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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!!!
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.
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
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
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?