Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Plow]

The point is that there has to be a Ralph Nader that actually pulls it off eventually. And no, I'm not talking about winning the election, which is what you were harping on throughout the first post, as if you didn't even realize the goal of getting 5% of the vote.


I look at it this way, for anyone to do it... someone has to do it. I don't like the idea of voting for a 3rd party in a place like Florida, Ohio, etc. But if people legitimately want a change to the 2 party system, then it's essentially "on them" to vote in a way that will bring about that change.


Nader's timing, honestly, hurt third parties more than any one thing ever has. It's basically directly attributable to Nader that Bush became president and we're in the messes we're in now. That's why I wouldn't vote for a candidate that won't win regardless in a state where I might be a part of a major decision.

However, I live in Kansas. I can vote for whoever the hell I want for president, and it doesn't mean shit, unless of course I'm a part of bringing funding to a group that deserves but wouldn't otherwise receive it. The only reason I'll even vote is because there's finally someone with a (remote) chance of getting rid of Pat Roberts.


edit in response to edit:

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, my point (as I've explained before) is that the system is designed to maintain the status quo. No third-party candidate has even really come close to earning public financing, and given the controversy over Nader in 2000, isn't likely to for a long time. You can bitch and whine about how it should be more fair, but it isn't, and that's how it goes.

The problem is that you're saying because you don't think it will happen, people shouldn't try. And, well, I don't want to sound like an after school special so I'm just going to leave it at that.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What do you mean by less government intervention?

In a sentence, doing anything that isn't enumerated in the constitution.

[aurik]

Which means you're perfectly fine with the congress laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises....









can o worms lol

[Beckwin]

Eugene Debs already pulled it off 90 years ago but the government persecuted socialists! amurica fk yea

[Zosi]

Plow, it's frustrating reading your replies because it's obvious that you just skim over mine. I fully addressed what I believe to be the best way for third party candidates to get into government, but you continue harping on about how important it is for them to win 5% of the Presidential vote when I gave several reasons why it doesn't make two shits worth of difference, and why it won't happen regardless. They will not win the Presidency nor even 5% of the popular vote until there's a broad base of sitting public officials backing the party, and that just hasn't happened yet. The current Democratic and Republican machines are too entrenched to let anyone else get a foothold, and that's the battle that they need to be focusing their energies on, not a pie-in-the-sky shot at maybe earning 5% of the Presidential vote in the next decade or two.

As it stands right now, their candidacies are nothing more than high-profile publicity stunts. If you want to keep believing that with just a little more hope and a little less apathy, they just might pull it off and win big, go ask Disney if you can write a kids movie, they love that kinda shit.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Which means you're perfectly fine with the congress laying and collecting Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises....









can o worms lol

Why wouldn't I be?

[Kuya]

In a sentence, doing anything that isn't enumerated in the constitution.

This seems inaccurate. When one says less government intervention one usually understands less government regulation of economic activities, while what you're mentioning now sounds more like constitutionalism which does not mean that a government may intervene less; it only really proposes that a government follow a constitution to a more or less faithful manner in order to protect form the excesses of power.

[Plow]

Plow, it's frustrating reading your replies because it's obvious that you just skim over mine. I fully addressed what I believe to be the best way for third party candidates to get into government, but you continue harping on about how important it is for them to win 5% of the Presidential vote when I gave several reasons why it doesn't make two shits worth of difference, and why it won't happen regardless. They will not win the Presidency nor even 5% of the popular vote until there's a broad base of sitting public officials backing the party, and that just hasn't happened yet. The current Democratic and Republican machines are too entrenched to let anyone else get a foothold, and that's the battle that they need to be focusing their energies on, not a pie-in-the-sky shot at maybe earning 5% of the Presidential vote in the next decade or two.

As it stands right now, their candidacies are nothing more than high-profile publicity stunts. If you want to keep believing that with just a little more hope and a little less apathy, they just might pull it off and win big, go ask Disney if you can write a kids movie, they love that kinda shit.

He got over halfway in the election before last.

