. The laws of economics prove that taxing wealth-creation (income taxes, dividend taxes, etc.) creates a disincentive for society to produce, and subsidizing consumption (of health care, etc.) creates an incentive to consume more. Before wealth can be distributed, it of course must first be created by someone. How do you get around this dilemma of decreasing production and increasing consumption as a side effect of wealth equalization? Do you have a plan to overcome the problem of distributing wealth without decreasing the amount of wealth produced for distribution?
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
No. The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law that the "clear intent of the voter" must be followed. SCOTUS said the Florida Supreme Court should have adopted "statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote" - they claimed that they wanted the Florida court to create law.
And an impossible law at that, given the different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties. (Biased in that rich counties used systems less likely to fail to register a ballot - fewer Republicans had to deal with the chance of "hanging chad" blocking their vote.)
This of course not considering the illegal disenfranchisement of thousands of voters, or the illegal "butterfly" ballots, or the failure of Scalia to recuse himself, or Cheney claiming to be a Wyoming resident depite living in Texas (electors can't vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
sorry for the repost, but i hit the HTML Format in the drop down list, so I am reposting so it looks better.
Meanwhile MTV has their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american youths to vote a certain way...
Uh, I work for MTV Networks and that is not true. Their campaign along with other ones (like http://headcount.org/, http://www.rockthevote.com/home.php/, and many others are doing a good job of sending the message that young people's votes count and they do have a voice. I think its great.
And MTV is not biased in their coverage and at all. I think you are just making broad comments about the sterotypical people who are viewers of MTV.
Just because people don't dive into the records of the canidates doesn't mean they don't have the right to vote. My dad does not do that - he votes purely for the party. Hell the benefit of being in this country is that we have the right to vote for whoever we want for whatever reason. I can vote for Bush becuase I love Texas or I can vote for Kerry because I love Ketchup.
The point should be that people are actual voting it doesn't matter who they vote for.
But then again maybe my opinion doesn't count on this issue either becuase I must be a "already-mindless american youth" becuase I sometimes watch any of MTV's networks or worse I work for their IS&T department.
What does any of that have to do with Cobb? Can you tell us what the Green party is for?
Actually, the grandparent post is correct. My statement was sarcasm, and in that, meant to be humorous. It's pretty pathetic how all the other reply posts seem to miss this (as do the moderators). You think this fact would be evident in the first paragraph of my original post. Standing behind the "President", on a battle field... yuck-yuck.
Why bother.
What about the new pebble bed reactor designs? The original generation of nuclear reactors were terribly complicated, required constant monitoring, and were almost by design, prone to accidents. New pebble bed reactors can be completely fail safe.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Green Tax Shift.
Tax bads, not goods.
While I'm sure this at least partially stems from neither of you having entrenched political positions to protect, it also mirrors my recent experience. I lean towards the Green platform, and I have many friends who are Libertarians. Our political discussions, while spirited, show some fundamental agreement on the kinds of urgent systemic change required in this country.
My question to you is, do you see an opportunity to build consensus among those of us who see through the corporate oligarchy masquerading as democracy and focus on our areas of agreement rather than our differences? Specifically, would you support the Green party and the Libertarian party running joint drives in support of campaign finance reform, control of corporatism, ballot access and voting system reform?
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
As leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth, this is one of the most important aspects of your job. We have seen past presidential processes that were... less than presidential, guided by their astrologer, or in Bush's case, guidance driven by his religious background.
Many people can point to severe problems in the current and past foreign policy of the United States.
How exactly do you propose to best shift the United States from its current mess to a better foreign policy in a realistic way, recognizing that decades of resentment and anti-U.S. sentiment in the world at large won't go away overnight?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Hmm. I do like Bush, and no matter how I put the settings on that, it seems to say Gore got the most votes. What settings did you use?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I agree. Unless you can create an argument as to why they hate America other than
Don't like Bush --> Does not like America
there is no reason to qualify him as "hating America." a.) There is no clear definition of what IS American, and what IT means to be American, other than being a citizen of the United States. So unless your implying that this guy hates every person in America, or Bush is a physical manifestation of America, your point not only is poor, but is very inflamitory. So -1 for the post quality, and flamebait for the inflamitory nature of the post.
It certainly does not fall under censorship. You post can still be seen. Perhaps if you rephrased your post and gave a better argument, then perhaps you might not get a -1 score. I would agree if you had a well though out logical argument with some evidence to back it up.
I will agree however that the moderation system really isn't fair in that the moderators really cannont represent a fair spectrum of ideologies. The sample size is simply too small to accurately represent the population of slashdot posters. Some people with niche beliefs will naturally get lower scores than those whose beliefs do not conflict with the natural bias of the moderators.
In this scenario, this post clearly received what it deserved.
Perhaps you should read the GP platform before you say what is and isn't in it.
"Public funding for living wage jobs. "
http://www.gp.org/issues/issue2c.html
The biggest beef a lot of us have is the whole issue of the tens of thousands of people who were wrongly prevented from voting because they had the same name as a felon.
Not to mention, this *HASN'T BEEN FIXED*.
Since wishing it away is not going to end the two-party system at Presidential level, would it not be better if people of a 'green' persuasion were to try and influence policy from within the Democratic party?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
With a deficit of 700 trillion dollars, do you think that what is essentially a socialist platform has a chance to provide the services you would like to? As president would you immediatly lobby to provide the federally funded social services outlined in your party platform or would you try to reduce the deficit and build wealth first? Or would you just tax the extreamly wealthy?
I very humbly think that the Iraq issue should be the starting point for the green party to finally become a strong, third US party. Your party was clearly opposed to the US/British invasion on Irak, while the Democrats were somehow shy in their criticism before the military actions started, and explicitly supported the so-called war afterwards. Shouldn't you be making it more clear that the two big parties are essentially the same, and that you represent a fundamentally different, actually progressive perspective ? Are you doing it ? What are your thoughts in this regard ?
My question: --------- Greens, by being a successful third party, are frequently attacked. What do you feel is the best solution to the situation? --------- We've heard different voting systems, voting your heart, and that voting for the lesser of two evils always gives you evil (in Badnarik's answer). I'm personally sold on any of these to break the general morass, but I would really love to hear what the Greens are thinking on this.
- Nuclear energy.
- High-temperature garbage incineration.
- Genetically modified foods.
All of these technologies have drawbacks, but they also have many advantages over the alternatives. Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases, incineration destroys toxic chemicals and does not require land fill, and GM foods can greatly reduce the amounts of pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, or water needed to grow food.What is the Green Parties' stance on these, and do you see them changing their stance in the near future?
Because you think Kerry will do better? Kerry isn't going to pull troops out of Iraq, you know.
Yes, but he wouldn't have put them there in the first place.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
Why do you think it is that Slashdot ignores my preference setting to turn "Politics" off? Do you think Slashdot is the worst site in the entire universe for political dialogue, or should we wait until all the SETI@Home results are in?
This is the same question I ask of all third party candidates and supporters, and I have yet to receive a good answer.
Why the presidency? I have read your campaign materials and spoken with some of your representatives and the universal and overwhelming impression I get is that your party's agenda is almost entirely based around policy and the amendment of it or contribution to it. Given that that is the case, why are you standing a candidate for our country's foremost executive position? It would seem that since your goals are legislative in nature, you would be better served by standing candidates for election to those bodies, namely the House and Senate.
The only answer I have been given to date is that it would be a good way to get the message out and apply the powers of the executive to support your agenda (by vetoing key policies, etc.) This is a basic abuse of the system, however, and there are more appropriate ways to go about it. I refuse to believe that your party's only reasoning in this election is to strong-arm Congress out of its Constitutional duty and to use media time granted the President for political gain on non-executive issues.
So please, tell us, why are you standing for election to a post whose Constitutional duty is solely to put into effect the very policies which you find so abhorrent?
adam b.
Since LBJ, the DNC has consistently moved left, not right. My grandmother is a true New England Kennedy Democrat, and she will not vote for Kerry because of his partie's current agendas (moral propaganda, and socialism to name a few). So to claim that the Republicans and Democrats have all moved right is a moot point.
Also, you should realize after the Rathergate incident the big media is surely on the left's side. I wonder what would happen to Fox if they were to present some faux papers concerning John Kerry's military record. They'd be lambasted, and probably sued.
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions on Slashdot. We appreciate the attention from a national political candidate. I somehow doubt that Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush would take time from their busy schedules to answer questions.
My question concerns Greens' views on gun control. I would like to vote for you because I favor strong protections of the environment, but I believe in strong protections for private ownership of modern non-sporting firearms. Here are my reasons:
I encourage you to take a look at this site about human rights and then respond with your position on gun control.
Thank you and good luck in your campagin.Furthermore, How will you deal with our budget deficit and reform the GOP's relentless tax cuts and the Democratic Party's exorbanent spending?
Don't you mean "the GOP's relentless tax cuts and exorbanent spending"? The Republicans control the house, senate, and executive -- Democrats aren't spending a pretty penny at the federal level these days.
Look at the figures provided by the congressional budget office: specifically, the outlays as a ratio to GDP. You'll see that Clinton inherited a ratio of about 22.2-22.3, and in his eight years brought that down to 18.6-18.4, the lowest level since 1966. That means that government spending relative to the size the economy was nearly at at 40 year low -- how's that for exorbatant Democratic spending?
Oh yes, that number is on the rise again, as soon as the GOP got a stranglehold on power. Government is growing rapidly under the watch of the "small government" Republicans. Just because they expouse rhetoric doesn't make it true, the facts show that Republicans are worse at creating "Big Government" than the Democrats are.
501 Not Implemented
Without its fundamental rights to ballot and debate access, how can a major third party reach mainstream America with the only fundamentally different political messages about corporate misuse of power, media ownership, and issues that actually matter?
Also, why did you choose to run against Ralph Nader instead of endorsing him as a party with views so similar? Where do you two differ?
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
Has the Cobb/LaMarche campaign and the US Green Party considered cooperative efforts with Nader/Camejo (IND), Michael Badnarik (LIB), and Michael Peroutka (CON) to break the Commission on Presidential Debates' stranglehold on the debate process?
Do you think that coordinated press conferences and press releases from all four campaigns regarding the issues raised by Open Debates and the Citizens' Debate Commission would have a beneficial long-term effect?
Can you point to any country that is economically better off after instituting socialism after a period of say 20 or 30 years?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Dear Mr Cobb,
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb.txt for more choice.
Do You want to change "Green Party" to other name?
Please do refer
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
>> GM foods can greatly reduce the amounts of pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer,
or water needed to grow food.
No, no, no! You need fertilizer and water anyway, and A LOT of GM plants have specifically been modified to withstand increased doses of pesticides and herbicides! Ever heard of "Roundup Ready" line of GM products from Monsanto?
I plan on voting for the green party, but I have the following question:
From what I have heard, when Jimmy Carter was elected, a lot of economists immediately judged that things would be unstable (before he had even taken office and done anything), which led to inflation rising as much as 400%. If elected and something simular would happen, what would you do to help prevent or battle this kind of wild speculation that might happen.
I say might happen because I can see that some people would view a green party win as an unstable thing, leading to uncertainty.
If anybody can correct the information I've stated above, please do so.
If you and Michael Badnarik
had a baby, what would it look like?You often point out that pretty much every developed western country except the US has some form of single payer healthcare, and I think it is a valid issue, worth dicussing. However, having lived in a few countries that operate such a system I have generally found the governments involved to be having difficulties sustaining the system.
The dilemma amounts to this: as medical science continues to advance, and as we in general live longer and longer, the amount of things that can be done continues to expand, along with the costs involved with any new technologically advanced treatments. Because of this, the costs of providing complete healthcare continue to expand at a rate faster than we can pay for. With healthcare, if something is possible, people tend to demand that it be done, even if we do not have the resources to do it.
Complete provision of healthcare simply isn't a sustainable practice as the costs are not proportionally bound by population (and hence very roughly speaking, government income), but instead by the ever expanding limits of medical science.
How do you intend to deal with this dilemma? Do you only plan to provide single payer healthcare for core and emergency services only? Do you intend to allow a parallel private health system to provide the more expensive treatments?
Thank you.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I think that Kerry said it best when he said he don't want to lead a party that loves jobs, but hates the ones that creates them in a recent Money magazine interview. He also suggested giving targeted tax cuts to businesses as incentives to not to outsource.
According to the issues page, Green Party seems to be a party that loves job AND hates the ones that creates them. Isn't Green Party discouring people from starting their own businesses and creating jobs when they'll be labeled as "evil rich" and pay ultra high levels of tax as the punishment when their business takes off? And won't $10 proposed minium wage encourge outsourcing?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
We are at war. Our country needs to be unified behind our furor. So why do you hate Germany?
Are you working actively to change the voting system to the Single Transferable Vote voting system, where voters are "safe" voting for a candidate they fear won't be elected? Assuming you support it, are the other U.S. players opposing it or in favor of it?
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
JFK was assassinated Nov. 22, 1963. There was little more than 1 year (1 year and two or three months) left in the 1960-1964 term. If LBJ had been re-elected in 1968 he would have served no more than 9 years, 3 months, not 11 years.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
The electoral college is largely the cause of a two party state in America. It's basically a first past the post winner take all system which punishes extremely heavily any votes for parties which are not the outright winners or potentially outright winners in elections. There is simply no point voting for any party which is not likely to receive 35%+ of the popular vote. A vote for the Greens really is effectively a vote for Bush.
Across Europe, proportional representation systems are in place which allow smaller parties representation in their respective parliaments. If 5% of the population vote for the greens, they get 5% of the seats. The result is that the amount of money required for campaign funding is substantially reduced and the influence those supplying the funding is also substantially reduced by a similar amount.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I guess we could probably change that around a little to say:
Meanwhile Fox News has their bullshit stories where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american rednecks to vote a certain way...
What is your opinion of the proposal in Colorado to award electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote? It would seem this could potentially be a great benefit to your party, firstly by making the state uninteresting to the Democrats and Republicans (it would only have one or two electoral votes in play instead of nine), and also by allowing third parties to win an electoral vote with only 11% of a state rather than needing a plurality across a state (or district). How signifigant would such a change be for your party? Of other changes to the voting system that have been proposed, such as approval voting, Borda counts, etc. which would you favor to improve the viability of third parties?
Some say that you think Kerry is not much better than Bush, because his platform is somewhat similar. They both appear very right-wing to me, as a foreigner. Some also say that you advocate voting for Kerry to people who live in swing states, because at least Kerry's not Bush.
So, if Kerry wins because he's not Bush, and he is indeed similar wouldn't that harm the Democrats in a subsequent election? Vote for Kerry, because you can't believe he's not a Republican, or vote for Bush because he is a Republican?
Given the choice between Bush throwing his second term and Kerry keeping the status quo, at least Bush's successor in 2005-2008 would probably be a democrat other than Kerry.
What do you think?
Mr. Cobb, I voted for the green party in the last election, because I wanted to get you 5% of the vote, to help create a third party system. It seems like this election, you won't get anywhere near 5% of the vote, because democrats are so disillusioned with Bush and Republican are so concerned that their guy will lose. What is the goal of the Green Party in this election, raise awareness, publicity, fundraising.
The flood of illegal aliens has destroyed the normal upward force on wages and working conditions in the market for unskilled labor. Americans who are in this market cannot earn enough money to buy basic necessities like housing and food. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care about Americans in this market. The Republicans and the Democrats care only about catering to racists in LaRaza, the Hispanic equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan.
If you hate what is happening to our country, the USA, then please write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
And there's no trick. The platform says it all. If you don't agree, don't vote for them. And tell your Republican buddies to stop giving us money.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
One candidate has said repeatedly that he is running because god told him to. That God elected him president and that god speaks through him. One candidate is on a JIHAD the other one is not.
If that's not enough of a difference for you then fuck off.
evil is as evil does
Stop the vicious spread of wealth creation! VOTE GREEN [and let's all be poor and miserable equally...]
For those who haven't followed this: The Green party is divided into two factions, the "realos" (also called the Demogreens) and the "fundis". The realos are who nominated Cobb. You can read about it in several places including the Counterpunch article "Rigged Convention; Divided Party - How David Cobb Became the Green Nominee Even Though He Only Got 12 Percent of the Votes". The fundis want to build our party and win elections, the realo/Demogreens are more concerned about the Democrats winning than the Greens. Cobb is a realo/Demogreen.
The article makes the very good point that the states where there is a large green base and where voters actually voted in the primaries (California, Massachusetts, Washington DC), Camejo (who is a Green "fundi", and is now running as Nader's VP) got 72.7% of the vote. Cobb only got 12.2% of the vote. Nonetheless, in the Green version of the electoral college, Cobb managed to win due to delegates from states like Iowa voting for him. Iowa has 90 registered Greens and had 9 delegates to the Green convention - 1 delegate for every 10 Greens! California had 132 delegates for the over 150,000 registered Greens in California. So in the case of California, 1 delegate represented over 1,000 Greens. This sort of thing is how someone who got 12.2% of the vote (from Demogreens) versus 72.7% of the vote (fundis) nevertheless won the election.
Cobb's candidacy has probably destroyed the Green party which is probably what the Demogreens wanted anyway. Anyhow, in some ways I am not sad to see it go because the Greens are a little too hippy-dippy granola and Birkenstocks anyhow. Nader attracted me to the Greens (even though he was never a Green party member) because he talked about things I care about like repealing Taft-Hartley and so forth which the DLC Democrats never talk about any more. 70% of white men in the US voted Republican in 2000, which tells you how far these DLC Democrats have drifted from the working class roots it had on some level in the early 20th century. Now they are all for NAFTA, screwing workers and so forth just like the Republicans, they're just for gay marriage, abortion and things conservative Christians in rural areas are against.
The only solution for change I see is to do what happened in England a century ago - for militant rank-and-file run unions to be formed, and, if they find it strategically wise to do so, to form a Labor party like they did in England. It might not even be strategically wise to do so, but it would beat backing the Democrats if they were going to get into the electoral game.
So my question goes back to what I was saying earlier: do you feel you are a legitimate Green candidate if most of the Greens in the country prefer Nader and Camejo to yourself? In many ways your election was like Bush's, except the majority vote went way against you instead of by a few percent.
I have some questions about the second of the Green Party's Ten Key Values, "Social Justice and Equal Opportunity". As described on the Green Party's site:
"All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law."
First, does the claim that all persons should have the right to benefit equally from resources imply that no person should have the right to benefit more than another from these resources? What, exactly, are these resources, and how are they afforded by society and the environment? What exactly do you mean by "benefit", and how do you propose to measure it, that you may ensure that nobody receives more than anybody else?
Second, I'm a little concerned about the claim that we should confront all of these "isms" in society. Can racism, for example, even exist in society, or only in a person? While we can confront racism in anybody and everybody, can we really do anything about the racism that resides in another person? Is it perhaps possible to remove only the racism that is inside oneself? How does one reconcile the right of the citizens to equal protection under the law with the right of a person to his beliefs? Is government's proper business with action or with belief?
Got Milk?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
"the actual volume of radioactive waste is greater"
Greater than what?
Shutting down nuclear power reactors will not stop the generation of nuclear waste.
Are you against nuclear medicine as well?
(yes, this is a legitimate question)
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Mr. Cobb. Given that you're on record saying you won't even vote for yourself if your state is close, how can anyone possibly take you seriously as a candidate for President? Given that it seems you won the nomination over Nader by taking this position, how can your party be seen as anything but an astroturf campaign for the Democrats?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Do you believe that taxpayers should be held criminally liable for crimes that the federal government commits? If not, why not?
Large powerful companies have a vested interest in keeping Americans consuming products and generating 3-10 times as much pollution and waste as anyone else in the world. Americans are taught from birth and continually reinforced by tv and society that stupid levels of excess at any cost is cool, including driving toy tanks (hummers) and eating so much that morbid obesity is the acceptable norm.
How will you educate Americans to stop being so selfishly greedy and gain some of the same sense of proportion and responsibility that the rest of the world has, especially in the face of powerful self-serving political, business and religious groups?
In other words, only vote Green when there is no chance for the Democrats to lose? I think my respect for the Green party just plummeted several notches.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Can you? Are you for real? Do you think you can honestly win?
If not, why not?
I use a laptop... when not in use, I shut the cover and it automatically suspends. I personally have no other PCs in my home that I use.
:)
I have a commerical dlink router... uses a small power brick...
I drive a piece of shit saturn w/ manual transmission that I curse on a semi-hourly basis.
I have those ghay 13w curly fluorescent bulbs all over the place...
I'm a hippocrate for many things, but not about this particular thing
The presidential election is a special case, both in general (because of the Electoral College and the fact that a lack of a majority there means that the decision goes to the House), and this election in particular (many people think the Bush administration is HITLER SATAN 666).
-- $SIGNATURE
My view of the world is that there is nothing anyone can do to stop a general breakdown. And I don't mean just climate-change, environmental disaster or something like that, but also:
- large scale use of biological or nuclear weapons, possibly by terrorists;
- economic breakdown because of running out of resources, oil first;
- large scale wars over water and agreable land;
- civil war in United States, thus making the only (sort of) stabilizing factor impotent (weapons abundant, too much inequality);
- outbreaks of ultra-resistant bugs
Bush politics will accelerate this doomsday vision, Kerry's might accelerate it a little less, while a green party would only postpone it. But it will happen in the end, anyway.
However, I am an optimist, and think that the survivors will be really motivated to build a better world afterwards (would have to to survive). So in my view, the sooner it comes, the better, because of increasing damage being done by humans to the planet, and ourselves, really, the breakdown will only be worse.
So my vote would go to Bush. But then I'm not an american, so..
BTW, I applaud the fact that Bush went after Saddam Housain and terrorists in general, but am horrified by the way he does it. I think he is not stupid at all, what most people seem to think, but he is narrowminded and shallow. And he is surrounded by VERY smart people who he listens to.
ps. If you think me crazy, you should realise there are very many people in Europe and certainly in all the other continents who think this way.
Do me a favor--actually READ some of the leftist books and articles out there. Go read Manufacturing Consent (excerpts can be found from my sig). Then go think about it for a couple of years.
I used to think the same way as you. I guess it takes a lot of time and experience added onto the knowledge for it to actually have some effect.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
What can the Green Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Your party line states: "The Green Party has real solutions to our society's complex problems. The Greens will create jobs, address racism, protect the environment, improve education, repair our healthcare system and protect public resources." These are all valid issues, but my biggest question is this how would you be able to create more jobs? Is your stance that of a Republican Captilist stance or Democratic Socialist stance?
This isn't a question to the Green party candidate, but to the slashdot person(s) who organize these interviews; well, where are the interviews with Kerry and Bush?
I would tend to think that a medium with the traffic and mindshare of slashdot, the credentials in terms of all the people it had interviewed in the past, the political nature of many of the issues discussed on slashdot in 2004, and the fact that these elections may prove to be a one in which every vote counts would be ver persuasive to them to respond. After all, and without meaning to disrespect other candidates, it's either one of those two that is going to be the next president of the US and "leader of the free world".
How do you feel about the spineless lawsuits that Democratic groups are launching against Ralph Nader, former Green party candidate of 2000, in order to stifle freedom and prevent his and other alternative names from being on the ballot? Do you agree that our election system was intended to force people to vote only between the big, rich Republicans or the big, rich Democrats?
Just take a look at the previous Slashdot article located hnyah, nuclear power may not be the best choice anymore.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
America never was a democracy, and that is by design. Nor should it be. A democracy is where 2 wolves and a sheep vote for what they're having for dinner.
America is a constitutional Republic.
SYS 64738
Mr. Cobb,
Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions submitted by us, the slashdot crowd. As members of the 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' faction, we recognize that 21st century media involves interactivity - which is exactly what slashdot provides.
But today, the USA Presidential election is won or lost by three forks of 20th century media: commercials, big media journalism, and debates. I understand that the Green Party does not have the funding to win on the TV and radio spot market. Big media journalism doesn't focus on the Green candidate much, because of a perceived lack of marketshare.
So my questions are: do you see any way of breaking into the Presidential race via public debate? What is the Green Party doing to promote the debates in which you do participate, to get the big media to ask the same questions of the two major party candidates?
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
LBJ (who took over and served only 14 months of Kennedy's term) said that he would refuse the party's nomination if it selected him. That's why he didn't run for re-election. From his televised speech:
With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.
Now, whether he believed what he said completely, or he didn't believe that he could win, or he was simply tired, I don't know. But it was a personal decision and not a Constitutional limitation that kept him from another term.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
he limit is ten years in office
No offence, but that's stupid reasoning. The founders of American democracy did a lot of things right, but they really screwed up with the term limit. Why not have a President who's looking out for long term job security? Clinton was good, why vote him out?
The way I see it, the President spends the first four years trying to win a second term, and the next four years doing everything to not have a vote of no confindence, but not giving a damn other than that.
The best thing, IMHO for America is to have a persidency with a long-term outlook for the nation, and to have the political will to implement it. No one wants to raise taxes to deal with rising debt. It's political suicide. Yet in the long run, lower debt means you spend less money servicing debt, and more money doing stuff like providing health care.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
haha ha REAL nice going you fuckjob you
For all parties? Or just for communist loving gnu hippies like yourself.
Until FDR, no one had managed more than two terms. Washington would almost certainly have been elected if he'd wanted to continue serving. FDR's longevity scared a lot of politicians who feared that one person may be able to get a lock on the presidency and end up with too much power, regardless of Constitutional limitation (perhaps even gaining the political power to force through changes to benefit him).
There was a great deal of debate about it, and I can see both sides of the issue. Clinton would probably have been re-elected, and Reagan would have stood a decent chance, too. Ike was similarly popular on his way out, and may have had a shot at it had he chosen to run a third time.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I'm just amazed that my original which should have been -1 Flamebait is (currently) a +5 Insightful...
Your dad votes... does he go to rallies at state houses protesting things? Does he start/join elaborate sit-ins for whatever cause is most popular this month? Does he get in people's faces when they take the opposite view?
Rather then just vote for something, these people get vocal and active, and start bitching in my face when I'm walking down the street.
I took a class in the evening a few summers ago when we first started this shit with Iraq (which I don't agree with)... and I had to listen to those hippie freaks chanting "No Blood for Oil"... Every day I had to get off the subway and walk past these retards, and everyday they'd scream in my ear about it as I passed them.
My point is NOT that these people don't have a right to an opinion or a vote, because they absolutely do. My point is that most of those people are out there chanting because they feel like it's fun and exciting... they're just following a leader... They have no real idea why we are there, or what the people in Iraq have to go through on a daily basis. The worst they know is when the homeless man actually talks back to them when they walk by him while trying to avert his gaze.
Ever watch that Penn & Teller show Bullshit on Showtime? He did a show that was DEAD ON for the mindset of these people. It was about environmentalism, but the idea was the same... the people were just willing to sign any petition or be against anything... it's a form of mob mentality, like when moron fans start tipping over cars and breaking everything in their path when their team loses (or worse if their team wins!)...
As for the fact that you work for MTV or whatever you said... sorry dude, didn't mean to shit on your company specifically. I know I'd be pissed if you started telling me how to flip the burgers at my job.
Sometimes, the problem is the moderator. There is nothing in the grandparent post to suggest that it is flamebait. The poster is merely presenting a point of view. There is nothing wrong with a different point of view.
Unfortunately, too many moderators simply downgrade an article simply because they disagree with its point of view. Look closely at what happens to articles that support enforcing the borders with Mexico. Moderators swiftly downgrade those articles as "flamebait" or "troll". Such moderators tend to be Chinese, Hispanic, or Indians and have an agenda.
With respect to whether this country (that is controlled by Dems and GOP) has gone rightward or leftward in the last couple of decades, let's take a look at tax policy. Everyone agrees that liberal countries have progressive taxation systems, with high income earners paying high tax rates, and low income earners paying low tax rates. If a country gets more liberal, the tax rates go up, especially on high income earners. As countries get conservative, marginal tax rates go down, especially on high income earners.
So you take a look at this chart of TOP marginal tax rates (what the richest people pay) and tell me whether we are getting more liberal or more conservative. And not to put a real fine point on it, but my argument is that the rightwing propaganda machine has "manufactured consent" for driving down tax rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table
chart is YEAR, TOP TAX RATE %, AND TOP BRACKET DOLLAR AMOUNT
1913 7 500,000 1914 7 500,000 1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000 1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000 1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000 1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000 1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000 1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000 1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000 1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000 1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000 1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000 1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000 1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000 1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000 1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000 1943 88 200,000
1944 94 200,000 1945 94 200,000
1946 86.45 200,000 1947 86.45 200,000
1948 82.13 400,000 1949 82.13 400,000
1950 84.36400,000 1951 91 400,000
1952-1963 92 400,000 1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000 1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000 1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000 1970 71.75 200,000
1971-81 ~70 200,000 1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400 1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020 1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000 1988 28 29,750
1989 28 30,950 1990 28 32,450
1991 31 82,150 1992 31 86,500
1993 39.6 89,150 1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500 1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050 1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150 2000 39.6 288,350
2001 39.1 297,350 2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950
>>>>>>
Also, not shown are huge reductions in taxes on unearned income (stocks, etc).
We are moving away from progressive taxation (that "liberal") and towards regressive taxation (that's "conservative"!). No doubt about it.
In a regressive taxation system, those at the bottom of the income scale pay a much greater percent of their income to taxes than do those at the top. THat's a Bad Thing!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Forcing these 3 groups to remain in a single country is a recipe for ongoing chaos or civil war, leading either back to domination by one group or a breakup. The only thing holding Iraq together is the presence of US forces. What is the vested interest of the US in bleeding to hold Iraq together rather than splitting it up? If the US is worried about Iranian domination then splitting it up will lessen that domination, as a united (democratic (LOL!), majority Shiite) Iraq will buddy up with Iran, whereas in the partition case the Kurd and Sunni portions will not.
If elections are held in January, it is unlikely that they will be held in all the no-go areas like Fallujah. How can they enumerate the citizens in areas where the US Army won't go? How can candidates get nominated in these areas, or canvas the population for support and hold town hall meetings? If the elections disenfranchise areas like this, it will lead to a valid complaint by the Sunnis that the government is illegitimate and that's a rallying cry for a civil war (if the US leaves).
If elections are not held in January, the Shiites will get upset. They have been patient so far because they expect the whole democratic process will lead to them gaining power. Any disruption of that process will tick them off and they will get angry (or angrier).
Partition the country. If they want to get back together later, then they can. Forcing them together at the barrel of a US shotgun is probably only delaying the invetitable at huge cost in blood and money to the US.
It's commonly accepted that power corrupts politicians. The Greens are always speaking out against politicians who sell favors to their corporate buddies or other special interests. But the Green party also espouses a system where the government strictly regulates most industry.
How do you propose to have such strong government controlled regulation, without falling victim to the corruption inherent in a bureaucratic system?
In that post I do see what you are saying, which are valid points.
I didn't get that message out of the original post hence why I replied, with my reply. But now that it is put that way I agree... I may not agree with Bush but I reason. And I do see your points about how people hate Bush becuase its the cool thing to do - I hate that. If you are going hate him, hate him for the many reason I see that you should.
And about my Dad, he actually does get in people's faces who disagree with them, my mother and I. He always tell us to vote his way and stuff... but of course its not atthe level you where talking about, but kind of funny to me since you made that comment and most likely did not think he would do that.
Move more leftward? You're joking right?
(For the record, I don't like either Bush or Kerry or most third party candidates) Living on the left coast of California, here's what I observe with my own eyes:
When I flip through channels (which I rarely do anymore) and watch the national news (CBS,ABC,NBC) I constantly hear slams against Bush, nothing about Kerry
I went ATV riding with my kids at Oceano State Beach recently. Despite having 80% of the area off limits to humans, environmentalists want that last 20% closed. Also despite having 99.99% of the coastline off limits to ATVs. This also goes for mountain biking or gold panning (which my family has done), where huge volumes of land is being converted to wilderness area. In fact, viturally any development out here is met with a environmental legal group armed with a endangered species that needs saving. The whole forking state is virutally off limits to most recreation for my kids...
The school systems out here (from elementary school to UC) is a repository for liberal thinking. Don't even try to express any conservative thought to any of those people...
Despite many of our hospital emergency rooms being shut down due to waves of uninsured patients (ie, illegal immigrants) and other crumbling of our infrastructure, many are against enforcing our borders, especially our newpaper editors. This despite rumors of terrorists coming across the Mexican border...
I could go on and on, but from what I see every day, I see LOTS of left leaning thinking here, so I don't know where the parent poster is coming from...
How do you reconcile the american belief in freedom with your party's platform when so many of your policies use governmental force to restrict personal choices, such as the choice of what someone can drive, what someone can own, how much electricity someone can use, who and how someone can employ another person, the choice of who to associate with, and where someone can conduct business?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Except he did vote to put them there in the first place. Kerry supported the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, as did Bush. This lack of choice implies we need a new party.
you need to relize the power of open source nuclear plants
From the Green Party Platform, as listed on their website:
/.ers, from what I can tell), that if you think the US government is invasive and intrusive, try living in a socialist or communist country.
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
OK, if you guys ever take over, then I'm going to become a f**king bus driver. What's my incentive to do anything else?
Remember, you can dress it up, call it progressive, socialist, whatever. It's still communism. And while communism looks great on paper, and even works great at the family and neighborhood level, it has failed OVER and OVER and OVER. Each new communist thinks he can do it the RIGHT way this time.
I'll also just note for the more hard-headed among you (which is about 90% of
Be careful what you wish for.
It doesn't matter what drives Bush versus that which drives Kerry. Both made the same decisions: both supported the Patriot Act and both supported war in Iraq. If the decisions that they make are the same, then their reasoning process (or lack there of) is irrelavent.
the 'biggest chunk'? please read the budget. k thanks
Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment that forces any taxation changes to be enacted 10 years prior to taking effect, so that citizens can make rational long term financial planning decisions and so that politicians can't pay off special interests by adding another hundred pages to this years laws that may or not last beyond the next election?
Sadly, IMHO that'll be America's demise ... Presidents who aren't interested in bettering the overall position of America by reducing their debt.
GW Bush is proof of concept. The levels he's run the debt to are attrocious. Servicing that debt and paying it down would ultimately result in lower taxes, but it would be at the cost of re-election.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The Green party platform promotes raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. People tend to work harder (and smarter) the more their work is rewarded, and tend to put forth less effort, when their work goes unappreciated. We've seen historical examples of what happens when the most productive members of a society are taxed heavily: they leave (e.g. the doctors who fled socialized medicine in India and Pakistan in the 1970s) or reduce their effort (e.g. the low quality, low quantity production of workers in Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, etc.), and the country becomes more impoverished than before.
How do you plan to implement such a tax heavy system, without falling victim to the troubles experienced by every other nation to attempt it?
My post specifically states that the Democratic Party AND the GOP (and the electorate) have been driven RIGHT by the rightwing propaganda machine. The Democratic Party is NOT a leftist organization. The only major Leftist political parties are in other countries. CNN/FOX/CBS et al can say whatever they want about the GOP and the Democrats. Those are not leftist parties.
And the major media never talk about issues either.
Go to some other countries for that....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Anyone who can't spell "Iraq" cannot comment on Iraq.
Mr. Cobb, I would like to thank you for doing so much to help build the Green Party in Texas as well as across the entire USA.
As a Green, I feel that the "Safe-State" strategy you advocate is detrimental to the process of keeping the Green Party growing. That is, if Greens fail to run in competitive elections and only run candidates in states/districts/etc. that are not competitive, how can the party continue to grow? Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
In short, how does the "Safe-State" strategy translate into growing the Green Party?
- Humane working conditions.
- Working rights.
- Social security.
The right:
-Spiraling debt every time they have bee in power.
-High subsidies for failed economic activities.
-Rampant protectionism and populism.
-Expenditure in the military machine as only outlet to create jobs.
Great policies from the right.
And the evil, incapable left, shame on them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oil is near or at the Hubbert peak for global production. Greens apparently are opposed to both fossil fuels and fission-based nuclear power. Hydrogen, while perhaps a viable storage mechanism, is not naturally available chemically unbound in measurable quantities, much less enough to constitute a fuel source. Modern American civilization is highly dependent on economical electricity and low-cost long range transportation of manufactured materials. And the Nixon era demonstrated the nasty effects of supply shocks on the economy, especially for something as fundamental as the cost of energy.
Annual energy use in the United States is on the rough order of 100 quad. How would you propose that the United States continue to meet demand? Or, in three specific parts: What long-term technologies do you think we should pursue? What percentage reduction by conservation in the US annual energy use do you feel we should realistically try to achieve? And, most important, what technologies to you propose for use in the short term to sustain the supply needed (despite conservation) until whatever long-term technologies you plan for are successfully deployed?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Just like the animals you see around you, when people are in a community in which they fit naturally, their natural drives for social status and their reproductive drives will from time to time drive to do work.
I have news for you: working 50 weeks a year, year in and year out, that aint necessarily a good thing. Yes, some people are twisted and greedy, and they often get rich and powerful and use that to manipulate and exploit their fellow human beings in order to gain more wealth, but that does not mean we have to do what they say.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Somebody that can't grasp the difference between racism and chauvinism does not deserve to address a Presidential candidate.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
you wrote:
Canada and socialist European countries are being left in our economic dust.
Hmm, that is strange to hear that, because their quality of life is just getting higher and higher: they have more and more time off, less and less stress and worry because they have medical care even if broke, and the govt will take care of them better if they lose everything.
Americans OTOH are making less and less money, losing our healthcare, and losing our jobs thanks to that wonderful free trade.....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Kerry's no better in that respect. Even if he did raise the taxes he promises and gets out of Iraq quickly, the programs he proposes would still result in more deficit. It's going back to the days of two candidates arguing who will be worse for the deficit, rather than who is going to just fix the damned thing.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Why do you support the failed war on drugs when it has been shown that it makes it extremely profitable for people to push drugs onto our young kids, raises the prices so high that they need to break into my house in order to pay off their dealer? What not legalize drugs and end this black market?
"And the one-dimensional political spectrum used in the good-ol US_Of_A strikes again. Greens aren't nearly as leftist as Democrats."
Their party platform says differently.
Ten Key Values of the Green Party, from their own website include things like NON-VIOLENCE, FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY. These aren't leftist positions? Only the decentrilization plank could be construed as libertarian.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Why don't you stick to your journal promise to fuck off, you flip-flopping fascist?
So you as a farmer become fully dependant on a company for your survival.
ANd loses biological diversity, stoping uisng plants that are pretty well adapted to local conditions.
And nobody know how the sudden introduction of these crops will affect the environment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He is on record saying the opposite: From David Cobb's website FAQ http://www.votecobb.org/faq#2 Questions Who is David Cobb? Why should I vote for Cobb, or the Green Party at all? What does the Green Party stand for? Why not vote for the Democrats (or even the Republicans)? You don't really expect to win, do you? Didn't the Green Party cost Gore the election in 2000? Aren't you afraid of doing that to Kerry? Cobb will not accept corporate contributions. What does that mean? Is David Cobb running a limited campaign or is he running all out? Will David avoid being listed on the ballot in close states? Does David want to help John Kerry get elected President? Will David avoid campaigning in close states? Can David raise enough money to run for President? Can David get enough media coverage? Answers Who is David Cobb? You can learn all about David by reading his biography. Back to top Why should I vote for Cobb, or the Green Party at all? Democracy should not be limited to only two choices, especially when they are so similar. David stands for a foreign policy based on peace and respect, and a domestic policy based on solidarity and sustainability. If David represents you and your values, you owe it to yourself to vote for him. Back to top What does the Green Party stand for? We stand for Ten Key Values, beginning the the Four Pillars of Ecological Wisdom, Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, and Peace and Non-violence. Our goal is to be the electoral wing of the movements against war and corporate power. Back to top Why not vote for the Democrats (or even the Republicans)? It is the policies of these two parties that has allowed corporate power to run roughshod over our communities and our environment. They have also agreed to carry out unprovoked wars of aggression, against the will of our nation, not to mention that of our allies. While Greens are quick to recognize that there are people of good will in both the Democratic and Republican parties, we are firmly opposed to most of their policies and practices. Back to top You don't really expect to win, do you? Yes and no. We don't have enough people, money, or media access to take the White House. But there are other measures of success. In 2000, the Green Party grew enormously and became a household name. In that respect, it was a winning campaign. We can and will build on that success this year, by helping state and local parties to organize, helping Green candidates get elected to office, providing a campaign to disseminate our message, and more. Back to top Didn't the Green Party cost Gore the election in 2000? Aren't you afraid of doing that to Kerry? Greens do not accept the "spoiler" argument. Al Gore was the legitimate winner of the election, but the outdated and undemocratic Electoral College, along with corruption in the Florida electoral system, allowed the Supreme Court to decide that George W. Bush should occupy the White House. This time around, David is running more heavily in states where the outcome of the vote is predictable, based on history. Green voters in those states can choose David without worrying that they are contributing to returning Bush to the White House. Of course, we are still seeking votes in other states as well, just not as intensely (unless they are required to gain or maintain ballot access, in which case we will be highly assertive). Greens are also proponents of Instant Runoff Voting, which would conclusively eliminate the "spoiler" issue. Democrats who feel threatened by us would do well to take up the banner of IRV, because Greens are not going away, and we will not be convinced by "Not this year" arguments. Back to top Cobb will not accept corporate contributions. What does that mean? The growth and pervasiveness of corporate power is the defining issue of our time. It underlies environmental destruction, the erosion of democracy, and our wars in Iraq. Nearly all elected officials, especially at the national level, owe allegiance to corporations, because corporations financed their campaigns. David's only l
What do you do with the nuclear waste?
3 ,1 298593,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,276
You propose giving the government even more power over our lives and business while giving us more power over our government. How can you garrentee that we will be able to keep power over our government when we lost it once already?
Yet another USian that does not get democracy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Chomsky is a nut case, pure and simple. He is the epitome of the "proof by selection of facts" logic flaw. He ignores anything that doesn't fit his twisted world view, and what he does use, he warps and flakes and forms it into the worse possible interpretations with no regard for actual truth.
Chomsky is even worse than Michael Moore, and that's saying something.
The only thing Chomsky is good for is being a test for political naivete. If you like him, then you are political naieve and ignorant. Go educate yourself.
P.S. Yes, I've read him.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Mr. Cobb: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I watched the debate between yourself and Mr. Badnarik in New York. You stated that Social Security works in response to Badnarik's assertion that it is broken and should be eliminated. I would like to know how you plan to make social security work, and why I should be required to pay into it, if at all.
David Cobb must address these accusations. Put another way: are his sympathies with the Democrats or are they with the Greens?
