This discussion is getting kind of scary, lets clear some things up...
<< the vote is really decided
by the electoral college which really doesn't have to vote the same way the
masses do>>
This is idiotically dumb and misinformed. The general ellection elects
which partie's group will be able to cast votes in the electoral college.
So if Nader wins New Jersey, then he gets to pick the people who cast the
ballot in the electoral college election. And also, more than half of all
states (and all the ones that count) *require* that the electoral college
vote for the person that the was chosen in the general election. It is just
a relic left over from a long time ago.
<<one thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that if nader gets 15% of
the vote, his party (the green party) gets automatic funding for the next
election>>
Actually, the threshold is 5%, and what happens is that the green party
becomes recognized as a national party, and will then be able to recieve
federal matching funds in 2004, which would be at least 12.4 million
dollars, among other benefits. Considering that Nader is polling at about
8% nationally and hasn't even begun to campaign heavily yet, that number
seems pretty secure. 15%, which is probably where the confusion comes in,
is the threshold he needs to be polling at by late September in order to be
included in the televised debates (This year being brought to you courtosey
of Anheiser-Busch. How fucking perfect, though generally I prefer Vodka to
dull the pain of existence.)
<<Was it all a grandiose PR move for the veep?
No media was there, it was simply an opportunity for
this school to achieve recognition for its efforts in
recycling, and a chance for him to prove his loyalty
to his home state and his stance on education.>>
No one every said that Mr. Gore isn't a very nice person with the best of
intentions...but voting for a nice person doesn't help the fact that were
killing thousands of iraqi children a day when he refuses to aknowledge that
those children exist. Acceptable losses is a pretty large umbrella for such
a caring individual.
What everyone seems to be focusing on in this discussion is Nader's ability
to "win" this election. He can't (at least not without the debates). But
that isn't the point, and it shouldn't be the point. If you think that the
problems that face America today can be solved with the cast of one vote, or
the election of one man (or that George Bush is some great Satan that will
send the country into turmoil) then you really need to see a proctologist
about having your head taken out of your ass. Nader's campaign is about
building a movement for tangible, long term, change. This country has
become so risk averse that its kind of disgusting. Could things get worse
under Bush? Of course. Is Al Gore using as much hyperbole as possible to
scare chicken shit liberals into falling in line? Fucking duh. Let's take
a look at the actual risk posed by a Dubya presidency.
Supreme Court- What Justin said is totally true; 2-4 court justices will be
appointed within the next 4 years. It's a legitimate concern, until you
look at some history and find out that its all just a bunch of shit. Regan
apointed Souter and Ginsberg. Souter is the most liberal judge on the
court, and Ginsberg is probably second or third. However, in Clinton's
presidency, the so called "liberal" appointed Clarance Thomas, who is
considered by some to be the most conservative man on the planet. Do you
really think that Gore would appoint a liberal to the supreme court?! If you
do, i'll pay for the proctologist visit, really i will. If there's
*anything* that Bush is, its power hungry. He's not going to jepordize his
chance at another four years in office (thus avenging the failure of his
father..) by doing anything to disturb the 6-3 majority on abortion rights.
He's not *that* dumb. He appointed Cheney as his vice president to keep the
pro-lifer's in line, much like the populist rhetoric Gore is spouting to
sure up his labor base.
I was going to make a laudry list, but this email is too long already.
Ralph Nader is about bringing stability back to a politcal system that is
totally out of wack (1.3 billion gift to Columbia to fight a never ending
civil war; but a billion dollar *loan* to South Africa to fight a disease
that is wiping out a generation of children, and the actual amount needed is
twenty times as much?) It doesn't get solved by an election, it gets solved
by a movement, which is what Ralph Nader is trying to build. Most of you
haven't even lived a quarter of a century yet, what's with all the damn
pessimism?
Mark
Bleib Immer Locker.
