| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Not Important" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2003 11:08:46 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
"hwhit" <soupert@stil.com> wrote in message
news:bsm3ok$e2nlq$1@ID-181351.news.uni-berlin.de...
you can whinge about the scotus decision all you want. the REALITY is
that
it may or may not have been a bad or good decision. that is a question
for
legal scholars that will be debated ad infinitum. but, the scotus
wouldn't
even have had to have ruled if myopic idealistic NADER voters had voted
tactically instead of having their heads up their collective okoles.
they LOST gore the election. period. he would have trounced bush if they
had the brains to vote for a REAL candidate.
Nader was the real candidate. Gore stole votes from HIM. People were STUPID
enough to vote for Gore because they thought he was the lesser of two evils
that had a chance. Nader was not one of the two evils. If people wouldn't
have been too chicken ***** to learn what the candidates stood for and then
voted their conscience Nader would have won. Unfortunately the country IS
full of sheep.
--
Jim Scannell
jscannell@wi.rr.com
http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/
(Your link on things that are truly important)
.
|
|
| User: "Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
28 Dec 2003 11:05:37 PM |
|
|
Nader was the real candidate.
Agreed. This two-party ***** is killing all of us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 12:13:03 AM |
|
|
Not Important <someone@here.yea> wrote in message
news:y6EHb.192633$Eq1.137269@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"hwhit" <soupert@stil.com> wrote in message
news:bsm3ok$e2nlq$1@ID-181351.news.uni-berlin.de...
you can whinge about the scotus decision all you want. the REALITY is
that
it may or may not have been a bad or good decision. that is a question
for
legal scholars that will be debated ad infinitum. but, the scotus
wouldn't
even have had to have ruled if myopic idealistic NADER voters had voted
tactically instead of having their heads up their collective okoles.
they LOST gore the election. period. he would have trounced bush if
they
had the brains to vote for a REAL candidate.
Nader was the real candidate. Gore stole votes from HIM. People were
STUPID
enough to vote for Gore because they thought he was the lesser of two
evils
that had a chance. Nader was not one of the two evils. If people wouldn't
have been too chicken ***** to learn what the candidates stood for and then
voted their conscience Nader would have won. Unfortunately the country IS
full of sheep.
--
\
typical elitism. according to you, the nation is full of sheep because they
don't agree with you (and nader) politically.
nader's schtick doesn't fly in peoria. he has some populist appeal (reminds
me of perot in that respect), but his platform won't fly.
yes, to some progressives he was more appealing than gore. duh. however,
to the vast majority of americans, he SUCKED>
and the stats don't lie.
that you call people sheep because they disagree with you is the height of
elitist arrogance.
face it, you are in a (thankfully) small minority.
and if nader voters had voted their prefence between gore and bush, gore
would have trounced bush.
nader voters have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact that bush is
in the white house. they lost the presidency for gore.
whit
Jim Scannell
jscannell@wi.rr.com
http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/
(Your link on things that are truly important)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Isidore of Seville" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 12:57:05 AM |
|
|
President Gore is gonna take it back for us soon
and then Dubya can go eat cake.
The Psychedelick Pope
Saint Isidore of Seville
^Ö^ Patron Saint of the Internet ^Ö^
°°^Ö^ °°
http://apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
All I want to do is WOMP WOMP!!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 03:22:47 AM |
|
|
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Not Important <someone@here.yea> wrote in message
news:y6EHb.192633$Eq1.137269@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
[..]
Nader was the real candidate. Gore stole votes from HIM. People were
STUPID enough to vote for Gore because they thought he was the lesser of
two evils that had a chance. Nader was not one of the two evils. If
people wouldn't have been too chicken ***** to learn what the candidates
stood for and then voted their conscience Nader would have won.
Unfortunately the country IS full of sheep.
typical elitism. according to you, the nation is full of sheep because
they don't agree with you (and nader) politically.
nader's schtick doesn't fly in peoria. he has some populist appeal
(reminds me of perot in that respect), but his platform won't fly.
yes, to some progressives he was more appealing than gore. duh. however,
to the vast majority of americans, he SUCKED>
and the stats don't lie.