The fact of the matter is people have to make these efforts to get it done in the long run. It's silly to tell people they shouldn't use their votes to try to accomplish what they think is most important.

There's also more to it than just the 5% even, thanks to Nader the Green Party has a spot on the ballot in 31 states. And, most importantly, all the efforts you say need to be the focus... are in fact the focus. There's no reason that people shouldn't try to take their cause to the national stage while focusing on immediate progress locally.

[archibaldcrane]

His argument is that the constitution doesn't lay out very many responsibilities of the government, therefore they only do that limited amount, and are therefore small and not doing much, not needing many taxes, etc. etc.

[Kuya]

The concept of small government is therefore too rhetorical and misleading as it's more likely referring to smaller duties of government and not the size of it itself. However, i've never heard that the US was meant to function as a strictly constitutionalist entity.

[AoE]

Didn't Ross Perot poll almost evenly with George Bush and Bill Clinton in 1992?

[archibaldcrane]

In some polls he was ahead. But wait, don't bring him up, all the people that like to say that 3rd parties don't have a chance conveniently forget about him every single time the topic arises. Just back away slowly.

[Beckwin]

he got in the 20s I think; problem was he was running as his own party I think so no legacy going into the next election. I may be wrong though.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

This seems inaccurate. When one says less government intervention one usually understands less government regulation of economic activities, while what you're mentioning now sounds more like constitutionalism which does not mean that a government may intervene less; it only really proposes that a government follow a constitution to a more or less faithful manner in order to protect form the excesses of power.

Hmm, you asked me what I meant, I defined it, and now you seem to make a leap into why there's a contradiction somewhere. You didn't ask me what I thought was unjustified so I guess I should have said doing less means doing only what's justified under the constitution?

I think I know where you're going with the contradiction but I'm not sure.

Edit: Duties and size would seem to be strictly correlated Kuya.

[Kuya]

You're talking about constitutionalism; you can only speak in the context of constitution. Less government intervention is not the same as constitutionalism, you could believe in both, but they do not mean the same thing.

Now, do you think the US was meant to be constitutionalist?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're talking about constitutionalism; you can only speak in the context of constitution. Less government intervention is not the same as constitutionalism, you could believe in both, but they do not mean the same thing.

Right they don't mean the same thing, but in this specific instance they do. Constitutionalism could mean anything in a general sense, but not as it specifically relates to the U.S. constitution. Strictly obeying the U.S. constitution and small government are one in the same.

Meant to be? Yes.

[archibaldcrane]

he got in the 20s I think; problem was he was running as his own party I think so no legacy going into the next election. I may be wrong though.

Yeah...kinda wrong.

From Wikipedia:

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).

Even after dropping out and re-entering the race, he finished with an 18% popular vote, including a 2nd place finish in Utah.

Original source here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A964958260
He founded the Reform party in '95 and ran on it in '96, where he received 8% of the popular vote. However, the greatest lasting legacy of the Reform party was ex-Governor Ventura's successful campaign in Minnesota, and Perot didn't even support him.

[Kuya]

Right they don't mean the same thing, but in this specific instance they do. Constitutionalism could mean anything in a general sense, but not as it specifically relates to the U.S. constitution. Strictly obeying the U.S. constitution and small government are one in the same.

Meant to be? Yes.

What?

Also, why do you think it was meant to be constitutionalist and why do you think what it was meant to be has any relevance on what it should be?

Duties and size would seem to be strictly correlated Kuya.

Evidently, correlation is not the same as causality, as evidenced by your desire to increase the number of bodies in the legislative branch, and since it is nor causality nor does it mean the same thing, you can't speak of size so generally without specifying that you're referring to duties, because they do not mean the same thing in this context.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What?

What what?

You said less government intervention is not the same as constitutionalism. I said you're right if you're speaking a general sense. A constitution could say the government has the right to do whatever it wants. In that instance const. is not the same as less govt. intervention. Under the U.S. const. they are the same though.

ok

[Kuya]

Explain yourself. I think i get what you mean, but you're wording it wrong.