Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

blackascoal said:
Do a bit of research on this brother and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally believe you.

I'm just wondering why the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the American Independent Party, and a plethora of other parties have no problem getting a candidate on a california ballot -- but, in other states I hear that they do.
 
Superfreak said:
Just out of curiosity, are there other things besides the scaling back of the clean air act that Bush has done that has gone against the green ideals?
Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head, there is a list of about 50 setbacks on the environmental front that I can think of: millions of previously protected acres opened up to development, easing of pollution controls & regulations, redefining water standards, weakening the EPA, policies that continually favor industry over the environment, and a Supreme Court balance that now tips against environmentally friendly law.

That's just on the eco-front. I know that Nader himself, who the Greens supported that year, was against a slew of issues that have been forwarded by Bush, including many of his ideas about business & industrial regulation, as well as issues like the estate tax.
 
Onceler said:
That's a fair point. To isolate just one example, I would argue that whatever message Greens sent to the Democrats in 2000 (and I do think that it was heard by some Dems, at least for 1 election cycle), was far outweighed by the election of George W. Bush, which represented a much longer-term setback to many Green goals & ideals than anything they could hope to forward by the rather small, temporary influence on the Dem platform.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Greens take no blame or responsibility for democratic failures, nor should they.

Democrats have only themselves to blame and only further worsened their failures by a near complete capitulation to the neocon horde. In fact, many Greens could now factually say, "I told you so."

What democrats should have learned is to stop taking votes for granted .. but sadly, they did not. What I'm seeing is an increase in Green participation by black voters who have been the democrats most loyal constituency BY FAR. Yet the Democratic Party continues to take them for granted.

There is no comparison of the Democratic Party platform to the Green Party platform for black voters. One issue that is most devastating to the black community is the injustice of the Just-Us system. The criminal system has been riding rough-shod over the black community for years and the devastation of the differences in sentencing by race has never been addressed by the Democratic Party even with as loyal as blacks have been.

Criminal justice IS addressed by Greens and evidenced by organizations like The Innocence Project, Amnesty International, and a variety of others, including raw data that clearly demonstrates this injustice.

Democrats shy away from this issue so they won't appear "soft on crime" when in fact DNA evidence has proven the innocence of many railroaded by crimnal courts and a plethora of cases that prove the war on drugs is nothing more than a war on blacks and hispanics ... WHO by the way, are NOT the major drug users, sellers, or importers in this country.

I have children and grandchildren and I believe it is well worth the fight to work to elect a platform and candidates who won't take my children for granted.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
The place to start is by demanding and arguing for open ballot access. Both major parties work together to keep other parties off state ballots by forcing them to adhere to ever-morphing rules and qualifications that are designed to force citizens to choose between twiddly-dee and twiddly-dum.

That's not democracy.

At one point in our history democrats and republicans were the same party. Jefferson belonged to the Democrat/Republican Party. They've simply come full circl to be essentially the same party again but without the upside of Jefferson's party.

Open ballot access is the place to start along with campaign finance reform and you'll see more viable political parties and candidates for America. Both major parties know that which is why they work hand-in-hand to prevent it.
Click to expand...


I agree, in fact, I have my own form of open ballating, in spite of the party rules. I chnge registration as necessary to be able to vote for the the prspective candidated that I think deserves my support.

This time, in California, it appears that I would be able to Register in one party for President and Veep, (FEB 08)and later, change registration if I so desire, to vote in the more minor primaries (However, I expect to be in Wisconsin by then)

All states should have open primaries.
 
Superfreak said:
"If none of the 3rd party candidates have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning, what is the difference between pulling the lever for them, or just writing in someone who you think would make a good President?"

By that same logic, why would you ever vote for someone in a primary (like a kucinich) that has no chance of winning. Why not just vote for one of the top two primary candidates with the most money that is the closer of the two. I mean, otherwise you would just be wasting your primary vote.

That type of "logic" is what keeps the two parties in power. THAT is part of what prevents third parties from becoming viable. The other part is the vast amounts of money required to run for office now. Which is why we need to quit acting like money=free speach. (which I believe you also pointed out)
Click to expand...
If you want (or have to) vote for someone you don't want in that office. aren't you also wasing your vote??/
 
AssHatZombie said:
That hopelessness is in your mind. Not voting is also a strong signal. Voter turnout is how they measure the strength of their brainwash machine. If they believe you believe ONE SET OF ELITES HAS THE ANSWER, they're comfortable that you've been brainwashed enough to not cause trouble.
Click to expand...

BS. Low voter turnout equals R wins across the board.

Low voter turnout = apathy, and there are many powers in this country who love that, and love fools like you.
 
blackascoal said:
I disagree.

Greens take no blame or responsibility for democratic failures, nor should they.

Democrats have only themselves to blame and only further worsened their failures by a near complete capitulation to the neocon horde. In fact, many Greens could now factually say, "I told you so."

What democrats should have learned is to stop taking votes for granted .. but sadly, they did not. What I'm seeing is an increase in Green participation by black voters who have been the democrats most loyal constituency BY FAR. Yet the Democratic Party continues to take them for granted.

There is no comparison of the Democratic Party platform to the Green Party platform for black voters. One issue that is most devastating to the black community is the injustice of the Just-Us system. The criminal system has been riding rough-shod over the black community for years and the devastation of the differences in sentencing by race has never been addressed by the Democratic Party even with as loyal as blacks have been.

Criminal justice IS addressed by Greens and evidenced by organizations like The Innocence Project, Amnesty International, and a variety of others, including raw data that clearly demonstrates this injustice.

Democrats shy away from this issue so they won't appear "soft on crime" when in fact DNA evidence has proven the innocence of many railroaded by crimnal courts and a plethora of cases that prove the war on drugs is nothing more than a war on blacks and hispanics ... WHO by the way, are NOT the major drug users, sellers, or importers in this country.

I have children and grandchildren and I believe it is well worth the fight to work to elect a platform and candidates who won't take my children for granted.
Click to expand...


Well...I know. You could probably talk me into voting for a third party if you are going to keep insisting on listing all of the things that the Dems don't do crap about like this.

I hate that soft on crime bs.
 
blackascoal said:
I disagree.

Greens take no blame or responsibility for democratic failures, nor should they.

Democrats have only themselves to blame and only further worsened their failures by a near complete capitulation to the neocon horde. In fact, many Greens could now factually say, "I told you so."

What democrats should have learned is to stop taking votes for granted .. but sadly, they did not. What I'm seeing is an increase in Green participation by black voters who have been the democrats most loyal constituency BY FAR. Yet the Democratic Party continues to take them for granted.

There is no comparison of the Democratic Party platform to the Green Party platform for black voters. One issue that is most devastating to the black community is the injustice of the Just-Us system. The criminal system has been riding rough-shod over the black community for years and the devastation of the differences in sentencing by race has never been addressed by the Democratic Party even with as loyal as blacks have been.

Criminal justice IS addressed by Greens and evidenced by organizations like The Innocence Project, Amnesty International, and a variety of others, including raw data that clearly demonstrates this injustice.

Democrats shy away from this issue so they won't appear "soft on crime" when in fact DNA evidence has proven the innocence of many railroaded by crimnal courts and a plethora of cases that prove the war on drugs is nothing more than a war on blacks and hispanics ... WHO by the way, are NOT the major drug users, sellers, or importers in this country.

I have children and grandchildren and I believe it is well worth the fight to work to elect a platform and candidates who won't take my children for granted.
Click to expand...


Appreciate your principles. But since this isn't a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, there's only ever going to be two coalitions that govern the country. A left-center coalition (i.e., the modern Democratic party), and a right-center coalition (GOP). No amount of principles will ever change that basic calculus.


If one doesn't like the left-center coalition, one changes it. Running off to some fringe party does nothing. Don't think a major party can be taken over and changed? Look at the GOP. It was taken over by the religious right. Why? Because those people are dedicated, single-minded, and they knew that fooling around with a fringe party was a waste of time.

Standing on principle is fine. But, it's easy enough to take over a party. The religious right did it. Its starts with organically taking over at the grass roots level. Go with ten friends to a county-level Democratic Party meeting. Hardly anyone shows up to those. A person with ten friends could take over the County Democratic Party within a matter of months.
 
Last edited:
Look at the GOP. It was taken over by the religious right.

That's what I always think about too. It seems that, it can be done.
 
Cypress said:
Appreciate your principles. But since this isn't a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, there's only ever going to be two coalitions that govern the country. A left-center coalition (i.e., the modern Democratic party), and a right-center coalition (GOP). No amount of principles will ever change that basic calculus.


If one doesn't like the left-center coalition, one changes it. Running off to some fringe party does nothing. Don't think a major party can be taken over and changed? Look at the GOP. It was taken over by the religious right. Why? Because those people are dedicated, single-minded, and they knew that fooling around with a fringe party was a waste of time.

Standing on principle is fine. But, it's easy enough to take over a party. The religious right did it. Its starts with organically taking over at the grass roots level. Go with ten friends to a county-level Democratic Party meeting. Hardly anyone shows up to those. A person with ten friends could take over the County Democratic Party within a matter of months.
Click to expand...

Wow cypress. I smell the stink of desperation in these words. You're a hillary-bot, aren't you?
 
Darla said:
Look at the GOP. It was taken over by the religious right.

That's what I always think about too. It seems that, it can be done.
Click to expand...


Yep. Back in 1975, do you think the religious right threw up their hands in despair, and bemoaned the fact that the Eisenhower-Gerry Ford GOP didn't represent their interests?

Nope. They were absolutely determined and single-minded about taking the party over. You have to respect that about them. They are absolutly devoted. And it all starts by taking over the party at the local and county levels.
 
Cypress said:
Yep. Back in 1975, do you think the religious right threw up their hands in despair, and bemoaned the fact that the Eisenhower-Gerry Ford GOP didn't represent their interests?

Nope. They were absolutely determined and single-minded about taking the party over. You have to respect that about them. They are absolutly devoted. And it all starts by taking over the party at the local and county levels.
Click to expand...

At the local and county level, people are actually christians. Conservative is what americans really are, culturally. It's not a "takeover".
 
Cypress said:
Appreciate your principles. But since this isn't a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, there's only ever going to be two coalitions that govern the country. A left-center coalition (i.e., the modern Democratic party), and a right-center coalition (GOP). No amount of principles will ever change that basic calculus.


If one doesn't like the left-center coalition, one changes it. Running off to some fringe party does nothing. Don't think a major party can be taken over and changed? Look at the GOP. It was taken over by the religious right. Why? Because those people are dedicated, single-minded, and they knew that fooling around with a fringe party was a waste of time.

Standing on principle is fine. But, it's easy enough to take over a party. The religious right did it. Its starts with organically taking over at the grass roots level. Go with ten friends to a county-level Democratic Party meeting. Hardly anyone shows up to those. A person with ten friends could take over the County Democratic Party within a matter of months.
Click to expand...

Again, I appreciate your perspective, but I do not believe that it is impossible to create more parties in America. I do not believe that for a second, and every election cycle provides more proof of that possibility.

Standing on principle is not only the correct thing to do, it's the pragmatic thing to do. I may not see it fully come to fruition in my life time, but this isn't just about me or you or my comfort today. It's about my children and their children, no different than the shoulders I stand on. It wasn't about them, it was about me.

There are two things standing in the way, open ballot access, and campaign finance reform.

There is a gaping hole in the concept of democracy and its called MONEY. Standing on principle and intelligent action brings this nation back to democracy. There needs to be more than just two political parties no matter what course of action you believe in. I take the road less travelled, but leading to a more sane outcome .. in my opinion.
 
Darla said:
Well...I know. You could probably talk me into voting for a third party if you are going to keep insisting on listing all of the things that the Dems don't do crap about like this.

I hate that soft on crime bs.
Click to expand...

Our responsibility is not only to ourselves, it is also to future generations.

I know you already think about this.
 
Cypress said:
Oh, I totally believe you.

I'm just wondering why the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the American Independent Party, and a plethora of other parties have no problem getting a candidate on a california ballot -- but, in other states I hear that they do.
Click to expand...

I think the Constitution Party is only on the ballot in 18 states.

It could be that California has a liberal, modern, common sense open ballot policy.

The greater difficulty is that if a state requires 15,000 signatures, the party will have to collect 30,000 to ensure against inevitable rejections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top