Classic whit. First you state that: "THE "people" do not send a
president to washington." Why is that word in quotes? Because you're
trying to make the point that the will of the people doesn't matter when
it comes to Presidential elections, that there's a tricky loophole which
undermines the direct democracy of choosing a leader. And this, for you
settles the matter of whether or not Bush is legitimate even though he
was voted in by the SCOTUS. However... When it suits you, the will of
the people is far, far more important (at least rhetorically), and you
say that anyone who claims otherwise is an elitist, and if they voted
*against* the will of the people, they were stupid.
So why is it that you hold the will of the American people in such
contempt that you'd a) argue that it doesn't matter, and b) use it
solely as political leverage to futher marginalize people who
participated in democracy voted for Nader? Do you hate democracy that
much?
that you call people sheep because they disagree with you is the height of
elitist arrogance.
You seem to believe you know what's best for both me and 'Not
Important.' Does that not make you an elitist? (There's no question
about the arrogance, which is why I left that out.) You're just another
flavor of elitist, fueled by what you think is a populist sentiment.
I mean, here's your argument, restated to put its absurdity into high
contrast: Half of voting-age Americans don't vote. That means they voted
for None Of The Above. You were a fool to throw your vote away by voting
for a candidate, since the vast majority of voters went for None Of The
Above.
[..]
and if nader voters had voted their prefence between gore and bush, gore
would have trounced bush.
nader voters have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact that bush is
in the white house. they lost the presidency for gore.
Your identically-worded sucker punch didn't work on me, so you're going
after 'Not Important.' Is there nothing *else* to troll on, other than
pick-on-the-greens?
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 04:46:32 AM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6pe1l.1joog5qwm9r7eN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Not Important <someone@here.yea> wrote in message
news:y6EHb.192633$Eq1.137269@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
[..]
Nader was the real candidate. Gore stole votes from HIM. People were
STUPID enough to vote for Gore because they thought he was the lesser
of
two evils that had a chance. Nader was not one of the two evils. If
people wouldn't have been too chicken ***** to learn what the
candidates
stood for and then voted their conscience Nader would have won.
Unfortunately the country IS full of sheep.
typical elitism. according to you, the nation is full of sheep because
they don't agree with you (and nader) politically.
nader's schtick doesn't fly in peoria. he has some populist appeal
(reminds me of perot in that respect), but his platform won't fly.
yes, to some progressives he was more appealing than gore. duh.
however,
to the vast majority of americans, he SUCKED>
and the stats don't lie.
Classic whit. First you state that: "THE "people" do not send a
president to washington." Why is that word in quotes? Because you're
trying to make the point that the will of the people doesn't matter when
it comes to Presidential elections, that there's a tricky loophole which
undermines the direct democracy of choosing a leader.
that is not what i said.
i am saying that if there is a discrepancy between the # of electors, and
the popular vote, the electors is what matters.
most of the time, they agree with each other. sometimes, they don't. is it
a nitpick? of course.
And this, for you
settles the matter of whether or not Bush is legitimate even though he
was voted in by the SCOTUS.
it doesn't "settle it" at all.
i have said REPEATEDLY that i have not come to a CONCLUSION in the scotus
decision in bush v. gore.
frankly, that area of law is not one i am familiar with AT ALL, so i haven't
jumped to a conclusion. even after reading bugliosi's book (and i have
respect for him as a prosecutor) who made the case that the scotus decision
was bogus, i have not come to a definitive conclusion. like in MANY issues,
i don't HAVE an opinion on it.
except that it is matter of history. in other words it is settled. whether
it was right as a matter of process is another issue entirely.
i HAVE said that if nader voters would have voted tactically vs.
ideologically that there never would have needed to be any scotus decision,
and the hanging chads etc. would have been irrelevant.
nader voters lost gore the election.
However... When it suits you, the will of
the people is far, far more important (at least rhetorically), and you
say that anyone who claims otherwise is an elitist, and if they voted
*against* the will of the people, they were stupid.
the will of the people to elect nader DOES NOT EXIST. nader has/had small
niche appeal.
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast majority of
americans, he's a nobody.
So why is it that you hold the will of the American people in such
contempt that you'd a) argue that it doesn't matter,
never said that. strawman.
and b) use it
solely as political leverage to futher marginalize people who
participated in democracy voted for Nader? Do you hate democracy that
much?
i am HAPPY that the nader voters participated in the democracy. they gave
the person who, imo, was the better candidate - the presidency.
democracy is funny that way.
imo, nader voters did a disservice to gore and the democrats, not to me.
that you call people sheep because they disagree with you is the height
of
elitist arrogance.
You seem to believe you know what's best for both me and 'Not
Important.'
not at all. i can respect somebody who has different views than me.
totally.
like somebody who likes nader.
i do not respect the idea that was stated - that if you didn't vote for
nader, you were a sheep. that's stupid and elitist.
face it. there is a marketplace of ideas. nader's didn't sell.
Does that not make you an elitist? (There's no question
about the arrogance, which is why I left that out.) You're just another
flavor of elitist, fueled by what you think is a populist sentiment.
not at all. i LIKE democrats, i respect democrats (and greens) and i would
never call EITHER of them sheep, or belittle them. i merely think that
(usually) the republican candidate offers a better choice.
i would never call somebody a sheep for having a different preference.
THAT is elitism.
I mean, here's your argument, restated to put its absurdity into high
contrast: Half of voting-age Americans don't vote.
iirc, that is true
That means they voted
for None Of The Above. You were a fool to throw your vote away by voting
for a candidate, since the vast majority of voters went for None Of The
Above.
imo, the voters who don't have the energy, sack, discipline, or whatever TO
vote, deserve to have no place in the political system.
if they can't take the trouble to vote - something our forefathers fought
and died for, then they get what they deserve.
those who vote, EVEN if they vote for nader or gore deserve props FOR
voting. however, IMO nader voters (knowing what they knew prior to the
election) do not deserve props for voting for nader, at least not from a
democrat standpoint,
[..]
and if nader voters had voted their prefence between gore and bush, gore
would have trounced bush.
nader voters have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact that bush
is
in the white house. they lost the presidency for gore.
Your identically-worded sucker punch didn't work on me, so you're going
after 'Not Important.' Is there nothing *else* to troll on, other than
pick-on-the-greens?
well, it's not pick on the greens, because he is an 'independent" now. :)
frankly, i think the greens HAVE some good ideas. some. and i personally
like nader. i read unsafe at any speed before high school. the man has
done a lot of good.
but, i think that those who threw away a gore vote by voting for nader have
nobody to complain to but themselves that bush is in the white house.
and yes, i am having fun ribbing you, but it's in good fun. face it.
voting for nader was bad tactics. whether you realize that in retrospect or
should have realized it prior to the election results... well, you are
educated enough to realize that (when you cast your vote) that your vote
could be crucial in placing bush in the white house.
you guys (nader voters) took a poor tactical position. but, in a perverse
sense you are benefiting from it, because you got what you least DESIRED (a
bush presidency), but you got what was best for all of us - a bush
presidency. :)
i just think it is ironic.
alanis
whit
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 03:46:16 PM |
|
|
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6pe1l.1joog5qwm9r7eN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
[..]
However... When it suits you, the will of the people is far, far more
important (at least rhetorically), and you say that anyone who claims
otherwise is an elitist, and if they voted *against* the will of the
people, they were stupid.
the will of the people to elect nader DOES NOT EXIST. nader has/had small
niche appeal.
I wasn't talking about Nader there, and you know it.
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast majority of
americans, he's a nobody.
Unless it's time to figure out who to blame for throwing the election;
then EVERYBODY knows who Nader is.
The problems in our representational democracy are structural, not
political. The fact that so many people blame Nader for engaging in the
democratic process shows this to be true. And, incidentally, that
structural problem was a big part of his platform.
So why is it that you hold the will of the American people in such
contempt that you'd a) argue that it doesn't matter,
never said that. strawman.
Sure you did. You say the electoral college elects the President, and
you cite the Constitution. You're also correct about it.
and b) use it solely as political leverage to futher marginalize people
who participated in democracy voted for Nader? Do you hate democracy
that much?
i am HAPPY that the nader voters participated in the democracy. they gave
the person who, imo, was the better candidate - the presidency.
democracy is funny that way.
imo, nader voters did a disservice to gore and the democrats, not to me.
Nader controls the supreme court? Nader rigged the FL felon roles? Nader
excluded the absentee ballots? Nader designed faulty ballots? Nader's
cousin called the election early on Fox? Nader has millions of dollars
given to him by corporate donors who expect a quid pro quo and so will
help massage the politics and define the issues? Wow, the Nader YOU know
about sure is a busy guy...
that you call people sheep because they disagree with you is the
height of elitist arrogance.
You seem to believe you know what's best for both me and 'Not
Important.'
not at all. i can respect somebody who has different views than me.
totally.
like somebody who likes nader.
i do not respect the idea that was stated - that if you didn't vote for
nader, you were a sheep. that's stupid and elitist.
face it. there is a marketplace of ideas. nader's didn't sell.
No, Nader's *did* sell. That's why you're able to say he threw the
election.
Saying folks who didn't vote for Nader were stupid sheep is, at best,
ill-considered. But to continue your marketplace analogy, Republicans
and Democrats represent brand loyalty, not heavy trading. Post-Bush-II,
however, there will be *lots* of heavy trading, because the sheep are
tired of being shorn.
[..]
I mean, here's your argument, restated to put its absurdity into high
contrast: Half of voting-age Americans don't vote.
iirc, that is true
That means they voted for None Of The Above. You were a fool to throw
your vote away by voting for a candidate, since the vast majority of
voters went for None Of The Above.
imo, the voters who don't have the energy, sack, discipline, or whatever
TO vote, deserve to have no place in the political system.
if they can't take the trouble to vote - something our forefathers fought
and died for, then they get what they deserve.
those who vote, EVEN if they vote for nader or gore deserve props FOR
voting. however, IMO nader voters (knowing what they knew prior to the
election) do not deserve props for voting for nader, at least not from a
democrat standpoint,
You've missed my point entirely. And probably intentionally.
[..]
but, i think that those who threw away a gore vote by voting for nader
have nobody to complain to but themselves that bush is in the white house.
What about those who didn't throw away a Gore vote by voting for Nader?
You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the notion that, for
some folks, voting for the lesser of two evils is, itself, the greater
of two evils.
and yes, i am having fun ribbing you, but it's in good fun. face it.
voting for nader was bad tactics.
See, you keep saying that as if it were true.
whether you realize that in retrospect or should have realized it prior to
the election results... well, you are educated enough to realize that
(when you cast your vote) that your vote could be crucial in placing bush
in the white house.
Except that it wasn't. Gore won WA, which is where I voted.
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 04:07:41 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qd1c.s7cmle1jtwvtuN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6pe1l.1joog5qwm9r7eN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
[..]
However... When it suits you, the will of the people is far, far more
important (at least rhetorically), and you say that anyone who claims
otherwise is an elitist, and if they voted *against* the will of the
people, they were stupid.
the will of the people to elect nader DOES NOT EXIST. nader has/had
small
niche appeal.
I wasn't talking about Nader there, and you know it.
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast majority
of
americans, he's a nobody.
Unless it's time to figure out who to blame for throwing the election;
then EVERYBODY knows who Nader is.
because that's the statistical reality, paul. nader voters know it. gore
voters know it. bush voters know it. it's hardly controversial. it's
simply a fact. nader voters voted for somebody they knew could not win, in
an election that they knew would be reasonably close between the real
candidates, and they handed the election to bush.
The problems in our representational democracy are structural, not
political.
hey, i can agree that alternatives might be interesting. but when you vote,
you have to work within the system we have.
The fact that so many people blame Nader for engaging in the
democratic process shows this to be true.
personally, i don't blame nader. i blame nader VOTERS.
And, incidentally, that
structural problem was a big part of his platform.
i am aware of that. i tried to see every nader speech i could. i like his
message. i don't AGREE with it (generally), but he was far more interesting
than either bush or gore could be. (heck, anybody is more intersting than
gore).
a niche candidate can afford to do that.
So why is it that you hold the will of the American people in such
contempt that you'd a) argue that it doesn't matter,
never said that. strawman.
Sure you did. You say the electoral college elects the President, and
you cite the Constitution. You're also correct about it.
that is not the same as saying the will of the american people does not
matter.
and you know it.
and b) use it solely as political leverage to futher marginalize
people
who participated in democracy voted for Nader? Do you hate democracy
that much?
i am HAPPY that the nader voters participated in the democracy. they
gave
the person who, imo, was the better candidate - the presidency.
democracy is funny that way.
imo, nader voters did a disservice to gore and the democrats, not to me.
