UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (37) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: arosaen One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 2247  
Subject: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 3:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Let me be the first to say

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BankerNoMore Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1261 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 3:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
CNN reporting right now says FL vote margin is down to 1300 votes (still some absentee votes to count) which will also trigger and automatic recount.

I'm hanging on to a thread here.... and will die laughing if CNN and other stations called it wrong.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1262 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 7:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As of about 7:30 a.m. EST, the ABC had Bush up by about 1700 votes.

As of 7:35 a.m., AP was reporting Bush up by about 1600 votes.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1263 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 8:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
It would be a much easier to go with the Green Party ideas of instant run off voting (order of preference #1, #2, #3) and to add "None of the Above" to our ballots. It would return REAL democracy to the people. It could also get people out to vote again. I believe that if people thought that their vote actually mattered, more would vote. It would also be good to have more than two parties in the televised debates. That's OK. The Greens will grow. We've only begun to organize---with NO corporate $. We'll be back. Good fortune. Rick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DeadheadFool Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1264 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ralph's view this morning...

http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2000/11/11082000/ap_nader_39967.asp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1265 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 1:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Great pic of Nader-- and a good article. No regrets on my vote!



Print the post Back To Top
Author: mastott Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1266 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

No regrets?

Let's see if there are regrets when Dubya is drilling in our backyards ('scuze me mam, sorry to wipe out yer too-lips).

We should all have regrets, I think, and I also think Nader's arrogance is misplaced and quite honestly, a turn off.

m

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DeadheadFool Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1269 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No regrets on my vote!


None here either!

Maybe now the democrats will open their eyes and see that the liberal environmental voters who were once democrat really do matter, and they'll try to win us back with less moderate tendancies.

If not, the Green Party is only just beginning!

Chris

Print the post Back To Top
Author: patrickwest Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1270 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 2:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I think it is great that people stood their ground and voted for Nader. If anyone is to blame it is the over 100 million people who didn't vote, or those who don't vote their conscience, or those who vote for the lesser of two evils, or those who do not investigate all possibilities. These people do not support true democracy, but support the two party stranglehold on our duopoly, not democracy. I vote for a candidate bacause I believe in what they have to say and the issues that they stand for. The polls suggest that people didn't vote on Bush or Gore because of where they stood on the issues but on whether they had good character.

By voting for Gore or Bush people have sent a clear message to Washington ... KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! We support skyrocketing health care costs while at the same time seeing declining health. We support declining educational outcome. We support high rates of crime and violence with no clear way of stopping it. We support the decimation of the environment. Gore is still bought and paid for by the same special interest groups as Bush, maybe not to the same extent, but by the same ones. He would only be marginally better than Bush.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: chrisjames Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1271 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 3:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Before the Democrats and the pundits start blaming
Ralph Nader, just remember this -

if Al Gore had just won his own home state of Tennessee
(with 11 electoral votes) he would have gotten a total
of 271 electoral votes and become president.

You can't blame Nader. Al Gore lost Tennessee and
the presidency all by himself !



Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1273 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
mastott wrote: Let's see if there are regrets when Dubya is drilling in our backyards

Too late. I live in the Permian Basin of West Texas. Specifically, Midland/Odessa. It's an area that looms large in the Bush family bio. They have drilled around here for ages and are doing so even today. This, in spite of the fact that we are more dependent upon foreign oil than ever before. The Dems and Republicans have done practically zippo to change this situation. They have forgotten the oil embargo of 1973-74 that sent our economy into a tailspin. Barely 10 years ago the average automobile on the road got 26 mpg on the highway. Today that number is 20 mpg.

I have voted exclusively for Republican candidates since 1972.(Well, not in 1996. The Warden wouldn't let me out to vote.) This year I broke that tradition by voting for all Green candidates plus a few Libertarians. OK, I voted for some Democrates, too.

If I can change, so can others. The people of the USA DESERVE better choices. (Even my 75 year old parents voted Green this year.) This movement will not stop. It's a grass roots thing. It is amazing that the count for Nader was 3%. That's with no big money behind him! This situation in Florida will have the citizens questioning the entire process of electing candidates. I'm pleased that's things are playing out the way they are. Please ask your Democrat and Republican friends if they would have liked to have seen more candidates involved in the 4 network debates. Would they like to vote for their 3 favorite candidates in order of preference? Would they like to add "None of the Above" to the ballots? Would they like legitimate campaign finance reform?

I have yet to converse with a single citizen who would not like to see these things become standard during electioneering and voting. The parties they usually wind up casting their vote for, unfortunately, see things differently. The 2 major Parties don't want to change squat. They like the political system the way it is because they invented the system!

The Dems were so rightfully scared of Nader that they offered him a slot in the Gore cabinet if he would drop out of the race. (They obviously don't know much about Ralph to have even suggested that.) The only thing more outrageous than asking Nader to drop out was my fellow Texan, H. Ross Perot, endorsing George W.Bush. In 1992 when Perot was railing about special interest, big money running Washington and telling people to "vote your conscience", he also mentioned a giant sucking sound. With Perot's endorsement of Bush, that giant sucking sound heard was not the sound of jobs going to Mexico, it was the sound of something else entirely being sucked! This follows on the heels of Perot's company, EDS, snagging a huge Navy contract. A coincidence? Nah. Just business as usual with a corrupt 2 Party system that is ripe for a change. That change will come about largely because the Green Party wants a real, meaningful democracy for this great nation. GO GREEN! Good fortune. Rick


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: scdII Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1274 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/8/2000 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
chrisjames wrote:
Before the Democrats and the pundits start blaming
Ralph Nader, just remember this - if Al Gore had just won his own home state of Tennessee (with 11 electoral votes) he would have gotten a total of 271 electoral votes and become president.


Here, here!

If any one can be accused of arrogance, it's the Democrats, who assumed our votes were theirs for the taking. IMO, Gore did a dam* poor job putting forth any kind of coherent platform or pointing out Bush's complete lack of qualifications for the presidency (among many other tactical errors).

The real tragedy here is that Nader didn't get the 5% he needed to receive federal matching funds and to muscle the Green Party into future debates due to supporters that bolted at the last minute -- voting against their consciences, for a candidate they didn't really believe in, out of fear of a candidate who never should have had a prayer in the first place -- all for naught. Now that's what I call a "wasted vote."

Sadly,
Susan (who voted for Nader but lives in a state that always goes Republican so it's not her fault either)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: SBXJavadude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1276 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 9:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
At the risk of getting flamed, I do blame Mr. Nader for the electoral mess we are in. I felt his campaign was nothing more than vanity on his part.

In the past I have supported Nader's efforts for safety measures and the environment. I still do. For a time I even worked for his group Common Cause. I was not impressed with the organization as a whole.

I feel though he wanted the Democratic Party to take notice of him, but this was not the way to do it. He wants the party to lean more his way. At a time when the political pendulum is kind of stuck in the center, especially with such a close margin in Congress, he has to understand he will not always get his way on issues.

I do agree with him that the political canvass is full of money and corruption. His campiagn was well-run, and he got alot of bang for his buck. But I do blame him for where we are now.

Sorry, but that is how I feel.

Respectfully,
Charlie



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1277 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let's see if there are regrets when Dubya is drilling in our backyards ('scuze me mam, sorry to wipe out yer too-lips).

We should all have regrets, I think, and I also think Nader's arrogance is misplaced and quite honestly, a turn off.

===============================

Not only do I have no regrets, I live in oregon, voted for Nader and have no regrets! What is the difference between Bush and Gore again? At least if bush wins we KNOW we have a jerk in office-- if gore wins it's more uncertain on the surface, even though we all know he is a snake oil salesman at the core, just like bush.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1278 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 1:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The Who got it right in their anthem, "Won't Get fooled Again." Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Bush and Gore are interchangable. It's like Al Bush and George W. Gore. They should be wearing NASCAR driving suits with their corporate sponsor's names all over them. It does not make any difference which one of them gets to be the President of the USA. If nothing changes, nothing changes. It will business as usual. It won't even have a negative impact on the markets over the long haul.

My resentment is toward Gore. It is because of Gore that Ralph Nader did not receive the needed 5%. Gore freaked and sent his troups out to beg Green suporters for their votes. Had Gore addressed the issues the Green Party stands for in the first place, he would have never been in that position. The blame belongs to Gore, not Nader. Gore could not even take his own state's 11 electoral votes. That would have put him over the top. That was NOT Nader's fault.

The bottom line for me is that the Florida elections are a blessing, not a curse. The public is seeing what goes on in electing a president. It's messy. It's rotten. And it will be changed, largly thru the efforts of the underfunded, tiny, grass roots Green Party. I don't regret my Green vote one bit. Good fortune. Rick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frolix8 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1279 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 1:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Don't you have to wonder about the state of affairs when the republicans began running Nader ads? If a person was paranoid I would wonder about a connection . . .

As it is, I think the nation has been hammered. The republicans will control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Nader's argument that democrats would be elected to Congress has fallen flat.

Sadly enough, I think Nader is reveling in his Warolian time.

Frolix8

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1280 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Don't you have to wonder about the state of affairs when the republicans began running Nader ads?
=========================

did this really happen?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frolix8 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1281 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes, they cut and pasted Nader's anti-Gore statments (not his Bush ones, mind you) and then ran ads in places where Nader was strong.

It was the RNC who did this as I understand from NPR.


Frolix8

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mastott Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1282 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 3:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

No difference between Bush and Gore? Please, that has been used so much as a rationalization for a nader vote that it is useless. Of course there are differences, even Nader admitted to some of them. I would point out the difference between them on abortion issues (which may not matter to you, who knows) or the difference on foreign policy and the military (again, may not matter to you). Or perhaps the difference in experience, or the difference in ability to pronounce words. But please don't comfort yourself by saying there is no difference -- there are big differences, and we all may feel them soon enough.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1283 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 3:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

But please don't comfort yourself by saying there is no difference -- there are big differences, and we all may feel them soon enough.

===============================
The point is that they are both lousy candidates dedicated to the corporations influencing them. So what if Bush will spend more on the military? What's the difference between 47 and 50 billion? And the abortion issue is an old scare used by democrats for 20 years—they were using it during Regan/Bush elections and neither of those losers made any progress for the anti-abortion contingent. Abortion is safe.

This is the first year I have ever voted or even remotely cared about politics—for me it was either vote for Nader or don't vote. I will be completely embarrassed to be part of a nation that would actually place someone like Bush in office but the fact that Gore might be a little more palatable on the surface does not change the fact that he is, all things considered, 98% as slimy as the bratty child who will probably be running this country.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1284 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
No flames please, I'm just an investor trying to learn here.

I appreciate everyone's right to express their political opinions. And yes, I know, the Presidency is an important question. I'm very concerned about the questions over balloting in Florida.

However, the board seems to have gone way off topic here. I think there are at least 2 other boards at the Fool dedicated to political discussions.

I'd be happy to find the links for those who'd like to continue this discussion.

Meanwhile, I have an SRI question: why is Intel (or any other chip maker) considered "socially responsible" when their manufacturing processes consume enormous amounts of water? Is this water re-usable (like brown water from car washes for instance)? Also, what about their manufacturing processes? Does anybody know whether their manufacturing processes produce nasty byproducts and how those byproducts (if any) are handled?

foolishjk


Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1286 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 9:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
foolishjk is correct. While this is not only timely and will ultimately involve investing, it should be moved off topic. Fool Cafe'-Politics and Investing would be my choice. If someone wants to continue this thread, e-mail me and we'll move.

But in parting I feel compelled to add one more quick point. I am not comforting myelf by saying that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. In the area of proposed policy, there ARE differences. In the area of the way they are bought and sold by corporate money, those two candidates are indistinguishable. That is NOT rationalization. I'm now thru venting.

Good fortune. Rick (who is quite comfortable that he voted his conscience and pleased that he was not scared into voting for the lesser of two evils.)



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1287 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/9/2000 10:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

However, the board seems to have gone way off topic here. I think there are at least 2 other boards at the Fool dedicated to political discussions.

==================================

Okie Dokie-- I'll let it die. Was it really bothering you? It's not like this is such a hot board that 'The New President' thread was needlessly cluttering up the mass of interesting duscussion. But whatever-- let there be silence!


Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1290 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 8:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hi Rick!

Many thanks for your endorsement and gracious offer to move the discussion.

Foolishjk

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1291 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 9:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hi Culley!

I'll let it die

That's not what I asked for. I asked that the dicsussion be moved to one or more forums set up for the purpose.

Was it really bothering you?

Yes, it was. I don't mind vituperative, opinion-based statements on the Politics Online board, which I lurk on. Here, it really bugs me because this board is a learning and discussion tool for socially responsible investing.

Yes, the next President will influence policies in areas like labor and the environment. Those policies in turn will influence how companies do business. So RickBrooks is right - this discussion is tangentially related to SRI. However, I saw little or nothing in the current tone of the discussion that added to anyone's understanding of how the next President or incoming Congress will articulate such policies. Therefore, IMO, it was time for the discussion to migrate to an appropriate forum.

It's not like this is such a hot board that 'The New President' thread was needlessly cluttering up the mass of interesting duscussion.

Didn't even enter my thinking. For that matter, the Politics and Investing board only has one new message since yesterday, so their election discussion is not exactly on fire, either.

let there be silence

Again, silence is not what I asked for. I asked that the discussion be moved. Please don't read more into my request than that.

If you'd like to expound on your views of how the next President and Congress will affect SRI, I'd love to read it.

Foolishjk


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1293 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 10:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Susan has graciously moved this discussion to the Fool Cafe'-Politics & Investing board. I'll attach the link. Good fortune. Rick

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13672142



Print the post Back To Top
Author: tabletennis Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1294 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 10:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<However, the board seems to have gone way off topic here. I think there are at least 2 other boards at the Fool dedicated to political discussions.
I'd be happy to find the links for those who'd like to continue this discussion>>

Foolishjk, I beg to differ. We are not so far off topic as you may think. What you need to realize is that it is no accident that Naderites populate this board in droves. Nader himself, in his acceptance speech upon recieving the Green Party nomination, specifically drew our attention to the types of businesses that SRI folks take an interest in :

<< Do we wish to discover the small and medium-size businesses in the Social Venture Network, and other places that believe in sustainable economies, like the Interface Corporation in Atlanta, Georgia, so as to refute the chronic nay saying of Big Business? Can we not move our rich country to become a society that abolishes poverty? Do we want an expansive transformation of our energy sources to the many kinds of solar energy, some of which have been around for centuries? Do we wish to advance the appropriate technologies that define efficiency and productivity as if consumers, environment and workers mattered? >>

It is no accident that this particular board happens to be the one where I just experienced the pure joy of solidarity with my fellow Nader supporters. This wouldn't happen on any other board. I loved this thread.

