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.
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.
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.
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'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!
Perhaps he feels, like many of us, that Bush is the worst president in a very long time, and has to go. Kerry, for all of his flaws, can't help but do a better job.
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
For that matter, how do you respond to donations from Republicans :)
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?
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.
It's basically replacing principal with pragmatism. The primary platform for greens is environmental forsight since they see that, despite all of our social quarrels and pissing contests (read: war), the environment is going to bite us in the ass if we continue the way we are. Looking at this ends, taking votes from Kerry is not a pragmatic means. Bush is a trainwreck when it comes to environmental, and thus social, sustainability. Kerry is much better in this aspect. It's going to be a close race, 4 more years of Bush will not make us a more sustainable nation and quite possibly may push us globally towards a more difficult environmental state to recover from. Make no mistake, though, environmental equillibrium will return. However depending on how far the pendulum is pushed will dictate how quickly and how violently that state returns. Just kind of how nature works. Sine fucntions abound.
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.
Whta kind of political party would have a "policy" on same sex marriage, beyond saying that it's none of their business?
Let's ask about their policy on oral sex next.
But if a 3d party causes a major party to repeatedly lose, sometimes the 3d party can get its views incorporated into the major party's platform. (cf. Bull Moose Party and Republicans, William Jennings Bryant and Democrats)
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
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.
Yes, I beleive we should acknowledge that slavery was wrong and appologize for it. But the whole concept of reparations is flawed on two fundamental issues: who should receive reparations, and who should pay?. Ancestry is nearly impossible to trace; should someone whose great-great-great grandparent was a slave receive 1/32 of a reparation payment? Not all blacks are descended from slaves. A few blacks were even slave owners! This issue is simply not as black-and-white as everybody seems to think...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
More specifically, how do you feel about the electoral college system, which is the underlying cause of only having two parties?
Would you favor a voting system that makes it easy for a new party to spring up?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Bullshit.
When the votes start getting tallied up, and 3rd parties or independants are getting 30, 40, 50+ percent of the vote, that sends a LOUD AND CLEAR message.
The message, is this: "You are president by purely a game of numbers, the majority of the citizens are sick of your policies and want change."
3rd party votes count, they've always counted. They scared the 2 major parties so much that they've twisted and warped the system to include 3rd parties as much as possible. Why? They're scared of them.
There've been plenty of 3rd party/independant congressmen, senators and governors. But when presidential elections come around, all of a sudden people tell you 3rd party votes are wasted?
Bah. The lesser of two evils still sucks. If you vote for Kerry, you send the message that you approve of Kerry and his positions, regardless of the fact that you merely voted because you don't like Bush.
Whore your vote out if you want, I vote for who I want to see run the country, not for who I don't.
I'm tired of "which of these two is less of an asshole" elections.
Kerry won't change anything Bush has done, and you're a fool to think he will. Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
Canada, land of social health care, pays 9.3% of it's GDP on health care.
The states, 14% source
So, I don't know that your taxes would be that much higher
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 ?
Over 360,000 Union soldiers died during the Civil War, largely to put an end to slavery. How much more can possibly be said?
:)
Well, how 'bout the bit about the War between the States not being even remotely related to slavery? You know, that whole thing about it being a federal gov't vs. states' rights thing, and Lincoln using the elimination of slavery as a tool to win that war.
I was raised in the North, and didn't fully grasp the lies I was taught as a child in school until I read a letter in Lincoln's own hand spelling out his feelings on the slavery issue (the letter I read is currently part of the collection at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, CT). I don't mean to imply that I'm in favour of reparations--I'm not, doubly-so since my ancestors weren't even in this country during the time period in question. I do think it's important to do things for the right reasons, though.
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!
Wow, schools are still teaching that bullshit? You know how many half truths are taught in history classes..then again, history is told by the victors right?
It's funny, the first time my teacher (in middle school) told me that the war wasn't about slavery, I was pissed. The older I got, the more I learned and realized that the only reason slavery even BECAME an issue was that it was the South's main economic tool. Without slaves the South's economy would go to shit..Lincoln realized this, hence he issued the emancipation proclamation. He said himself that if he could unite the country without freeing slaves, he would do it.
And think about it, how could the war really be about slavery when lincoln owned slaves?
People who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country. No this party will win this election so only vote for them if you don't give a shit about how the country is run or who is running it.
"Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes."
I think the last election proved once and for all just exactly how misguided and wrong this sentiment is. There is a profound difference between Bush and Kerry, if you can't see it then you are blind.
evil is as evil does
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".
Whore your vote out if you want, I vote for who I want to see run the country, not for who I don't.
You are very misguided.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest" - can't remember who said it
The power of democracy is not in voting people in, its in voting people out. Given enough time even the most honest man will be corrupted by power or screwup in some other way. Then its time to vote in the people that have learnt from the previous governments mistake.
It doesn't really matter exactly who gets in power and when, all that matters is that we keep changing our government regularly, pushing politicians to work for their people whatever party they ascribe to.
Democracy is as much of a negative process as a positive one.
People who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country.
/. questions recently, John Kerry still favors deficit spending, a US military presence in Iraq (and 100+ other nations around the world), corporate subsidies, high taxes, the patriot act, the dmca, and all of the other things I dislike Bush for.
I'll vote Third Party (Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party), because I do give a shit about who will run this country. As Mr. Badnarik said when he answered
The difference between these two influence peddling career politicians is not significant enough for many of us to distinguish between them. If you can't see that, then you are the blind one.
I'll agree that Kerry is the lesser of two evils, mostly due to the fact that a Republican Congress will oppose many of his ideas, but as Mr. Badnarik pointed out: if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.
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.
Similarly, these are also invalid arguments: some americans murder, therefore americans are murderers. Or, some american soldiers torture prisoners, therefore all americans are torturers of prisoners. Some Republicans are reactionary flat-earthers, therefore all Republicans are reactionary flat-earthers. Some Republicans are not like Democrats, therefore no Republicans are like Democrats, or Republicans are not like Democrats. These of course are not valid arguements.
I think what is meant is that for the most part, is that most party members of either party do similar things political things, and hold similar political stances.
As for there being a difference between Kerry and Bush, I agree. But if Bush happened to be a conservative Democrat, and Kerry a liberal republican, how much would this change?
Logic, macros, and more
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,
I think the key is- they hold local offices. In small elections, where people can get heard, they have a chance of winning. I might vote for one there. In a national election, they have none.
What they need to do is build up. Get some mayors and aldermen. Work from there for state legislature. Then with that fame run a governor and some representatives, maybe a senator. Shooting at the presidency right now is a waste of time, money, and effort.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?