Nader controls the supreme court? Nader rigged the FL felon roles? Nader
excluded the absentee ballots?
look, all of that would never have been an issue without the nader part of
the equation. or the butterfly ballot, for that matter.
it was a more "primary" element, in that it preceded the latter examples,
and nader voters going tactical would have meant all tat never would have
been an issue.
Nader designed faulty ballots? Nader's
cousin called the election early on Fox? Nader has millions of dollars
given to him by corporate donors who expect a quid pro quo and so will
help massage the politics and define the issues? Wow, the Nader YOU know
about sure is a busy guy...
again, imo this is not about nader. nor have i said it is. it is about
nader VOTERS. why do you consistently misstate my position. i consistently
referred to nader VOTERS as being blameworthy. not nader.
that you call people sheep because they disagree with you is the
height of elitist arrogance.
You seem to believe you know what's best for both me and 'Not
Important.'
not at all. i can respect somebody who has different views than me.
totally.
like somebody who likes nader.
i do not respect the idea that was stated - that if you didn't vote for
nader, you were a sheep. that's stupid and elitist.
face it. there is a marketplace of ideas. nader's didn't sell.
No, Nader's *did* sell. That's why you're able to say he threw the
election.
it sold to a tiny percentage of people. sure.
Saying folks who didn't vote for Nader were stupid sheep is, at best,
ill-considered.
i would say elitist. you say ill-considered. fine
But to continue your marketplace analogy, Republicans
and Democrats represent brand loyalty, not heavy trading. Post-Bush-II,
however, there will be *lots* of heavy trading, because the sheep are
tired of being shorn.
i don't agree with the sheep analogy, sorry.
[..]
I mean, here's your argument, restated to put its absurdity into high
contrast: Half of voting-age Americans don't vote.
iirc, that is true
That means they voted for None Of The Above. You were a fool to throw
your vote away by voting for a candidate, since the vast majority of
voters went for None Of The Above.
imo, the voters who don't have the energy, sack, discipline, or whatever
TO vote, deserve to have no place in the political system.
if they can't take the trouble to vote - something our forefathers
fought
and died for, then they get what they deserve.
those who vote, EVEN if they vote for nader or gore deserve props FOR
voting. however, IMO nader voters (knowing what they knew prior to the
election) do not deserve props for voting for nader, at least not from a
democrat standpoint,
You've missed my point entirely. And probably intentionally.
the former may be true. the latter is not
[..]
but, i think that those who threw away a gore vote by voting for nader
have nobody to complain to but themselves that bush is in the white
house.
What about those who didn't throw away a Gore vote by voting for Nader?
You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the notion that, for
some folks, voting for the lesser of two evils is, itself, the greater
of two evils.
i DO understand that. i also understand the concept of tactics and of
pointless idealism.
face it, one of the nader mantras was that there is no real difference
between the two parties. i think many people NOW are hard pressed to make
that case.
and yes, i am having fun ribbing you, but it's in good fun. face it.
voting for nader was bad tactics.
See, you keep saying that as if it were true.
it is true. it WAS idealistic. it was even "noble" in the same sense that
suicide can be noble. but tactiaclly speaking, it was bad.
whether you realize that in retrospect or should have realized it prior
to
the election results... well, you are educated enough to realize that
(when you cast your vote) that your vote could be crucial in placing
bush
in the white house.
Except that it wasn't. Gore won WA, which is where I voted.
i was waiting for you to bring up that point. and it's a good one. can't
argue with it.
nader voters as a collective are responsible, and arguably nader voters in
states (like FLA) where their vote lost gore the election.
but you are right about WA.
whit
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 11:25:36 PM |
|
|
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qd1c.s7cmle1jtwvtuN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
[..]
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast majority
of americans, he's a nobody.
Unless it's time to figure out who to blame for throwing the election;
then EVERYBODY knows who Nader is.
because that's the statistical reality, paul. nader voters know it. gore
voters know it. bush voters know it. it's hardly controversial. it's
simply a fact. nader voters voted for somebody they knew could not win,
in an election that they knew would be reasonably close between the real
candidates, and they handed the election to bush.
....except that they didn't.
The problems in our representational democracy are structural, not
political.
hey, i can agree that alternatives might be interesting. but when you
vote, you have to work within the system we have.
There's the constitutional, everyone-votes-and-then-there-are-electors
structure, and then there's the political machine structure which drives
the other one. The political machine is the structural problem. Not in
the backwards sense that 'Not Important' espouses, where because Nader
lost, the system is broken. But in the sense that democracy is purchased
by whoever has the money, which is why there are no real choices in
American democracy.