This has always been my favorite board. If you stick around I think you will find that we are pretty good at staying on topic. BTW, this is the first time ever that I recall any discussion of politics, but like I've said, it all seems connected as far as I'm concerned.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1295 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Was it really bothering you?

Yes, it was. I don't mind vituperative, opinion-based statements on the Politics Online board, which I lurk on. Here, it really bugs me because this board is a learning and discussion tool for socially responsible investing.

=====================

You could have chosen not to read the thread (my choice when I don't like a topic) rather than acting the policeman. Your infringement into the thread was a more deliberate infringement than that of a thread moderately straying from the topic of its board.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1296 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 10:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hi tabletennis!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I beg to differ

Absolutely! That's what keeps life interesting.

We are not so far off topic as you may think

Please see my previous response for my reasoning: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13673292

What you need to realize is that it is no accident that Naderites populate this board in droves

Please do not lecture me on "what I need to realize." I don't care about the political affiliations of people on this board. I'm here to learn about SRI to see if there's a fit with my personal philosophy.

What I realized was that the discussion devolved from opinion on what the next President might do in the environmental arena - a legitimate discussion for this board, IMO - to personal justifications of political beliefs and needless vituperation.

As I stated previously, there are places to express political beliefs without tying them to a discussion of SRI or any other type of investing. Both at the Fool and elsewhere. I'd be happy to share a raft of links to political discussions if you like.

I have my own political opinions. I do not choose to share them in this forum. I simply requested that the discussion migrate to a more appropriate forum, and that request was graciously honored by Rick and Susan. Thank you both BTW.

If you stick around I think you will find that we are pretty good at staying on topic

I have been around this board. Both posting and lurking, trying to learn. Please don't assume.

Foolishjk

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1297 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 11:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Culley,

You could have chosen not to read the thread (my choice when I don't like a topic

True. I do that from time to time. In hindsight, I should have done the same here, except that I saw posts from people whose information I value.

rather than acting the policeman

I'll defend to the death your right to be wrong.

You infer where I implied nothing. As previously stated, I recommended that the discussion be moved. People can either honor or ignore that recommendation. It's a free country and the Fool allows a pretty wide latitude.

Your infringement into the thread was a more deliberate infringement

I "infringed" on nothing. This is an open board, dedicated to SRI. I'm as "entitled" to post as the next Fool.

than that of a thread moderately straying from the topic of its board.

I hope we can agree to disagree here. I did not see the thread as "moderately straying". You did. Reasonable people can disagree.

For me, there's a real simple test: does the thread educate, amuse or enrich? The thread did none of those in my eyes. Therefore, I posted. Others will disagree.

Foolishjk



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Culley One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1298 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 11:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You infer where I implied nothing. As previously stated, I recommended that the discussion be moved. People can either honor or ignore that recommendation. It's a free country and the Fool allows a pretty wide latitude.
===========================

Foolishjk,

Everybody everywhere is talking about this joke of an election—political conversations have made appearances on all the boards I read. I think it presumptuous of you to try to route this discussion into the 'proper' folder. Mind you, I'm not denying you your right to try to do so! However, by butting in you did effectively halt the conversation. I know this was not your intention but it was your effect nonetheless. 'Moving' a discussion rarely succeeds in more than taking the momentum out of a thread. Oh well! I really should be doing something more constructive anyway :)

culley

Print the post Back To Top
Author: foolishjk Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1299 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 11:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Culley,

I defend to the death your right to be wrong.

Foolishjk

Print the post Back To Top
Author: chrisjames Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1301 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
In hopes of wrapping up this OT thread up in a positive direction - one of the ways to continue the Nader movement after the election is to invest in the Green Century Equity Fund.

Green Century is actually the Domini Social Equity Index Fund in disguise, but the asset mangement profits, if any, are "distributed to a partnership of Green Century's non-profit advocacy organization founders."

Here's the list - California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), Citizen Lobby of New Jersey, Colorado Citizen Lobby, ConnPIRG Citizen Lobby, Fund for Public Interest Research, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG), MOPIRG Citizen
Organization, PIRGIM Public Interest Lobby, and Washington State Public Interest Research Group (WASHPIRG).

Good Fortune to All (Democrats, Greens, Republicans, Etc.) --


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChuckONeil Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1307 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
mastott     

I think you need to reexamin the positions of Gore.  
When Gore was a Tennessee Congressman he was against 
abortion.  When he runs for President he is now pro 
choice.  So how do you know for sure what his position 
is?  Time and again Gore has demonstrated his ability 
to pander to the popular position.  Remember his 
position on Elian Gonzales?  He agreed with Bush 
instead of his administrations position.  Why? Because 
he knew he needed Cuban expatriot votes to win 
Florida.  

Bush on the other hand carefully avoids the abortion 
issue.  Why? because he needs the votes of Republician 
pro choice moderates.  Confidentially, republicians 
have made clear that they cannot take an anti abortion 
position for fear of destroying the Republician 
Party.  

So their is no difference here.

Regarding the Supreme Court apointments, Gore voted 
for Scalia, one of the most consertative justices we 
have.  Thomas, another consertative justice,  was 
confirmed by a Democratic Senate when eleven 
democratic senators voted for him.  

Remember the Supreme court appointments must be 
approved by the Senate.  According to the news I have 
heard, republicians will have only a 1 or 2 vote 
majority.  If only two moderate republician senators 
don't follow their party, an extremely consertative 
appointment by Bush will probably not be approved by 
the Senate.  For Gore to appoint a liberal justice, it 
will have to be acceptable to at least a couple of 
moderate republicians.  So Gore won't be able to 
appoint liberal justices. Once again we end up with 
the status quo, in the middle.

Regarding the military.  Perhaps you didn't listen to 
the "debates" where both candidates proposed a strong 
military.  The difference between Bush and Gore is 
only a matter of degree.  Remember that both are 
beholden to the same contributors from the Military 
Industrial complex.  

So can you come up with any other position where their 
is a significant difference?  

Their are many very significant issues that neither 
Bush or Gore address.  But Nader does.  

As far as the tired "Nader is a spoiler" argument of 
the Democrats and encouraged and promoted by the press 
and all the talking heads, I've seen several articles 
so far that look at the Florida race and assume that 
all 90,000+ votes that Nader received would have gone 
for Gore.  The exit poll (I presume done by VNS and 
posted on the CNN.com web site  -- 
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/FL/P000.html ) 
does not support this.

Florida exit poll question.  From Cnn.com

The Exit polls in Florida asked a question along the 
lines of "Who would you have voted for in a two-party 
race?"

The rows on the left list how people answered that 
question.  The columns across the top show how this 
breaks down by who the voters say they voted for.

Vote in Two-Way Race 
        
  Would have voted for:      Did actually vote for   
                           Gore  Bush  Buchanan  Nader 
Gore                  48%   97%    1%     0%      2% 
Bush                  48%    1%   96%     0%      2% 
Would Not Have Voted   2%    0%    0%     0%      0%  

Note the column on the right.  Of the people who 
answered that they'd have voted for Gore in a two-
person race, 2% were Nader voters.  Of the people who 
answered that they'd have voted for Bush, 2% were 
Nader voters.  It appears that the Nader vote in 
Florida would have split relatively evenly between the 
Gore and Bush campaigns.

BTW, the Nationwide numbers look like the following.

Vote in Two-Way Race 
                              Did actually vote for   
 Would have voted for:     Gore  Bush  Buchanan  Nader 
Gore                  48%   96%    1%     0%      2% 
Bush                  49%    2%   96%     0%      1% 
Would Not Have Voted   2%   23%   28%     9%     31% 

Chuck O'Neil


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChuckONeil Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1308 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/10/2000 8:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I guess I jumped the gun with my response. After posting my previous response and read all the posts about which board to use for the discussion.

I agree that we ought to stick to the subject and from time to time have quit reading the board because of irrevelent posts cluttering the messages.

I'll switch to the other board. But I don't think in this case the discussion wasn't all that much off topic and was clearly labled so anyone not interested could have easily avoided it.

Chuck

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcadoo11 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1315 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 11/14/2000 12:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No differences?! You gotta be kidding.

Read the following article from the Washington Post business section --

The Washington Post


November 5, 2000, Sunday, Final Edition

SECTION: FINANCIAL; Pg. H01

LENGTH: 3044 words

HEADLINE: Changing of the Guard: New President's Choices At Regulatory Agencies Will Set the Course

BYLINE: Cindy Skrzycki , Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:




Talk about turnover. What's about to happen in the ranks of the federal bureaucracy will make the upheaval in the dot-com sector of the economy feel like a small tremor.

Come Election Day, businesses in America will find out who their new supreme regulator in Washington will be. Who wins the presidency--whether Democrat Al Gore or Republican George W. Bush--can make all the difference in whether the rules that businesses are expected to play by are lax and liberal or difficult and demanding.

The stakes are high for business, labor and consumers. With about $ 20 billion expected to be spent on programs in 2001 at 54 regulatory agencies, the decisions made at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Energy, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Labor, and other agencies and Cabinet departments will be as important to American consumers, investors and businesses as many of the issues that provoked louder debate during the campaigns.

The two candidates have strikingly different philosophies about the role of the federal government in the market. Though Bush, a former businessman, is not for unbridled commerce, he favors a lighter regulatory touch. Gore is a believer in regulatory controls when markets are not working.

The new president will be able to make about 6,000 appointments throughout the executive branch. Many of those officials will determine policy that affects the particulars of day-to-day American life. For example:

How energy-efficient will a new washing machine be? What will clothing labels tell you? What health claims can winemakers make? Will investors be protected in an electronic stock market? What will be the standard by which a product is judged unsafe and recalled by the manufacturer? Will consumers be able to choose their electricity provider? How much will Internet and phone service cost? Which new drugs will be allowed to come on the market?

Then there are the broad regulatory policies that can cost businesses billions of dollars and have a more indirect, but lasting, impact on consumers. How much the federal government focuses on pollution control and workplace safety are just two areas that will have a tremendous impact on how much companies have to spend to comply with new rules.



Safety First



Consumers and businesses also have a stake in the key appointments that will be made at agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department, and the Food and Drug Administration, as the regulation of bioengineered food and drugs is only in its infancy.

That recent broad recall of food products containing corn engineered for animal feed has energized the consumer movement and stepped up pressure on regulators to make sure the food supply is safe. Conversely, it has put companies that grow and market bioengineered food on guard; they clearly have an intense interest in how the next crop of regulators will oversee this new industry when it comes to testing, labeling and marketing.

Similarly, the August recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires catapulted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration back into the spotlight as Congress and consumer groups questioned whether safety agencies could have been more vigilant and aggressive in regulating the auto and tire industries. A raft of new auto-safety rules must be issued in the next few years, a job that will fall to whoever heads the agency in the next administration.



An Insider's Game



One of Bush's campaign themes is that he isn't a Washington insider, but if he is elected, it is Washington insiders who will decide the regulatory fate of the digital economy.

Whether they hail from Texas or Tysons Corner, the next generation of regulators at the Federal Communications Commission, Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission will have to settle battles over Internet access, Web privacy issues, taxation of online sales and copyright protection, and oversee how many immigrant visas are issued to shore up the high-tech workforce.

"The real issue to business owners is whether public policy will catch up to changes in the economy," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Business has been pushing for changes in decades-old labor laws to accommodate new hiring and compensation practices. It wants less emphasis on rules that it feels favor unions and their organizing efforts.

It worries that e-commerce will be federally taxed, strangling companies that are trying to run online retail businesses. Many companies have an interest in what the rules will be for corporate mergers. They expect the current policy of reining in monopolists to be much the same under Gore, while a Bush Justice Department may not be as tough in enforcing antitrust laws designed to ensure competition in the marketplace.



Gore the Enthusiast



Overall, the Clinton administration has taken a robust regulatory approach compared with the administrations of Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Of course, some environmentalists, consumer advocates, safety activists and union leaders would say President Clinton's regulators weren't aggressive enough. But business groups accuse the current administration of using every opportunity to issue rules, guidance and directives to their members.

Gore is expected by many to be a "regulatory enthusiast" who wouldn't hesitate to intervene in the markets, be tough on business and implement policies supported by organized labor.

"The business community would observe a real difference between the two regimes," said William Kovacic, law professor at the George Washington University Law School. "The regulatory demands would be noticeably greater in a Gore administration. Gore really believes [in regulation], and it's likely to manifest itself in a tougher approach at a place like EPA. And organized labor would be taken very seriously."

This prospect leads many businesses to relish the idea of cleaning house in the executive branch. They hope a Bush administration would staff the agencies with regulators who would be more sympathetic to business and its complaints about the burdensome cost of federal rules.

"Most people want to see an end to a very aggressive regulatory agenda that doesn't seem to result in decisions that are well-thought out," said Angela Antonelli, director of economic policy for the conservative Heritage Foundation. "They want to bring some accountability back into the system."

Antonelli is confident that "a Bush administration is not about to embrace the belief that agencies should be left to their own devices to shape regulatory policy."

She noted that business has spent the past eight years warring against what it views as the rapid expansion of environmental, workplace and health-care regulation. Powerful lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have gone to Congress and the courts with their complaints about many federal rules issued by the Clinton administration.

The Supreme Court will hear on Election Day a case brought by business against the EPA alleging that the agency exceeded its authority when it proposed new pollution standards under the Clean Air Act. The decision in that case is expected to have broad ramifications for how expansively every federal agency interprets its authority.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration also has lost court cases brought by industry groups that didn't like its approach to regulating workplace safety. A powerful coalition of companies lobbied Congress to block the administration's proposed ergonomics rule, and it is ready to challenge the rule in court.

Business groups such as the chamber would expect a Gore administration to deliver more of the same, or worse.

"If you had a Gore administration, you'd have more rigidity in rulemaking," said Bruce Josten, the chamber's executive vice president. "If you had Bush, you'd see flexibility. Their approaches are vastly different."

In the banking sector, for example, the industry expects regulations more to their liking under Bush, with less of a push for provisions backed by consumer groups. It believes that a Gore administration would follow the protocol established by the Clinton White House, setting rules that call for more disclosure by industry and protection for consumers.



Bush the Skeptic



Michael Baroody, senior vice president of NAM, who served in the Bush and Reagan administrations, views a Republican victory this way: "One would hope for a healthier dose of skepticism about the ability of federal agencies to solve every problem with a new regulation."

Gore is closely identified with many of the Clinton administration's regulatory policies and the direction they have taken. Gore handpicked EPA chief Carol Browner and has stayed involved in many of the decisions made by the FCC.

"There is greater faith in the overall value of having an active regulatory framework," said Christine Callies, chief U.S. investment strategist for Merrill Lynch & Co., commenting on Gore's approach. She said Bush, like Republicans in general, would have a tendency to proceed "more delicately in regulatory matters."

That is music to the ears of the business community, which hopes Bush--who once owned an oil business and a stake in a baseball team-- would see things much the way it does.

Bush is on the record saying there is a role for federal rules, "so long as they're based upon science and they're reasonable, so long as people have input." Business groups expect Bush to leave more decision-making to the states; renegotiate the Kyoto treaty on global warming, which portends major new environmental rules for business; and work with industry to develop new standards and voluntary solutions to problems.

The decisions he has made in Texas, however, have cut both ways for business.

Environmentalists in the state were dealt a setback when Bush signed a bill that allows companies to keep confidential the audits they conduct to check whether their facilities are in compliance with state environmental laws.

But when it came to letting the local phone company expand into long-distance service, Bush went along with the decision made by Pat Wood, chairman of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, who refused to let SBC Communications Inc., the local phone company, expand into the long-distance market until it could prove that it had allowed competition to thrive in the local market.

If Bush is elected, the likely front-runners for the FCC chairman's job are Wood and Michael K. Powell, an FCC commissioner and son of Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Though Gore has the backing of some notables in business, including investors Warren Buffett and George Soros, Bush has the backing of groups such as NAM and the chamber, with their constituencies of large and small businesses, as well as many chief executives of the Fortune 500 companies.

These groups hate to admit it, but they are making plans for how things could be if Bush captures the White House. Privately, they are making lists of what rules need to be addressed, corrected or eliminated, hoping they will get a favorable hearing.

"We hope they would slow everything down, as have some of their predecessors," said Baroody, referring to the moratorium that the Reagan administration slapped on the implementation of rules issued late in the Carter administration. "We hope at least for a commitment to review rules in the pipeline or those issued in the pre-inaugural period. We'd urge that on him."



The Regulatory Scene

Seats likely to be filled by the next administration



Consumer Product Safety Commission





Mission: To protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death from consumer products, including toys, coffee makers, lawnmowers and smoke detectors.

Key issues: To be considered early next year is whether the government should establish flammability standards for upholstered furniture to make sofas and chairs resistant to small open flames, such as cigarette lighters.

Membership: Three members who need a majority vote to take actions and approve regulations. With each member appointed for seven years, the next president will have the opportunity to replace only one commissioner, unless others leave before their terms expire.

Chairwoman Ann Brown, Democrat. Her term expires in 2006.

Mary Sheila Gall, Republican. Term expires in 2005.

Thomas Hill Moore, Democrat. Term expires in 2003.



Federal Communications Commission





Mission: The key agency when it comes to regulation of significant parts of the new economy. In addition to its regulatory oversight of the telephone, broadcast, cable and wireless industries, the agency also has the authority to review big mergers such as the pending combination of America Online and Time Warner.

Key issues: Play referee in the competition over local phone service that pits the regional local phone companies against upstarts that want to launch service in their territories. The FCC also must find ways to manage the airwaves to help wireless companies meet the growing demand for phone and Internet service.

Membership: Five voting members, including the chairman, who are appointed by the president. The next president will be in a position to replace all five. The president may nominate only three members of his own party to the commission. Each voting member of the FCC must be confirmed by the Senate.

Chairman William E. Kennard. Term ends June 30, 2001.

Susan Ness. Term ended June 30,1999. Ness will not have the authority to vote once the current Congress adjourns. President Clinton has renominated Ness for a second five-year term, but the Senate has not confirmed her appointment.

Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth. Term expired June 30, 2000. Furchtgott-Roth may serve another year unless his replacement is confirmed by the Senate.

Michael K. Powell. Term expires June 30, 2002.

Gloria Tristani. Term expires June 30, 2003.



Federal Reserve Board





Mission: Achieve stable prices, maximum employment and moderate interest rates. It uses monetary policy to try to keep U.S. economic growth on a sustainable, noninflationary path. Also regulates bank holding companies and some banks.

Membership: Seven members, appointed by the president. The next president is likely to be in a position to replace six, including Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is not expected to remain on the board when he leaves the top post. Nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.

Chairman Alan Greenspan. Four-year term as chairman expires in July 2004.

Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson Jr. Term as vice chairman expires Oct. 5, 2003; term on board has expired, but he continues to serve until a successor is confirmed.

Laurence H. Meyer. Term expires Jan. 31, 2002.

Edward W. Kelley Jr. Term expires Jan. 31, 2004.

Edward M. Gramlich. Term expires Jan. 31, 2008.

Vacant.

Vacant.



Federal Trade Commission





Mission: Enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer-protection laws to make sure the nation's markets are competitive and business practices are conducted fairly and honestly.

Key issues: Reviewing and approving several proposed mergers, including AOL and Time Warner, and monitoring privacy issues on the Internet and advertising aimed at children, particularly those promoting violent entertainment games, shows and movies.

Membership: Five commissioners, who need a majority vote for action. The next president will have the opportunity to appoint four new members, one each year, as each commissioner's term expires. More appointments may be possible if members leave before their terms expire.

Chairman Robert Pitofsky, Democrat, term expires Sept. 2001. n Sheila F. Anthony, Democrat, term expires Sept. 2002.

Mozelle W. Thompson, Democrat, term expires Sept. 2003.

Orson Swindle, Republican, term expires Sept. 2004.

Thomas B. Leary, Republican, term expires Sept. 2005.



National Labor Relations Board





Mission: Enforces the National Labor Relations Act, a 65-year-old law. Conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and sets the basic rules for unions trying to organize workers. Determines who is eligible to join a union at a particular work-site and who can be included in a bargaining unit a union is trying to create. It also investigates and determines remedies for employers and unions that commit unfair labor practices.

Key issues: How to interpret the nation's labor laws in a changing economy influenced by new technology and increasing globalization.

Membership: Five board members. Although the law does not require a particular political mix, tradition has dictated since 1947 that the political party holding the White House gets three seats and the other party gets two. Two of the Democrats' seats will become vacant as soon as the 107th Congress is sworn in next January.

Chairman John C. Truesdale, a Democrat who has spent most of his career in various positions at the board. Term expires Aug. 27, 2003, but he has announced plans to resign when the new president is inaugurated.

Sarah M. Fox, a Democrat and former chief labor counsel to the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Term expires when the current Congress adjourns.

Wilma B. Liebman, a Democrat who has served as legal counsel to both the Teamsters and Bricklayers unions. Term expires Dec. 16, 2002.

Peter J. Hurtgen, Republican lawyer. Term expires Aug. 27, 2001.

One seat vacant since August.

The recess appointment of NLRB General Counsel Leonard R. Page, a former lawyer for the United Auto Workers union, also ends when Congress adjourns at the end of the year. The general counsel is one of the most important positions at the agency, serving as the gatekeeper for determining what cases have merit and should be presented to the board for consideration. It is the only other job at the agency that must be confirmed by the Senate.








Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pisces3q Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1779 of 2247
Subject: Re: The New President Date: 4/27/2001 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
patrickwest,

I got on to this list a bit late...

I have respect for anyone willing to vote for a candidate like Nader. There is no question that what he forwards is necessary for the environment.

However, I am equally convinced that anyone willing to vote for a candidate like Nader has to be willing to play, and to admit to playing a kind of hardball. Ideologically, politically, and psychologically (I'm refering to our countrymen and women of course), Nader is effectively unelectable in the forseeable future. If he got 12% of the vote, that would be a MONUMENTAL achievement for him. Anyone saying that he would steal that extra 9% from both major parties equally is (consciously) whistling Dixie, and anyone who believes that there is anything resembling a likelihood that he will get there next time, or even get into the Oval Office next time, would be still more disingenuous. Voting for Nader in the land of Coca Cola is straight-laced and reasonable, but revolutionary and idealistic. The price of that vote is a certain number of tons of waste, and a certain number of acres of land that a Democrat might have saved. It isn't enough, but what else is possible in 2000? I mean TRULY possible.

The green revolution has to happen on a different level. All the cards are stacked in the major parties' favor and joining the few and the proud won't necessarily change that. There may be a positive effect in trying to fill out Nader's 3%, but the wild gamble, the hardball aspect of that has to be recognized.

Cheers,

Dan.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (37) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement