thanks for clearing it all up wolf fucking blitzer...boy..we were all way
out of wack to you straightened the ship up...
-- Tour de Force, Defacto, Ayuchuco! --
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Robbins, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: [MMouse]: Nader - clarified.
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