The fact that so many people blame Nader for engaging in the democratic
process shows this to be true.
personally, i don't blame nader. i blame nader VOTERS.
Then I was right: You *do* have contempt for democracy.
And, incidentally, that structural problem was a big part of his
platform.
i am aware of that. i tried to see every nader speech i could. i like
his message. i don't AGREE with it (generally), but he was far more
interesting than either bush or gore could be. (heck, anybody is more
intersting than gore).
a niche candidate can afford to do that.
A niche candidate who *threw the freaking election,* according to you.
Is Nader meaningless, or is he All Powerful Ruiner Of Elections? You
should decide, if you want to pursue this line of reasoning.
So why is it that you hold the will of the American people in such
contempt that you'd a) argue that it doesn't matter,
never said that. strawman.
Sure you did. You say the electoral college elects the President, and
you cite the Constitution. You're also correct about it.
that is not the same as saying the will of the american people does not
matter.
and you know it.
When you contrasted such a blunt statement of fact against the question
of what an American dictatorship might look like, you used it purely to
cast Bush in a better light than was implied by the question itself.
[..]
imo, nader voters did a disservice to gore and the democrats, not to me.
Nader controls the supreme court? Nader rigged the FL felon roles? Nader
excluded the absentee ballots?
look, all of that would never have been an issue without the nader part of
the equation. or the butterfly ballot, for that matter.
it was a more "primary" element, in that it preceded the latter examples,
and nader voters going tactical would have meant all tat never would have
been an issue.
Ah, so what you're saying *now* is *not* that Nader tossed the election
for Gore, but that he was *one of many factors* that tosses the election
for Gore. Thank you for admitting my point.
As to whether he was a 'primary' element, what you'll want to do is
demonstrate how that's the case. Since you're wrong, you'll have trouble
with this, mostly because you, like the Democrats, assume that Nader
voters would have automatically voted for Gore.
Nader designed faulty ballots? Nader's cousin called the election early
on Fox? Nader has millions of dollars given to him by corporate donors
who expect a quid pro quo and so will help massage the politics and
define the issues? Wow, the Nader YOU know about sure is a busy guy...
again, imo this is not about nader. nor have i said it is. it is about
nader VOTERS. why do you consistently misstate my position. i
consistently referred to nader VOTERS as being blameworthy. not nader.
[..]
Yes, I realize that. And I was demonstrating that you are wrong, but
you're being too thick to realize it.
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not Important" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
30 Dec 2003 02:43:50 AM |
|
|
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qxj6.1a5psswofdm4N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qd1c.s7cmle1jtwvtuN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
[..]
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast
majority
of americans, he's a nobody.
Unless it's time to figure out who to blame for throwing the election;
then EVERYBODY knows who Nader is.
because that's the statistical reality, paul. nader voters know it.
gore
voters know it. bush voters know it. it's hardly controversial. it's
simply a fact. nader voters voted for somebody they knew could not win,
in an election that they knew would be reasonably close between the real
candidates, and they handed the election to bush.
...except that they didn't.
The problems in our representational democracy are structural, not
political.
hey, i can agree that alternatives might be interesting. but when you
vote, you have to work within the system we have.
There's the constitutional, everyone-votes-and-then-there-are-electors
structure, and then there's the political machine structure which drives
the other one. The political machine is the structural problem. Not in
the backwards sense that 'Not Important' espouses, where because Nader
lost, the system is broken. But in the sense that democracy is purchased
by whoever has the money, which is why there are no real choices in
American democracy.
My point of view is that Gore and Bush were both hand-picked by the parties
whose agendas are only to make the rich richer. The people of America do not
pick the democratic OR the republican candidates. I consider people who
voted for Bush OR Gore to be ignorant lemmings because an informed person
who voted their conscience would have voted for Nader. I voted for the
candidate that I wanted to win, NOT the lesser of two evils as the Gore
voters did. Just from an environmental angle alone people should have voted
for Nader. Voting for Bush OR Gore is a vote AGAINST the sustainability of
life on this planet.
--
Jim Scannell
jscannell@wi.rr.com
http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/
(Your link on things that are truly important)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
30 Dec 2003 04:05:19 AM |
|
|
Not Important <someone@here.yea> wrote in message
news:aVaIb.24401$fq1.18220@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qxj6.1a5psswofdm4N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qd1c.s7cmle1jtwvtuN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
[..]
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast
majority
of americans, he's a nobody.
Unless it's time to figure out who to blame for throwing the
election;
then EVERYBODY knows who Nader is.
because that's the statistical reality, paul. nader voters know it.
gore
voters know it. bush voters know it. it's hardly controversial.
it's
simply a fact. nader voters voted for somebody they knew could not
win,
in an election that they knew would be reasonably close between the
real
candidates, and they handed the election to bush.
...except that they didn't.
The problems in our representational democracy are structural, not
political.
hey, i can agree that alternatives might be interesting. but when you
vote, you have to work within the system we have.
There's the constitutional, everyone-votes-and-then-there-are-electors
structure, and then there's the political machine structure which drives
the other one. The political machine is the structural problem. Not in
the backwards sense that 'Not Important' espouses, where because Nader
lost, the system is broken. But in the sense that democracy is purchased
by whoever has the money, which is why there are no real choices in
American democracy.
My point of view is that Gore and Bush were both hand-picked by the
parties
whose agendas are only to make the rich richer. The people of America do
not
pick the democratic OR the republican candidates. I consider people who
voted for Bush OR Gore to be ignorant lemmings because an informed person
who voted their conscience would have voted for Nader. I voted for the
candidate that I wanted to win, NOT the lesser of two evils as the Gore
voters did. Just from an environmental angle alone people should have
voted
for Nader. Voting for Bush OR Gore is a vote AGAINST the sustainability of
life on this planet.
--
i think this is ridiculous on many fronts.
first of all, this lemming thing is just elitist nonsense. your 'thesis' is
that people vote gore/bush because they don't know better.
plenty of informed people voted their conscience. some for bush, some for
gore, some for nader, etc.
people can be informed and vote their conscience and not want to touch nader
with a 10 foot pole.
that is insane. face it, people didn't vote for nader (most of them),
because they didn't AGREE WITH NADER'S MESSAGE. heck, i probably know as
much about nader as the average nader fan, and i completely understand his
positions - i just don't agree with them. nader has "outsider" cred, some
populist appeal and he is RIGHT about many of the problems with both the
dems and the repubs. the dems are beholden to certain groups, and so are
the repubs. and in many cases, they don't have the people's best interest
at heart. to put it mildly.
as for sustainability, not too long ago there was a hue and cry about
sustainability based on bad science, malthusian theory, and such chicken
little screeds as "the late great planet earth" and "the population bomb"
(paul erlich, the DARLING of the hysterical subset of eco-weeny leftists).
practically none of their predictions came true. in fact, the opposite came
true quite often (things not only did not deteriorate to the extent
predicted, but in many cases got better).
you can live in the sentimental world of the zero population growth ninnies,
the luddites, or the people who whinge about how many resources we greedy
americans use.
i prefer the real world.
whit
Jim Scannell
jscannell@wi.rr.com
http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/
(Your link on things that are truly important)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
30 Dec 2003 04:28:30 AM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qxj6.1a5psswofdm4N%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qd1c.s7cmle1jtwvtuN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
[..]
hey, he's your candidate, and props to you. but, to the vast
majority
of americans, he's a nobody.
Unless it's time to figure out who to blame for throwing the election;
then EVERYBODY knows who Nader is.
because that's the statistical reality, paul. nader voters know it.
gore
voters know it. bush voters know it. it's hardly controversial. it's
simply a fact. nader voters voted for somebody they knew could not win,
in an election that they knew would be reasonably close between the real
candidates, and they handed the election to bush.
...except that they didn't.
The problems in our representational democracy are structural, not
political.
hey, i can agree that alternatives might be interesting. but when you
vote, you have to work within the system we have.
There's the constitutional, everyone-votes-and-then-there-are-electors
structure, and then there's the political machine structure which drives
the other one. The political machine is the structural problem. Not in
the backwards sense that 'Not Important' espouses, where because Nader
lost, the system is broken. But in the sense that democracy is purchased
by whoever has the money, which is why there are no real choices in
American democracy.
well, i don't agree with that analysis (it's kind of foucauldian) but at
least i know what you meant.
frankly, when i was talking alternatives, i was referring to proportional
representation vs. our winner takes all system.
The fact that so many people blame Nader for engaging in the
democratic
process shows this to be true.
personally, i don't blame nader. i blame nader VOTERS.
Then I was right: You *do* have contempt for democracy.
not at all. i love it. and i love that the nader voters got bush the white
house.
but, i vote tactically. frankly, i didn't like bush that much. i just
thought he was better than gore. if there was an independant or green or
libertarian or whomever who i PREFERRED to bush, but who could not win - i
would have voted for bush in that case, too. because while bush would not
have been my first choice in that case, i preferred him to gore.
tactics.
And, incidentally, that structural problem was a big part of his
platform.
i am aware of that. i tried to see every nader speech i could. i like
his message. i don't AGREE with it (generally), but he was far more
interesting than either bush or gore could be. (heck, anybody is more
intersting than gore).
a niche candidate can afford to do that.
A niche candidate who *threw the freaking election,* according to you.
no. his VOTERS did. for the 100th time. i just addressed that earlier in
this thread. so stop misstating my position.
Is Nader meaningless, or is he All Powerful Ruiner Of Elections? You
should decide, if you want to pursue this line of reasoning.
again, it is not nader - it is the voters who voted for him.
So why is it that you hold the will of the American people in such
contempt that you'd a) argue that it doesn't matter,
never said that. strawman.
Sure you did. You say the electoral college elects the President, and
you cite the Constitution. You're also correct about it.
that is not the same as saying the will of the american people does not
matter.
and you know it.
When you contrasted such a blunt statement of fact against the question
of what an American dictatorship might look like, you used it purely to
cast Bush in a better light than was implied by the question itself.
i am not grokking this paragraph.
[..]
imo, nader voters did a disservice to gore and the democrats, not to
me.
Nader controls the supreme court? Nader rigged the FL felon roles?
Nader
excluded the absentee ballots?
look, all of that would never have been an issue without the nader part
of
the equation. or the butterfly ballot, for that matter.
it was a more "primary" element, in that it preceded the latter
examples,
and nader voters going tactical would have meant all tat never would
have
been an issue.
Ah, so what you're saying *now* is *not* that Nader tossed the election
for Gore
for the 101st time - NADER VOTERS, ------ ****** NOT ****** ----- Nader.
, but that he was *one of many factors* that tosses the election
for Gore. Thank you for admitting my point.
do you understand temporal sequences? if nader voters had voted tactically,
everything else would have been a non-issue.
so, again, speaking temporally (sequence wise) it was nader voters fault.
they gave the election to bush. they set in motion the string of events.
with full knowledge that their votes for nader could result in a bush
victory.
that's tactically terrible. idealistic, though.
As to whether he was a 'primary' element, what you'll want to do is
demonstrate how that's the case. Since you're wrong, you'll have trouble
with this, mostly because you, like the Democrats, assume that Nader
voters would have automatically voted for Gore.
not at all. i assume (based on the analysis i saw on several fronts -
mostly from dem's i agree) that a significant enough %age of them would have
voted for gore such as to give gore the presidency.
i am sure there are a smaller %age of nader voters who 1) would not have
voted at all if only between bush/gore 2) would have voted for bush (a very
small group) 3) would have voted for some other candidate
Nader designed faulty ballots? Nader's cousin called the election
early
on Fox? Nader has millions of dollars given to him by corporate donors
who expect a quid pro quo and so will help massage the politics and
define the issues? Wow, the Nader YOU know about sure is a busy guy...
again, imo this is not about nader. nor have i said it is. it is about
nader VOTERS. why do you consistently misstate my position. i
consistently referred to nader VOTERS as being blameworthy. not nader.
[..]
Yes, I realize that. And I was demonstrating that you are wrong, but
you're being too thick to realize it.
it all comes down to temporal sequence, paul.
if the first step in the temporal sequence (the vote - with the concomitant
nader- gore votes) went RIGHT, then none of the other arguable issues
(SCOTUS decision, blah blah) would have happened.
it's a necessary conclusion.
nader got what % in fla? if even 1/2 of those nader voters voted for gore,
there would not have BEEN a scotus decision, etc.
temporal sequences. that is why the nader voters are 'primary'. primary,
definition being used as "first in a sequence", not necesarily "most
important element"
whit
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