" then their reasoning process (or lack there of) is irrelavent."
Bullshit. It matters a lot.
It also matters HOW you conduct policy. The way I see it my dog could have waged war better then Bush has. Even if they both decide on the same policy the fact that one has proven himself to be incompetent at carrying out the said policy important.
evil is as evil does
which seeks to concentrate libertarian activism in a single state to effect major real changes in a localized area as a demonstration that Libertarianism can work.
Do you think a similar push by Greens would work, and would would you personally move to a place where green activists chose to concentrate their presence?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
What a bunch of hogwash.
The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law that the "clear intent of the voter" must be followed
Read the opinion. I have. Here is the link. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State must accept vote counts from county Canvassing board after the deadline set by the Law. (See See 102.166(5), Fla. Stat. (2000)). It demands that the intent of the voter be determined. Bush challenged this, saying that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong to impose this. The Florida Supreme Court claimed in its ruling it was not making election law, however, this precedent was never established by the Legislature. Furthermore, the courts assertion that the Secretary of State must accept tallies after the date the Legislature deemed to be the deadline was clearly, obviously, without a doubt, new law. The Supreme Court ruled that the same standard must apply to all votes and voters in the State of Florida. That was the 7-2 vote. It was pretty clear. You can't have every vote examined on its own basis and try to get what the voter wanted out of it. Even if the Florida Legislature had passed this law it would not have mattered. This is an Equal Protection issue. Clear as day. Two ballots cast by two voters marked exactly the same way could be interpretted differently by the Florida Supreme Courts order. That's just not legal. The 5-4 vote was whether or not the deadline set by hte Legislature was a valid deadline. The dissenting Justices ruled that the Legislature's biggest goal was to ensure every ballot was recounted manually and tabulated. However, 3 USC 7 sets the date that the electoral college meets. If a State has not selected its electors, it forfeits its votes. The US Supreme Court found, like the Florida Supreme Court, that the Florida Legislature has a bigger interest in ensuring that its votes as a state are recognized. This was the "5" part 5-4 decision. If Scalia had recused himself and the vote come down 4-4, the 7-2 vote would have stood - meaning the State of Florida would have had to impose the same standard across all counties. The Decemember 18th date set in 3 USC 7 would cleary (only 6 days from the date of the decision) be missed, and all Floridians would lose their vote. Since no candidate would have recieved 270 electoral votes, the US House would have voted, and Bush would have still one.
The bottom line is this: regarding the election politics, there is not a single ruling that the either the SCOTUS or the Florida Supreme Court could have provided that would have given Al Gore the White House. Not one. If you have the proposed text, or a description of what it was, please by all means be the first to provide it. There was no legal way that a "intent of the voter" standard could be enacted. It's not legal by Florida law, it's not legal by US law, it's not legal by the US Constitution. Even in the best case - if the US Supreme Court never intervened - Gore could not have won.
different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties
You someone how hold the Republicans responsible for having more up to date voting equipment. The fact is that the State of Florida does not fund county elections. It is up to the County to handle thier own elections. This is enshrined in State law as well as the State constitution. There are elected officals who are mandated to deal with it. The counties in question where run by Democrats. The only person to blame for these counties poor equipment are the elected Election Board Supervisors. There is no excuse for them keeping 30, 40, 50 year old crappy voting equipment in place. At very worst, they could easily print up a paper ballot on large paper with an empty box next the candidates name. They choose not to do that. And in doing so they ended u
Your web site states that you advocate an "immediate withdrawal" of troops from Iraq. How would you propose to clean up the mess we've made in the region without a military presence? What do you see as the chances of survival of the current Iraqi government without America's support? And what do you believe would become of Iraq if this new government is overthrown or rendered irrelevant by popular uprising?
Thank you very much for your time.
That is BOTH joint single filers--about 50% are less than 35K gross income.
About 33% of all returns are less than $20K
And why is it that you somehow think that $75K is a good exemplary income? THat is what I want to know. For some reason or reasons, people seem to think that everyone is making a lot of money....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
At the Trekkie convention is there a minimum aluminum foil hat quota?
Why do you run if you know you're going to lose?
No offense ment, I don't know when the last time a 3rd party won. Is your goal to simply make a political statement? In other words, I guess I'm saying: Why should we vote for you?
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day, set a man on fire, he's warm for life."
Ok, this is going to come from five weeks of education in my Intro. to Business and International Business courses, plus a video I watched on the success of Hong Kong:
There are three types of economic systems: Free market, command economy, and mixed market. The US is a mixed market, not quite command, and not quite free market. What this means is that our businesses aren't dictated to by our government, but there's still government influence in almost everything a government does. Todays businesses are riddled with regulations, laws, and restrictions to the point that our economy is no longer efficient.
To take an example: According to Wikipedia, Hong Kong [wikipedia.org] is the perfect example of a free market economy. "But wait," you might say. "Isn't Hong Kong in communist China?" And I would say to you, "Why, yes, it is." However, when Hong Kong began, about 50 years ago, it was agreed that "China's socialist economic system would not be practiced in Hong Kong and that Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters" (Wikipedia). It's China's "little experiment" with capitalism. And, guess what? It's a thriving economy. People move from the US, Scotland, Japan, Australia, just to start a business in Hong Kong. It's success is due to it's limited government interaction. One paper is all one needs to start a business, and unlike in India where there is no guarantee your business will even be reviewed and approved, in Hong Kong, the paper is copied and stamped. Poof. Business started. There is a fixed tax for everything, only for government. There are no regulations. When did there ever need to be regulations, anyway?
It's a simple theory. If a business produces diseased food, nobody will eat from there any longer. The business will go bankrupt and another business will fill it's place, the peoples needs. It that business begins abusing it's power and begins to charge too much, another will arise and fill the need. If people aren't limited by work hours they can work longer and get more pay for that TV they've wanted. If people just want to deliver a flippin newspaper for $4.00 an hour, they aren't denied the job because the employer can't pay the $6.00 minimum wage. It JUST WORKS.
My question: What can the Green Party do to make this country more of a free market?
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Question: I don't want universal healthcare. I don't mind paying for my healthcare, my children's healthcare, my parents' healthcare if necessary, and if it came to it I wouldn't mind helping out extended family or even close friends. But frankly I don't want to pay for the healthcare of some random, lifetime-McDonalds-eating, pack-a-day-smoking, sixpack gurgling couch potato I've never even seen, much less known. I'm sorry they're ill, but I've got my own financial challenges, and also want and deserve to enjoy the hard-earned fruits of my lifetime of labor and sacrifice. Can you convince me to change my mind?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
I'm sure you are aware of the 'spoiler effect' that all third parties suffer from and must be sick of people saying "I want to vote for you but I'm scared of Bush getting back in." And I imagine you know of the various preferential voting systems that are used in other parts of the world (such as Australia) that get around this problem. (Such as Instant Run-off Voting: IRV) I am curious if your would do a deal with Kerry to pull out of the election if he made a solemn commitment to introduce IRV if elected. This would obviously have a huge benefit to both the Greens and Democrats in future elections.
In Canada, our elections tend to be equally *un*-democratic, although we have different challenges.
I faced the same question (and got the same *vote-wasting* accusations) during our last election.
I did end up voting 'Green' (hence the Anonymous Coward post. Parent wasn't kidding, admitting this is like having eco-t3rr0r1$t tattooed on one's forehead!)
I simply e-mailed my candidate and asked him all my pertinent questions. Not only did I get a quick response, but same day via telephone. I was impressed with the response and the candidate, and more importantly, I had my questions answered, got good vibes, and proceeded to
>select option:> Waste My Vote
or
>select option:> Say NO To Vote-Whoring.
depending on one's views...
Even assuming a perfect safety record and no terrorist shennanigans, nuclear power is still a bad idea, because of the solid waste polution. From mining and extraction of fissiles to storage of mostly expended fuel rods, nuclear power has a serious cost and safety overhead. Also, there's the NIMBYism and politics of nuclear.
My recommendation for cheap, safe power is radiant heat solar powered stirling engines. The stirling engine is nearly perfect at extracting mechanical energy from heat energy. Toss a $150 Fresnel lens over the hot end of the stirling engine to crank up the heat source about 1000 degrees fahrenheit and you have a nice 900 degree heat differential which is more than enough to drive a stirling engine.
In addition of being quite destructive to the environment and making the US dependent on foreign oils, the automobile addiction is a prime source of economic disadvantage, because of the cost of operating an automobile (both the individual and the collective & social cost) is forcing salaries to be higher than in countries the USA is competing against.
The recent outflux of high-tech jobs to third-world countries because salaries over there are cheaper is certainly a cause of the obligation for employers to subsidize the indispensable automobiles of their workers.
Emerging countries want in some way or other to equal the US standard of living; this includes the obligatory automobile. Now, being quite doubtful that the planet Earth would be incapable of sustaining the BILLION additionnal automobiles that would be needed if China and India would raise their standard of living to match the US, it is quite obvious that, just for the reason of being the example everyone else wants to emulate, the USA would have to significantly decrease it's dependence on automobiles.
What does the green party intend to do towards this inescapable goal?
On 911Truth.org there is a story titled Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb Calls for New 9/11 Probe . Here is an excerpt:
Like my friend Rick Otten who is a green party state-level candidate I obviously agree with those 49% of New York City residents. My question is this: do you think this country will see anything like a real 9-11 investigation on the order of the Watergate hearings or will the complicity question be swept under the rug?
1. What do you think is the most realistic and economically viable way to transition away from petroleum based fuels for transportation?
2. What mechanisms of government would the Green Party use to encourage alternative energy use? (ie. tax pollution, subsidize non-petroleum energy providers, etc.)
Does anyone else find the link on the upper right sidebar to "Best Deals: Politics" to be terribly ironic in the face of selecting questions for an interview with one of the parties opposing corporate ownership of political candidates? ^_^
"Cool! Senate votes to prop up my failing business model for only $300!"
It's the *only* post under this story that mentions the Mexican immigration problem.
I've got nothing against the good people of Mexico, but they really need to *stay* the good people of Mexico unless they're playing by our rules.
It depends where you live I think.
I live in Arizona and there's no chance in hell this state will together vote for anyone but Bush. I voted for Gore last election (even though I liked Nader better) but this election I think I'll support a third party candidate.
If I vote for Kerry, AZ will still vote for Bush as a whole (I think there are only two states so far that split electoral votes) and my vote will be kind of wasted. But if I vote for a third party then at least I can contribute to the 5% of the popular vote to receive federal matched campaign funding.
If I lived in a swing state, however, I would definitely vote for Kerry over any third party candidate, even one I preferred over Kerry. If even a fraction of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 in the state of Florida (and I think there were some other really close-call states), then Bush would have lost.
So if you're views are leftist like mine... I'd reccomend voting for a third party if you live in a Republican stronghold, and voting Democrat if you live in a swing state... and I'd reccomend voting Democrat if you live in a Democrat stronghold, just in case....
Aren't you afraid for the sake of the environment that by campaigning and offering yourself as a choice for the election you will favor the re-election of our incubemt president as Nader has in 2000? And if not, then why? And do you really think you have a chance of getting into office when you have the two major parties that will most likely attract 90 percent of the voters?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Give they've been hit what? Three times this year by hurricanes?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
If a Green Party canididate were to win the presidential election, he or she would most likely be isolated by the two major parties. This would lead to deadlock at best and impeachment at worst.
Any third party would need a foundation of support in the lower levels of government to function effectively in the higher levels.
Wouldn't working to elect Green Party local and state officials be more prudent than spending that money on a presidential campaign?
I am compleatly against the green party, and I will never vote for it or any aspect of this party here is why.
1. After studying the science and the way that nuclear power is generated I am convinced that it is the only way to meet the United States energy needs.
1. The green party and environmental party's are responsible for
* Stopping the recycling of uranium and plutonium, thereby creating 3 times more radioactive waste than necessary
* creating classifications that something is harmful and radioactive when it's not.
* Stopping future nuclear power development in America
2. Your stance that Wind, Hydro, Solar power is better than what we currently have is a lie.
1. Wind power will cause more environmental damage in the long run
2. Hydro power causes more erosion and ecological disaster than oil
3. Contrary to popular belief, solar cells require more energy to manufacture than they ever produce.
I recycle, I walk and conserve energy as much as possible, I work at saving the environment, but when asked me categorically deny any affiliation with the green party or green peace. Would you like to know why?
Your party is worse than ani abortionists who kill doctors to prove their point. Indirectly you are responsible for the rape of our country. You are opinionated closet aristocrats who protest about things that you don't even have a clue about. Please disband your party so that people who genuinely care about the environment and do something good.
Dear Mr. Cobb,
What makes you think you have a chance in hell?
Some of the Greens who are the subject of these accusations have posted their responses at http://greensrespond.org.
They report, you decide.
I used to think the same way as you. I guess it takes a lot of time and experience added onto the knowledge for it to actually have some effect.
So the arguments illogical and hence can't be understood unless one has experienced sometype of personal spiritual growth or something? What exactly is it that experience gives that can't be explained logically?
Furthermore, how could an illogical argument be the correct one, especially considering political science?
Those are even less convincing answers than I would have thought possible. Talk about dodging and not answering a straight accusation with a straight denial. No where in that long script does she actually deny that she's doing the work of the Democrats. An easy, simple statement to make. That said it's a pity that Donnelly didn't get some more of the details correct so that she wouldn't be able to muddy the waters with them.
HA HA
Think you got chioce?
You can't stand the choice!
The choice will destroy you!
Our country is returning to a feudalistic mentality due to the slave labor outlook of many corporations. That being, when you join a company that company owns you mind, body, and soul, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
My questions are:
1. How will you overcome the push to return to a feudalistic society where the worker is beholden to their king/CEO in every way, shape, and form?
2. How will you rein in the corporate machines? How much money should they be allowed to make in a year? When should they be forced to split up so competition is maintained?
3. Our forefathers never foresaw companies which had billions of dollars laying around which could be used to influence all of the politicans and/or to buy whatever laws they wished to have pushed through. The two party system is flawed because it is like a single toggle switch. We need a better system or method to handle the needs of the few as well as the needs of the many. What type of system would you put in place to handle this problem?
4. When the WTAA met in Ontario last month, coverage in the news was minimal yet somewhere around 50,000 people protested the meeting. How can you ensure that our news coverage stops being candy coated and starts showing us what is really happening in the world?
5. Abu Ghraib was a shot in the arm to Americans. It showed us just what kind of people we were when it came to torture. The Pentagon's response to the photos was not "We will put a stop to this immediately," it was "You can not longer take pictures at this place." In other words - a cover-up. What will you do to ensure that America gets first hand, up close, knowledge of what our government is doing overseas? And how (not what) will you do to prevent cover-ups in the future?
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
What are the major differences between you and Ralph Nader?
Im posting two questions to see if one gets answered. 1. My family and I, have always been a very liberal. Because I this we do tend to agree with the Green Party on almost everything. We vote democratic because we dont want the right wing to get in power. How do you, or the green party plan to sometime in the future become a canadate that has a good chance of winning? 2. As a very liberal American I belive in freedom, but I see more and more freedoms being taken away from the American people, such as abortion, privacy, and many others. How do you plan to get these freedoms back to the American people and put them in place so they can never be taken away agien? Thank you, Lee Trager
That is what a NY Times editorial called him, and believe me, Chomsky is not exactly a friend of the NY Times.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Did you read the comments on that story? It turns out that supposed $0.01/kwh price was actually heavily subsidized -- actual costs are more like $0.05/kwh.
Your vote counts the same whether it's counted first or last.
Do you feel that the voting system is inherently crippling the strength of 3rd parties such as yours? Do you think implementing a preference voting system would significantly increase the number of votes for 3rd parties?
For slashdot readers:
Preference voting is a sytem where you rank each candidate by whom you would prefer to win most.
Example:
A ballot might like look this:
1. Cobb
2. Bush
3. Kerry
Suppose that the ballots were collected and they count all the votes in the number one slot. The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated from the list. Now we have:
1. Bush
2. Kerry
The process is repeated until one name is left on the list. It is clear that this voting system reduces down to our current one, save that there is no "throwing away of the vote".
"Recursive bipartite matching"- try it!
When you get out of bed in the morning, how do you make yourself believe that you have a chance to win an election?
Which drug is most popular at Green Party headquarters?
-- No sig for you!
I heard Peter Camejo speak last week and he said that at the Green nominating convention that a whole bunch of unknown people showed up, presumably Democrats or other tricksters, which lead to the Cobb nomination, instead of probably Nader. Comments?
(Peter Camejo is Nader's running mate on Reform Party ticket, although Camejo is running as a Green. He was also a California Governor candidate with 150 others, (Swartzenegger won.))
If the decisions that they make are the same, then their reasoning process (or lack there of) is irrelavent.
To me the resoning process is almost more important than the final result. I want the person making the decisions to be making intelligent, resonable decisions after considering the available information and consulting with experts on the subject. If they disagree with me, but for sound reasons that I can understand, then I can respect their decision.
On the other hand, if they agree with me all the time, but only because "the voices in their head told them so", I sure as hell wouldn't want them in charge.
Example:
I'm not acually against the war in Iraq. I think it's possible we might be able to do some good there. I think the execution is flawed, but mostly because of really shitty PR (I don't know what we're doing, or why. I don't know when we're getting out, or how. I think the Iraqis are fighting because they're in the same position.)
I'd like to see the White House bring out someone with a PhD on Middle Eastern relations to talk about how we can stabilize the region, and explain that we went to war with specific objectives in mind to do so. I don't think they can, because I think the decision was made by a couple of rednecks who wanted to go shoot someone, and figured there was a bad guy out there who nobody would mind losing. If they don't have a damn good case for the war, and I haven't seen one hold up yet, then Bush has thousands of lives on his hands and I'd like to see him in a Texas court for it.
On the other side, Kerry says he approved the measure that allowed Bush to go to war so that Bush would be in a stronger position to bargain. That's a legitimate reason, the police can't stop crime if everyone knows their weapons aren't loaded.
"Most important intellectual" primarily refers to his linguistic research!! His politics are called "maddeningly simple-minded", which I embrace wholeheartedly.
Man, if this doesn't describe Chomsky in a nutshell, I don't know what does. He pulls out a quote from a NY Times article that implies the opposite of what it really says. EVERYTHING he says is like that! He is infamous for pulling things out of context and twisting them around.
Does that tell you anything? Does that disturb you at all?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Of course you think it has to do with the flow of money.
Propaganda?
University professors, Hollywood, ABCNBCMSNBCCNNPBSNPRCBS. Propaganda? Are you serious?
I would say it comes from one thing (if you take truth out of the equation): conservatives have to interact with liberal viewpoints more often and make better arguments. Ok, that's two things.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
.... and if you vote for whom you really don't want, then it's wasted, because you lied. Lied. You voted a lie. And we been electing lies for a long time now, e-vile lies and the liars who tell them.
Been hearing apologetic statist dumbasses like you for close to half a century. Half a freeking century. WAKE UP! Stop repeating lies! People have been so brainwashed into "not wasting their votes" that they have WASTED THEIR VOTES voting in Ds and Rs over and over and over and over again, and GUESS WHAT? It's the same old crap! Vote for D&R crap, get D&R crap! How simple does it need to be, how many clues you need?
Every election if enough people voted for non-crap, the NEXT election gets MORE non-crap votes, and less crap votes. See how that works? It builds from there. Tedious, but how it works, and it takes every single person who's aware of it to do it to make it effective. It has to be consistent. A vote for a third party is THAT, you are not voting for anything but that. You will NEVER get anything but a D or R if you keep voting for a D or R. NEVER. Not one time will a D or R vote get you any political action except what Ds and Rs always do, which is screw you, screw me, screw the other guy, stuff their pockets and lie to you every chance they get. Get it yet? El comprehende?
There will never be any magical time where all at once everyone will switch, NOPE, it needs to build momentum, a tiny amount at a time, and that momentum comes from one-single-vote. You only get one chance every election to add to that momentum, so make it count!
We also need a miniuum number so that third parties can be GUARANTEED TO BE ON THE BALLOT every cycle, so they don't have to waste their resources time and money just to get on the ballot. Ds and Rs are automatic! We need to break that! They don't own government, but they have seized control. It's not theirs to own! It's a freeking shared junta, a criminal cartel for profit. They need to be on the ballot in all 50 every election so we can DEMAND they be included in debates and SHAME the news media into more coverage than just Ds or Rs.
Here's an analogy, it's exactly like "stop using linux, you are "wasting your desktop and time", because next week everyone WON'T be using linux! See how retarded that sounds? Same exact deal with politics. You have to be consistent and relentless. Re-lent-less and not be dissuaded from your goal, not be pressured into this "lesser of evils" crapola. Evil is evil, there is no "lesser" and if you had been watching long enough you'd realise that.
You have to build critical mass, and it's ONE VOTE AT A TIME, EVERY TIME, going for a third party or an independent. It WON'T MATTER that much if skull and bones millionaire globalist lying scheming goon A or skull and bones globalist lying scheming goon B "gets in power" this cycle, not near as much as if the numbers of non D or R votes keep steadily rising every election, from local dogcatcher all the way to prez. BOTH those dunderheads are A-liars, first and foremost, and B globalists who care not a whit about you, and C-actors and script readers, they get told what to say and when to say it, and D, most importantly D-they are puppets. Marionettes. They are figureheads of the real powers that are behind the seat of power, and you got to not vote for that sorta action, for any reason, its anathema to what this nation was designed for.
The only "wasted" vote is one THAT IS NOT CAST.
What do you think about a tax system based on sales/consumption tax like what's mentioned on Fair Tax Plan? It would help fight poverty.
Why are social programs important do you? Do you believe that they are better than allowing citizens to decide for themselves how their money is spent?
Meanwhile, France generates nearly all their power with nuclear reactors, and seems to have no safety problems. Surely we can do as well as they can?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Last Week the Libertarian Party's candidate, Michael Badnarik, largely selected softball questions to answer, rather than tough ones. Will you have more courage than he did?
I'm talking about bad for the environment as a global political strategy.
Let me start with the conclusion first and then I'll elaborate on the reasons behind it:
I believe that the GP platform is highly sub-optimal: it leads to getting stuck in a local minimum of environment protection, preventing society to reach its potential in terms of environment protection.
By preventing society to reach this potential, the Green Party platform and political action becomes actually a real threat against the environment instead of an effort to protect it.
Analysis (oversimplified due to space and slashdot attention span limitations):
The green party platform views any singular threat to the environment as something to be fought against. The only gain is a direct gain in environment protection. Any direct loss in terms of environment protection is considered a global loss. In mathematics, we call this a "steepest descent" optimization strategy. Mathematicians, computer scientists and other various other breeds of geeks know that this strategy has the problem of falling, and getting stuck in what we call a "local mininum" and it may prevent you from reaching a "global mininum" that may be much much lower (a brief explanation of the optimization strategy and this problem is provided at the end of this post).
Capitalism is a system that severely punishes (ultimately with bankruptcy or diminished profits) to any company that spends resources on avoiding environmental damage as a part of the production process. At a country level, it punishes the country that protects the environment with diminished competitivity.
This is hard-wired in the laws of the global economic structure. Unless this is changed, continued damage to the environment will continue and this cannot be stopped by any single country or policy.
Therefore, the only real and sustainable gain in terms of environment protection is derived from overthrowing capitalism.
By fighting small environmental scuffles, the GP is diverting attention from the real problem. Furthermore, it is supporting capitalist parties like the democratic party in exchange of "crumbles of environment protection".
In other words, it is supporting a system that inevitably needs to constantly damage the environment in order to survive in exchange for small environmental gains.
So the question becomes: don't you believe that by supporting capitalism (with some small measures of environmental protection) you are actually supporting a system that is inevitably damaging to the environment?
Note: I don't pretend to be "neutral" while giving a "mathematical" explanation of a contradiction in the GP platform. There are obvious political positions on this comment that should be debated outside of the realm of mathematics.
Explanation of the local minimum problem when using the "steepest descent" optimization strategy
Imagine that you are walking around in a territory with valleys and mountains and you are trying to get to the lowest point in the territory. A reasonable strategy would be to look at the ground where you are standing and follow the direction of the steepest descent.
While reasonable , this strategy is ultimately flawed. At the other side of the mountain there may be a valley much more deeper than the valley where the "steepest descent" will take you. But to go to this valley, you must walk up the mountain.
That is, a global optimal strategy sometimes involves immediate losses, not only immediate gains.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Why not address my chart of the top tax rate history I posted above? THAT is where the rubber meets the road. And the tale it tells cannot be denied. THat is why you ignore it.
CLEARLY, as shown in that chart, top tax rate have declined DRAMATICALLY in the last 30 years. Therefore, INARGUABLY, America has moved (or rather, been moved) to the right.
Q.E.D.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
What settings did you use?
The most important setting to change is the one about accepting ballots only if the inspectors are unanimous, versus when any 2 of them agree. The looser requirement of non-unanimous votes is what makes Gore win reliably. (That was a side effect of more Gore supporters coming from poor towns with degrading voting machines that couldn't punch all the time. Throw those ballots out, and he loses)
However, if you had a table of all different ways to count (in a spreadsheet, not an awkward web applet), then you'd see that the race was so close that out of 24 possible counting standards, Gore won 12 of them. So pointing to the NYT recount is useless for either side of the argument.
So it's not offtopic to blather about Bush's supposed flaws being due to fundamentalism, but it is offtopic to talk about the exact same subject, from the other side. I see ...
It is interesting to note that although the moderators have not agreed with your statements, the quantity and variety of responses which your comment has received is rather impressive. :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
I'll get to my question for Mr. Cobb in a moment.
;)
Meanwhile, parent poster, here's a link for you to examine.
I note items numbered 5 and 6 with much trepidation.
I also note their emphatic support (check the "Resolutions" link) for such peaceful regimes as Saddam's Iraq and Arafat's Palestine. (For a party that advocates "economic" and "social" "justice", it seems ironic that they would support multi-millionaire totalitarian dictatorships. But that's just me.)
Anyhow, my question for Mr. Cobb:
Having read your platform and list of resolutions, I ask what are the differences, if any between you and the World Worker's Party, the Communist Party USA, or the Socialist Worker's Party?
Thank you for even considering my question, and may you garner all the support that you deserve.
The demand that the intent of the voter be determined comes straight out of Florida law: No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. (The law has been changed since then.)
It was not an invention or imposition of the court! This assertation is simply not correct.
As far as the deadline, IIRC the law held that the Secretary may accept late counts; the Florida courts requirement that she do so was reasonable and serving the legitimate interests of the people.
There was no danger of that. The legislature had the power to select electors directly. This would have been legally valid, and put Bush into office legitimately, but politically it would have been disasterous for both the legislature and Bush.
I find that hard to beleive, as five minutes with Google found these.
No, merely noting the existance of a condition of equal protection. It's a nationwaide problem. It makes no difference whether the counties in question were run by Democrats; a condtion where one citizen's vote is 95% likely to be registered while another's is 99.9% likely is a serious problem.
Irrelevant. The incompetence of a state offical of the same party as a candidate you wish to vote for doesn't change your right to vote.
If you asked that in December 2000, I would have said I would have been about 75% as pissed off; I had a visceral dislike of Bush that accounted for about an extra 25% piss-off factor, but otherwise found little difference between them. Certainly that would be higher today, given his record. But yes, I would still be pissed off about Republican votes not being counted.
And Gore wasn't "my guy", as I voted Nader. Over the years I have voted for Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and even Republicans. I simply want every vote to count.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I have no problem admitting it's a government subsidy. I was taking issue with the Green Party's assertions, which you quoted, that nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal are unsafe.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
it's time to go dude. nine months off slashdot, five paragraph essay, forty-five minutes of internet every two weeks.
time to go.
Do you feel that you have to make your own views more moderate to get any attention? Would your statements relating to any issues be more extreme if you knew it would not hurt your party and share of the vote?
Simon's Rock College
Canadian politcs has always been dominated by the right wing Progressive Conservative party (PC) and the usually-left wing Liberals. In 1986, the very conservative Reform Party of Canada came out of nowhere. By 93, they had taken so much support from the PCs that the liberals were completely unchallenged til just this year's elections when the two parties merged - with a Reform Party member as leader.
Now a *5th* party is picking up on the left -- the Greens. In the 2004 elections, they received enough votes to qualify for federal funding. This is huge. Apart from the cash, this will make it harder for them to be denied a place in debates and in news stories et al.
In a few more election cycles, the Greens may even gain official status, particularly given the frequency of elections being won by voting against very unpopular leaders.
It's a shame Reform and the PCs merged. Strong alternatives on both the left and the right would have made for something resembling a true democracy. (The other parties are the "New Democratic Party" just now coming back from the dead and the Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec separatist party).
Even if they both decide on the same policy the fact that one has proven himself to be incompetent at carrying out the said policy important.
And the other one proved himself too incompetent to stand against any of this. It isn't like it is some recent revelation that Bush and the neocons behind him are a bunch of overtly idealistic religious fanatics. Kerry is complicit in this whole Iraq mess too!
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. So, if you are Green member, you should vote for Kerry since he's better than Bush on the environement. If you are republican, you should vote for Nader, since a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush anyway.
If you are a democrat, vote for Kerry because a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Bush, the bad man.
I'm a Green, and have been since I was introduced to the ideology in Germany. After my return to the US, I was happy to find the Green party growing, although not to the level we had in the Old World.
Recently, I took the test at Political Compass, and you came in as a great match for me. I wasn't surprised at all. I've often held firm to the Green ideal. I was happy to see the Greens here were similar to the party in Germany.
Then, I saw the 3rd Party Debates on C-Span. You came across as bitter, mean, and just plain angry. I can understand your anger, but presentation is key and after seeing that display, I was almost ashamed.
Were you instructed to come across that way? Did your consultants direct you to come across as an angry bitter person? Hopefully you'll change your personal presentation. It really drives people away. I was completely turned away from the party although I still hold the ideals. I'm experiencing a real Catch 22 here.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
Agreed. I'm so sick of this "anyone but Bush" bullshit. Almost everyone I know who voted for Bush voted because they were absolutely sick of anything to do with Clinton. Isn't it wonderful how that worked out. If we continue to support mediocre candidates simply because they aren't as bad, we'll continue to be fed mediocre candidates. Seriously, what person in his right mind could listen to John McCain and George W Bush talk for five minutes and think that Bush was a better candidate for president.
If saying so makes any difference...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
They support things like affirmative action, "hate crime" laws, and so on, that would use government power to enforce social policy, which is not a libertarian approach. They don't merely want fair laws that are equally applied to everyone.
Their environmental protection is not libertarian either---they want things like higher fuel taxes and emissions laws and other such government means of influencing usage patterns.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Affirmative action policies, at least as implemented in the United States, would give the second preference over the first. Unless you're simply a racist, or favor rich people over poor people, I can't see any way in which favoring rich Black and Hispanic people over poor Asian and White people is "fair". You could redo the example with a poor rural white person living in a trailer park, or with a poor Bangladeshi immigrant, or with any number of other examples, and it would still not exhibit fairness.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Hmm, here's another:
-----------
Your party has ten key values. The third is "ecological wisdom", which states among other things that we need to set up a sustainable society. While this sounds reasonable, how much of this belief is provable science, and how much is a fondness for nature being potentially writ in national policy?
Is the belief that nature is best left partially wild truly established as fact, or is this a kind of recieved wisdom?
-----------
Not trying to be acidic, I love nature. But to state that as a given is something I'm kind of puzzled about, and if this one is answered he can address the occasionally leveled accusation that the Greens are sort of mystic in their outlook and core beliefs.
What bills would you have vetoed in the first place if you had been the president in the previous years?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Dear Mr. Cobb,
I know that these are very difficult questions but they must be answered if anyone is going to make an informed decision and unfortunately they are rarely raised in the recent TV debates.
What is your position on sex, gay marriage, prostitution, pornography and the legal regulations thereof? What do you think about marijuana, abortion and euthanasia? Do you think there is anything which US should learn from Holland with regards to personal freedom?
What is your position on the age of consent and punishment for sex which is not rape? Do you think 30 years in jail for having sex with 17 years old teenager is a justified punishment and should be comparable to violent rape of 5 years old child? What do you think about victimless crimes and punishing behavior which is not considered "moral"? What do you think about sodomy laws? Do you think we should give up our freedoms because of "morality," "war on drugs," "war on terror" or any other future "war on"?
In the name of the entire Slashdot community thank you very much for your answers.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
For hundreds of years, the people of the United States of America have voted for our president in such a way that the views and interests of the majority of the people do not necessarily align with the views and interests of our president. The very idea that the people must choose one, and only one, person that represents their views and interests is fundamentally flawed.
In a democracy, voters should not be deterred from voting for a third party simply because by doing so they are "voting for the opposition". People should be free to vote their conscience instead of going with the most popular party line that is closest to their views, or choosing the lesser of two evils.
Using technology available today, a voting system could be developed that would allow candidates to be ranked in order of preference, so that the peoples' most preferred candidate always wins. What is the Green party's stance on reform like this, and what would it take to push such reform through the top levels of our government?
Since he has had no hand in how the war has been waged he is not complicit in HOW the war is being wages. He is complicit THAT the war is being waged because he voted for it.
I hope you are able to tell the difference between those two things.
evil is as evil does
I don't know too many people who would agree with "US $150K after tax" as the definition of slavery. Think about the people who make your sneakers and get a bit of context.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
You are making more than twice as much as I have ever made in a year. Trade incomes with me for a couple months, and you too will think that $75k a year is a lot of money (and I will starve to death on my new, higher expectations).
My former house was similar in size to yours, except for two things:
1. It was only one story.
2. The garage took up part of the basement space.
It was not an invention or imposition of the court! This assertation is simply not correct
It was an invention of the court. The court require a judgement on the intent of the voter. No matter the marking or the mis-marking, the court said it must be assigned. The law you quoted and I referenced says that a vote may not be discounted if the intent is clear. The court expanded the Legislature's rule drastically. The PDF I linked to has a whole section on the this "may" vs" shall" distinction. The Legislature says that no vote with a clear intent should be ignored. The Court says that every must be counted. Big, big difference.
There was no danger of that. The legislature had the power to select electors directly. This would have been legally valid, and put Bush into office legitimately, but politically it would have been disasterous for both the legislature and Bush.
The point being that either way, Bush would have won. If the electors had been selected by the Legislature every single vote would have been discounted. Both SCOTUS and Florida Supreme Court believed this to be a much larger problem than any alternative.
I find that hard to beleive, as five minutes with Google found these.
These are people on the list. The list that was largely ignored. What I am looking for is a person who went to a polling place, was told he/she was not allowed to vote due to this felon list (improperly added to the list).
It makes no difference whether the counties in question were run by Democrats; a condtion where one citizen's vote is 95% likely to be registered while another's is 99.9% likely is a serious problem.
It is a serious problem. It is a problem caused by bad county politics. Of course, you cant blame Bush for these problems, even though people routinely do.
Irrelevant. The incompetence of a state offical of the same party as a candidate you wish to vote for doesn't change your right to vote.
County offical. But you are right. It doesn't change. But again, people blame this misconduct on Bush.
I would have said I would have been about 75% as pissed off; I had a visceral dislike of Bush that accounted for about an extra 25% piss-off factor
Well then, you are in the good side the population bitching about Florida 2000.
Florida in 2000 was a tie. A tie. At some point in the future people are going to have recognize it was a tie. And deal with the fact that close elections that come in under the margin of error need some type of run-off.
Thanks for the info. In addition to what you said, you have to at least loosen the standard from "full punches" to "three corners" to get George Bush to win. (By 2 votes, I notice. :) ) Interestingly, the more that standard is loosened, the more margin Bush wins by. I would have expected the other way around.
I see how important the agreement of the observers is. I never trusted the hand recounters; there were just too many crazy stories coming out of there. It bothered me that we talked like a hand recount could be perfectly accurate while a machine recount could not; there are instances when machines are more perfect than humans, and of course instances when humans are more perfect than machines.
I have been arguing (as a Bush supporter) since the election that both sides need to acknowledge that what we had in Florida was a statistical tie. We need to recognize this possibility in our law, and legislate that when the number of votes are within a certain percentage of one another, we must provide for some other method of selection, some method that has a finite and discrete number of votes (such as vote of the legislature). It is impossible to be 100% accurate with a number of votes well beyond one million (this is one good argument in favor of keeping the electoral college). At least if the law specified that when the votes are within a certain percentage the legislature will vote, we would have complete certainty and no cries that the election was illegal. (It was not in this case, either, and the law was indeed followed in the end, but it was a mess.)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I agree with my fellow AC. A lot of people who make a lot of money don't realize how good they have it. Grandparent posted a picture of his home which is what most people would consider a PALACE.
The only way to help out the minority parties is to use a new voting system. instant runnoff voting. Spread the word.
Your entire post describes how different decisions matter. If two people do the exact same things, say the exact same things, etc, but one uses one reasoning process different from the other... then from the external point of view, they are equivalent. So yes, it would make allot more sense if more intelligent decisions were made with regards to Iraq, but they weren't... and Kerry did nothing to change that.
If an adult gives a baby a loaded gun, then who is to blame when someone gets shot? Kerry gave Bush a loaded gun. I wouldn't want either types of people running our country.
Well, yes, this thread is off topic.
To get back on topic, as a presidential candidate, what is David Cobb's position on religous fundamentalism and its affect on the laws and culture of the USA?
The system that not only "props up" but actually requires the two-party system is called the Electoral College. By making elections winner-take-all in each state to get all of a state's electoral college votes, and then by making the majority winner in the Electoral College the president the system guarantees only two parties can realistically compete. Since, a large party with a plurality competing against two lesser parties would always have a total domination of a state's electors the only way to prevent one party from always winning is to have two strong parties which take turns winning. If three parties make it to the Electoral College and result in a three-way race where the candidate only receives a plurality and no candidate has a majority, then the election for president goes to the House of Representatives with each state getting one vote per state. This result is seen as so disasterous that no state will change its system of all or nothing electors to the Electoral College. Only two states (Maine and Nebraska) have a system of picking electors which gives winner take all to parties by congressional district, but this modified proportional system still favors the two party system locking out third parties. Colorado currently has an initiative to institute real proportional representation of electors and this offers the best hope of braking the stranglehold the two parties have on the election system. Minnisota was a unique situation since no majority is required in the Gubernatorial election Ventura was the plurality winner of a fluke set of political conditions. His was a vote for him personally not for a party.
"It is human nature for the dominant group in a nation to keep pressing for further domination." Earl Warren
The above post shows a misunderstanding of the relationship between thrid parties and the tow major parties. Williams Jennings Bryan was a populist who ran for president as a Democrat three times and lost. It was Wilson who won when Roosevelt ran under the Bull Moose Party, and like Ross Perot later, syphoned off enough votes from the Republicans to give the Presidency to the Democrats. Wilson appointed Byran to be secretary of state. But Wilson ran on an anti-war platform and then took the nation into the war so Bryan resigned from Wilson's cabinet. A third party only gets its views into the major party when the major party recognizes that the third party is drawing votes away. Usually it is after they have lost because the major party never believes it before hand. For years the Democrats scoffed at the Socialist Party issues but then FDR learned to incorporate some of the basic issues and resurected the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of today has totally turned its back on FDR's new deal version of socialism-lite and for that the Democrats now have no rudder to their ship of state.
"It is human nature for the dominant group in a nation to keep pressing for further domination." Earl Warren
What would be the top 3 priorities of a David Cobb presidency?
There is much public policy discussion regarding changing or reforming the US Intelligence Community. What are your views on this? What changes, if any, to you propose.
As president, what will your foreign policy grand strategy be?
If that's not enough of a difference for you then fuck off.
Ah, the fresh air of true political dialogue.
The question then is, who should select the winner in the case of a statistical tie. While the easy answer in this case is the supreme court did but the fact is Gore conceded so Bush was elected. While I've used the argument that he was selected myself (not a Bush supporter), I don't think it's a strong argument because once Gore conceded it was over.
:)
But the claim that the election was stolen doesn't come from the way the vote was counted, it comes from the purging of the voter rolls, the blocking of voters in some precents, the counting of unsigned or otherwise illegal absentee ballots and other things.
Those things were under the control of the administration of his brother and they are trying the same things this election. The voter roll purge had even more errors in it this time around. It was finally rejected when it was found that not a single hispanic was on the list.
Now we have the question of the voters who also voted in other states. I would like to see that looked at closer and charges filed. If it was just dual registration, I think you could call it a mistake but if votes were placed in both states, that is clearly intent to cheat the system.
I dont think that was a conspiracy on either side and I assume individuals on both sides did it on their own. I would still like to see more come of it so in the future at least more people would be afraid to try it. If they do nothing, I may have to rent a condo in all 50 states.
The bottom line is this: regarding the election politics, there is not a single ruling that the either the SCOTUS or the Florida Supreme Court could have provided that would have given Al Gore the White House. Not one.
e s/ faq/certification_FAQ.htm
Well besides the fact that Harris refused to accept the recounts from several counties that were ready before the deadline. Those recounts would have given Gore the win.
"By insisting on the 5:00PM deadline, Harris excluded legally cast ballots in a way that was neither "reasonable" nor "necessary," and violated the Supreme Court's stipulation that the returns should still be accepted as late as 9:00AM on Monday, November 27."
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/floridafolli
While I've used the argument that he was selected myself (not a Bush supporter), I don't think it's a strong argument because once Gore conceded it was over.
It is also an utterly incorrect argument. The Supreme Court did not consider the issue of "who should receive the electoral votes of Florida," but, instead, "Should an additional recount in Florida be conducted even though the recount procedure under Florida law has already been followed." According to the laws of Florida, Bush received the Florida electoral votes, and according to the Constitution, the legislature of Florida determines the procedure for determining who receives the electoral votes of Florida. The Supreme Court of Florida attempted to step around the laws of Florida, and the Supreme Court said, "No, that's not allowed under the Constitution."
I am not arguing that the process is not flawed. I am arguing that in the end the law as it existed was followed and that the Supreme Court certainly did not "select" (directly) the winner. They just insisted that the law be followed.
I've also put forth my primary suggestion for amending the law. There are 50 states that need to address this, and under the Constitution, each state is free to address the issue as it so chooses.
Now we have the question of the voters who also voted in other states. I would like to see that looked at closer and charges filed.
I agree that charges should be filed against anyone who committed voter fraud.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
That doesn't account for the fact that we support half of Mexico too.
Given their overwhelming popularity with the vast majority of Americans, is the Green party missing out by not using the language and symbols of patriotism? How can the Green party better display its patriotism, since until this point it has asserted it either unconvincingly or has actually come across to mainstream Americans as nearly anti-American?