Achebe : Do you really think the Nader's campaign will be the cause of Gore's downfall, and not Al's own mistakes? Looking at it objectively, there's no good reason for this to even be close. GWB is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and hasn't exactly been a roaring success as the Governor of Texas. He hasn't seemed to have a grasp of any issues and has made numerous campaing gaffes. Yet Al Gore, the sitting VP for eight successful years, has matched him gaffe for gaffe. BTW, even though I'm voting for Nader, if Nader wasn't an option I wouldn't vote for Gore. I probably wouldn't vote for anyone, I'd still vote, just not for president. ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?
Achebe: C'mon now. If Gore is that strong of a candidate, he should be able to win over voters from either side. Yes, parties do have a broad base and must overlap on some issues, but the degree to which the candidates are growing closer is mindboggling. All we hear are the same tired things about the economy, crime, education, healthcare, the environment and the military. No solutions, just things that put a band aid on the problems. No matter who wins, we will get pretty much the same crap because, like the rest of politics, the two dominant party candidates are beholden to their corporate interests so much so that they'll promise them just about anything to get their money for running a campaign. It is sad. It is even sadder that we all buy into it year after year after year. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I'm voting for Gore, because I live in a toss-up state (i.e. Florida) with a lot of electoral votes (i.e. 25). With that said, if I lived in Texas, where Bush pretty much has the win locked up, I'd cast a vote for Nader. I loathe George Dubya and do not want him to be President, so I have to vote for the only other candidate that has a chance to beat him. On the other hand, Texans can vote for Gore or Nader and it won't affect the outcome of the state. If you're an anti-Bush Texan and would like to get the ball rolling on the formation of a 3rd party, then I would highly encourage you to help Nader get his 5% of the vote. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited October 28, 2000).]
Ah, a new autumn! The changing of the forested hinterland into a fresh kaleidescope of color, the breath of cool northern breezes as they wash accross your face and the cheerful,rosy exclamations of children as they once again frolic in the wilds of being alive. Except every fourth year. When the the changing colors are predominant to green for envy and red with embarassment. When cool breezes are more attributed to lost hopes and even more lost naivete. The exclamations ones of outrage or dismay, depending what the lastest polls are being paid to postulate. Ah, autumn! How those three years seperating the fourth, go fleetingly by ......
Jeff, I'm sorry that you've been so let down by the political process. I do disagree with your fundamental premise... that b/c both parties solicit corporate financing that both parties are then the same. That's hogwash. There are enough issues (supreme court justices, epa, social programs, min. wage law, etc. etc.) that will be drastically affected one way or the other, that any demo/indie in a battleground state that doesn't like Bush's stances (i.e. Launch Pad) should definitely vote for Gore. I also think that one day campaign finance reform will clean all of this up. Right now, neither party will act first b/c they do not want to suffer more so than their opponents. Elect people at the local level that are sympathetic to reform. Elect someone at the national level that will send existing legislation to congress (Gore). Also recognize that though Nader would FSU... that's not necessarily a good thing. If campaign finance reform is your fundamental issue, just recognize that Lott wouldn't even let the bill go to the floor. McCain had the backing of the democratic party... NOT THAT THE DEMOS ARE FREE FROM BLAME. I just think that the demos have found themselves in a situation in which they've had to do sketchy things to compete w/ corporate America. Silence the corporations, period, and you'll shore up the rest.
Giggle: http://www.petitiononline.com/ydg/petition.html To: Vice-President Al Gore We, the Yellow Dog Greens, a coalition of dissatisfied Democrats, staunch independents and rebellious Republicans, call on you to withdraw from the presidential race immediately. Mr. Gore, we believe that your candidacy will spoil the election nationally for Ralph Nader and the army of citizen activists fighting to end two-party, corporate control of our democracy. Sincerely, The Undersigned ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
That's hilarious! ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
Jeff, I did want to say that I find your concerns about corporate interests at conflict with your involvement in SOR... not just involvement, but your being the champion of the cause... This seems like hypocrisy, could you please explain? I think Nader would be opposed to your stance on the issue. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Corporate finance is NOT my primary concern. As for my stance on the arena, it is definitely in conflict with Nader but so is my stance on physician-assisted suicide which he believes should be outlawed. Supporting a building that I believe will help to enhance the city requires some compromise. I don't care for corporate welfare but it is very different from accepting money for votes. Politicians solicit money from corporations and, in return, give them favors like votes on issues important to that business or industry. That is selling off votes. I haven't sold myself to anyone. I went into this with my eyes wide open and did it for the love, not the cash. The problem I have with campaign finance is that the corporate interests are no longer just a part of the process; they control the process. That really concerns me. As for the rest, I support things like universal healthcare, free college tuition and strong environmental regulation which is much more in line with the Green Party than with any of the others. Gore long ago abandoned his stance on the environment because it was in direct conflict with many of his corporate interests. We all have to make compromises, but the corporate interests in America have thrown the political process out of balance. That is what worries me. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff, Could you then enumerate all of the issues that Gore has abandoned? Could you please show me votes in which some money x has led to a vote on some issue y? If anything, people that invest $$$ in Gore get a bad return. The unions gave him money, and then he supported NAFTA. The demos get money from tobacco, but they screwed tobacco in the U.S.(they do push tobacco on China rather heavily however). If you're a corporate sponsor of the 2000 Election games, I assume you get much more for your money w/ Bush... ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Also, The only difference in this situation is that the electorate is having its vote bought, not an elected official. The Rockets have given an ultimatum, and people are expected to vote a certain way. If you were an elected official, you'd see the same basic ultimatum: vote x on some issue or we will do something that harms you... (i.e. not give you financial support, or support your opponent, etc.). There's no difference. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
There is a big difference for me personally because I'm not the one making the ultimatum. Secondly, the threat is not the same. In this instance, the public still has the choice. In the instance of government, one company gives money to one candidate who votes one vote for something. The arena is something we ALL choose. As for how Gore sold out, I'm mainly concerned with the fact that he has bailed out on places like Alaska allowing the land to be sold off to corporations for development. He wrote one of the most influential books on the environment ever and yet he allowed clear cutting of some forests in the northwest and the sale of delicate lands in Alaska for development. For me, that is a significant problem. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited October 28, 2000).]
In Sunday's Chron -- an interesting idea for people who want to vote Nader, but can't stomach the thought of Bush getting elected: Liberals devise plan to help Gore, Nader It involves vote-swapping over Internet By HELEN KENNEDY Copyright 2000 New York Daily News APPLETON, Wis. -- Cyber-savvy liberals have hit upon an innovative plan to help both Ralph Nader and Al Gore at the expense of George W. Bush -- vote swapping over the Internet. The idea is that individual Gore supporters in blowout states like New York and Texas -- where the outcome of the election is not in doubt -- would pledge to vote for Nader in exchange for a Nader supporter in a battleground state like Wisconsin casting a ballot for Gore. That way, Nader still could get the 5 percent nationally that he needs to qualify for federal money for his Green Party, and liberal votes would not be siphoned away from Gore where he desperately needs them. "It's a way for both Nader and Gore to win," said Jeffrey Cardille, who launched a Web site, NaderTrader.org, after realizing that Nader voters could help put Bush in the White House. NaderTrader.org explains the concept and refers visitors to other sites to swap votes. While it's a clever idea, the number of vote swappers needed to affect the election is probably far larger than any last-minute Internet campaign can muster. Of course, there are no guarantees in cyberspace. In fact, some proponents are already out there urging a double-cross. Cardille, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, said the idea was born when his housemate -- a Nader supporter worried about helping Bush -- decided to swap votes with her boyfriend, a Gore supporter in Massachusetts. "Then we thought, `Why not spread the idea?' " he said. Gore will carry Massachusetts, so a vote for Nader there won't affect the outcome. But Gore is behind in reliably Democratic Wisconsin because Nader is pulling 10 percent of the vote. The scheme has the kind of 21st-century, rule-breaking patina that seems to suit both Internet-savvy candidates. There are at least three sites urging vote swapping, and more are going up every day.At VoteExchange.org, several hundred people have exchanged e-mail pledges. VoteSwap2000.com is building a database of one-to-one voter matches. As of Saturday, the second day of operation, 1,614 votes had been swapped at VoteSwap2000, mostly between New York and Texas and the Pacific Northwest.
So, you're not the corporation? I'm not sure what this means. Huh? Not really... one company (or industry) gives money to several politicians for several votes... You vote for something en masse, or your elected politicians vote for something en masse, I'm not sure what the difference truly is. One billionaire forces his influence, or another does... I guess you guys are just stoked b/c with a direct vote you've cut out the middle man. LOL. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
rascal, That would lead to some urging for reform in the electoral college procedure. So, any Nader voter live in a state where Gore's tight with Bush? I'll trade votes with you! ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
Achebe, Life is contradiction. You mean to tell me that everything you do in your life follows perfectly your beliefs? My mistake. You know what? You win. Can I go now? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
win? This isn't about us Jeff, it's about Gore and Nader. I just don't want anyone to see your words and feel as if they have an excuse to not vote for Gore. If any of you are going to vote for the stadium this year, then be a little bit more sympathetic to the plight of your candidates. I think it was Maher that said both parties are bought out by special interests... the only difference being how scared you are of each side's special interests (he drew a different conclusion, so the paraphrase is mine). go Gore! ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Achebe, I really do not follow yyour logic in your debate with Jeff. First, I do not see how you can can compare a sports arena campaign to a political one. Sure, there are politics involved, but it is far from influincing public policy in everyday life. Also, I see now hypocrisy in Jeff's stance. I, too, feel that corporate control in politics is out of hand. I think it is ovbious that the money controls power. Did you know that individuals or corporation who give a certain amount can have weekly access to the politician, have a direct fax line, etc? Large corporations are in control, Bush/Gore would just be the next symbol. Jeff, on the other hand, started something to attempt to help keep a sports team around. As a result, the Rockets have used him for help. The Rockets are not Exxon or Phillip Morris. Tey are just a stupid sports team! Also, as he said, people pick and choose. It is the weak person who will pick a political party and then suddenly believe every single thing the party - and candidates individually - believes. That requires no independent thinking and is, thus, easier. Why are you so obsessed with the Gore Nader issue? Are you on the take for Gore? Seriously, if someone believes in the Greens, they should vote accordingly. Sure, it may take votes away from one candidate (but Jeff would not vote for Gore anyway - as he said), but you must see the big picture. More votes for the Greens leads to more information filtering out about them, leads to more resources in future elections, etc. Some people feel that having a two party system of moderates is simply not good enough and not conducive to democracy. I, personally, would vote for Nader even if I was the only one - just because you have to start somewhere. This is not about Gore and Bush, it is about our political system. Why do you feel you have to judge someone so much? I think Jeff should be applauded for his strong use of grass roots campaigning, not criticized to make a point about something else. So sleepy! ------------------ EZLN
rimbaud, I'm currently posting during a compile and cycling of the server, so I'll have to get to some of your stuff later but I did want to address: I don't think I ever attacked Jeff. There was nothing personal in my questioning, I was merely trying to be persuasive... that if someone does one thing, that maybe I can convince them to also do something else. I wasn't the one attacking corporate welfare. (I can't believe I just said that. ) Again, this is just an exchange of ideas... Unfortunately, text on a page doesn't convey that all of the time.
