Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 14:03:16

Absolutely not. I know his critique; I don't need to "learn" anything from Nader. If he had any dignity or self-awareness or patriotic sense, he'd spend his few remaining years trying to revive his reputation by working on the worthy causes that initially gave him the credibility he used to help elect Bush.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 14:06:32

ARG polls showing Obama up in Florida, and with a big lead in... New Hampshire?

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:13:34

TenuredVulture wrote:Re: Third Parties. It's not a conspiracy, it's a consequences of a first past the post electoral system.

A third party could emerge in one of two ways--it can emerge if the current system falls apart and is unable to correct itself, or in areas where there is total dominance by a single party by working hard through grass roots efforts and winning first at the local and state level.

Of course, Nader isn't interested in either model. Nader has almost singlehandedly done more harm to progressive movements than anyone else. From PIRGs and associated scams to the 2000 election, he's more loathsome than Bill O'Reilly.

I personally would have preferred to see Nader support Cynthia Kinney and the Greens. But Nader is Nader. I agree with some of the comments Dajafi has made, not all of them.

I personally would like to see some systemic upgrades:

*Proportional Representation

*Binding None of the Above

This would allow some other voices in even if they didn't have enough majority to make big changes. The value of Greens or Nader's rhetoric in my mind, is to push one or the other of the 2 parties to address certain issues.

My big problem, (and the electoral college IS a hug problem) but my big problem is that the two parties control the entire language and scope of discussion. Major media coopts the possibility of getting other voices out there, let alone with credibility and reasonded discussion. Kucinich's even Edwards are either ignored, or mis-represented or the loud shouters with pulpits on TV RAdio internet -- just throw sh** and something always sticks or obfuscates the real message or point.

I'm very disappointed (though I knew it would happen and was virtually inevitable) how vanilla Obama has become. He's not going to CHANGE anything of import. He let the 2 party corporate machine define his language and stated policies, he's surrounding himself with the wrong intellectuals and advisors and as Clinton tried, and Kerry and Gore before him, wants to show the nation that he can be "tough too" and has bought right in to the propoganda talk hook-line-and-sinker.

So forgive me, if I woke up to some refreshing commentary from old egotistical Ralphy-boy. It reminds me hwo the entire landscape of discussion is so skewed to a place that isn't very meaningful for someone with my values and analysis of the world.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:19:25

Cynthia McKinney? The dumbest person in politics? The anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist?

Wow. You're for someone I dislike even more than Nader.

edit: the reforms of proportional representation, instant runoff voting and "none of the above" are all worthy, and it's arguable that they're discredited by association with the likes of Nader and, especially, McKinney.

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:20:33

dajafi wrote:conspiracy theorist?

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:21:56

Woody wrote:
dajafi wrote:conspiracy theorist?

She thought the Bushies did 9/11.

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:23:10

dajafi wrote:
Woody wrote:
dajafi wrote:conspiracy theorist?

She thought the Bushies did 9/11.

You missed my drift, but it's cool daddy

by **Grotewold** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:32:02

I'm torn on Nader. Obviously, in hindsightm I wish he hadn't run in 2000. Then he knew he had zero shot in '04, and he's yapping again now.

But what's the alternative? Completely cede the process to these two parties that so few seem to genuinely like? (Indeed, I think many/most Americans vote against the party they hate, not for the one they love.)

He's inconvenient, but who else is banging this drum?

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:34:56

Grotewold wrote:I'm torn on Nader. Obviously, in hindsight I wish he hadn't run in 2000. And he knew he had zero shot in '04, and he's talking again now.

But what's the alternative? Completely cede the process to these two parties that so few seem to genuinely like? (Indeed, I feel many/most Americans vote against the party they hate, not for the one they love.)

He's inconvenient, but who else is banging this drum?

Well, I'd prefer the authoritarian drum not be banged at all. But people seem to like goosestepping around.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:43:38

dajafi wrote:Cynthia McKinney? The dumbest person in politics? The anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist?

Wow. You're for someone I dislike even more than Nader.

edit: the reforms of proportional representation, instant runoff voting and "none of the above" are all worthy, and it's arguable that they're discredited by association with the likes of Nader and, especially, McKinney.

I'm not for Mckinney. I"m for a viable 3rd party. Ralph helped the Greens for a time get some leverage. Your point, was that Ralph was interested in Ralph not helping the Greens or any viable 3rd party. I agreed and said he should have put his weight behind the Greens. I have not read up on McKinney or her platform or recent rhetoric.

Tell me who else out there is talking about the reforms?

I read threads like this and its filled with mainstream news accounts, Obama is up in this poll, Obama said this thing to a reporter off the record and it got reported and now this right wing guy ran with it and oh wow... this is like commenting on a sporting event -- not discussing important concerns about the reality we live in.

Have we given up? Shrug our shoulders -- "hey man, thsi is just how it is... we can't talk about the manipulations of the corporate media .. we can't talk about the flaws in our democracy at a fundamental core level..."

Don't confused my mention of Nader or any individual with some passion for the person, I don't even know the people -- I want another kind of discourse and discussion than the one that fronts for real debate about anything meaningful.

Sell me then, on the lesser of two evils philosophy???!!

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:44:15

Grotewold wrote:I'm torn on Nader. Obviously, in hindsightm I wish he hadn't run in 2000. Then he knew he had zero shot in '04, and he's yapping again now.

But what's the alternative? Completely cede the process to these two parties that so few seem to genuinely like? (Indeed, I think many/most Americans vote against the party they hate, not for the one they love.)

He's inconvenient, but who else is banging this drum?

THANKYOU FRIEND!!!!!

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:45:24

Nader did a lot of harm to the Greens. He did not help them at all. It was a huge strategic error on the part of the Green Party to be associated with Nader.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:46:20

dajafi wrote:
Woody wrote:
dajafi wrote:conspiracy theorist?

She thought the Bushies did 9/11.

They aren't clean in the matter, I'll tell you that. The 911 commission was a sham and the mainstream accounts of the facts are not the whole story perhaps nto the story at all. That mcuh, I'll be certain of til i go to my grave.

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:47:29

philly i've asked you this before but I honestly would like to know what you believe happened on 9/11. and no i don't mean you have to show me proof or links/articles, etc... just what your theory is.

by **The Red Tornado** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:48:52

Grotewold wrote:I'm torn on Nader. Obviously, in hindsightm I wish he hadn't run in 2000. Then he knew he had zero shot in '04, and he's yapping again now.

But what's the alternative? Completely cede the process to these two parties that so few seem to genuinely like? (Indeed, I think many/most Americans vote against the party they hate, not for the one they love.)

He's inconvenient, but who else is banging this drum?

add the fact that the Libertarians let Bob Barr take over the party, there really isnt much of a third party option left at all.

by **pacino** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:50:59

3rd parties will continue to be merely spoilers and go without representation as long as we have a 'winner take all' attitude to national elections.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:52:31

Philly the Kid wrote:Have we given up? Shrug our shoulders -- "hey man, thsi is just how it is... we can't talk about the manipulations of the corporate media .. we can't talk about the flaws in our democracy at a fundamental core level..."

Yes. We've given up. If you're talking about the ultimate perfectability of American democracy, insulating it forever and always against malefactors of great wealth or concentrated power, we've given up... just like every previous generation of Americans.

If the 20th century should have taught us anything, it's the danger of utopian thinking--the belief that anything of bigger consequence than, say, a romantic evening or keg party, can be perfected. What sometimes frightens me about your political views is that you seem so sure that everyone else is a sucker or an enabler of fascism or something. I don't worry about this with you--you seem like a gentle sort--but that kind of certitude, mixed with a personality like Stalin, leads to horrors.

Nobody really knows how to do vibrant democracy in a 300 million-person country held together by corporate media. The public has no capacity for outrage (which is why impeachment is a non-starter). The basic tenets of free-market capitalism are set and there is a general tolerance for representative democracy.

You can shift the landscape a bit over time under non-crisis circumstances (as Reagan did) and a bit more under crisis circumstances (Lincoln, FDR). Ultimately, even in an imperfect democracy, the consequences of those shifts are up for public review, which is probably why FDR's changes--in favor of a larger positive role for government in economic life--seem likely to prove more enduring than Reagan's, which walked back a large chunk of that ground but are now under sustained assault.

What I'm interested in is greater equality of opportunity (NOT outcome)--which I believe is part of government's role to ensure, as noted in the preamble to the Constitution--and preservation against encroachment upon our liberties (indefinite and unjustified detention not subject to review, to pick a random example). Fighting for those things within the current system, with all its warts and flaws, strikes me as a far more practical strategy than sitting outside it and looking down my nose... which I did try.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:52:33

The real problem with US democracy isn't the domination of two parties, is the way do-gooding reformers have weakened political parties and allowed interest groups to step into that vacuum. A strong two party system would be way more democratic than our current interest group based politics.

The romantic desire for a "third party" is worse than wishful thinking--it is a bigger obstacle to responsive politics than the two party system itself is.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:58:31

dajafi wrote:
What I'm interested in is greater equality of opportunity (NOT outcome)--which I believe is part of government's role to ensure, as noted in the preamble

I'm not sure how you can really get this without a huge interference in individual choices. In fact, I think equality of outcome (through transfer payments) would be easier to achieve.

I know we could do a lot to move in this direction, but it's going to be very difficult for those who come from families indifferent to education to ever come even close to those who have families that give a shit.

My daughter attends a very socio-economically and racially diverse public school, and you wouldn't believe how little some of these people really care about education.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 16:02:19

TenuredVulture wrote:The real problem with US democracy isn't the domination of two parties, is the way do-gooding reformers have weakened political parties and allowed interest groups to step into that vacuum. A strong two party system would be way more democratic than our current interest group based politics.

The romantic desire for a "third party" is worse than wishful thinking--it is a bigger obstacle to responsive politics than the two party system itself is.

I don't buy that a lick.

3rd parties would emerge very broadly if they had equal opportunity to the airwaves. The system is not benign. It's corrupt. It's planned. It's controlled. Call me whatever you want... but I'm not wrong.

I'd be happy for starters to simply allow the constitution and bill of rights to have the day, and not be gutted at will.

We need many parties with many ideas all getting representation. We need to not have "Senators for life" and TV-sound-byte simpleton knee-jerk politics.

I'm not looking down at anyone. I'm sad, that people are denied the real information they require and the real historical perspective to analyze informaiton -- because I think that most people are a lot more liberal than they know. And this stuff only comes out when someone finally takes something away from you, or you are one of the unlucky ones to have your water dumped in, or the wrong tires on your SUV and lose a loved one, or whatever...

I think there is great value in many voices in the debate. Whatever you think of Nader and his motivations and the harm he may have caused, a debate with Nader forces Obama to deal with some things he doesn't have to deal with if he isn't there, and those are things I relish to hear come out in the discusison. McCain would be exposed. Instead, we will have a debate that is all about subtle technqiues and then the talking heads and their blather as they try to recap and analyze it.

If people truly understood what proportional representation could yield, they'd be all for it, I contend.

Archived

Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy