Undemocratic Democrats

[Biggles]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+15 August 2004 - 13:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 15 August 2004 - 13:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@15 August 2004 - 14:01
Nadar&#39;s party is seeing how many votes they get if they don&#39;t stand

That would be none, I could have told them that. [/b][/quote]
Probably you are right - although this electoral college system coupled with hanging chads could result in a final adjustment in the region of several hundred thousand.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles+15 August 2004 - 14:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 15 August 2004 - 14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@15 August 2004 - 13:04
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles

@15 August 2004 - 14:01
Nadar&#39;s party is seeing how many votes they get if they don&#39;t stand

That would be none, I could have told them that.

Probably you are right - although this electoral college system coupled with hanging chads could result in a final adjustment in the region of several hundred thousand. [/b][/quote]
Good point.

I suppose it is theoretically possible in the Ewe Essay to do rather well without actually standing.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@14 August 2004 - 19:03
There&#39;s always some idiot that will attempt to rationalize this UNDEMOCRATIC activity by pointing out some one else&#39;s UNDEMOCRATIC activities and that&#39;s bunk.

i take it from this that you agree that the republicans do undemocratic things.
"2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right" is what i see in this statement .....Well done for admitting the Republicans can be undemocratic


(apart from the idiot bit)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+15 August 2004 - 12:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 15 August 2004 - 12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-{SHELL%SHOCKED}@14 August 2004 - 19:03
There&#39;s always some idiot that will attempt to rationalize this UNDEMOCRATIC activity by pointing out some one else&#39;s UNDEMOCRATIC activities and that&#39;s bunk.

i take it from this that you agree that the republicans do undemocratic things.
"2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right" is what i see in this statement .....Well done for admitting the Republicans can be undemocratic


(apart from the idiot bit) [/b][/quote]
One would assume that the spirit of fairness would move you to clearly add the caveat that Democrats are guilty of similar doings. vid.

Shame on you for spinning by omission.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+15 August 2004 - 13:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 August 2004 - 13:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 12:32
<!--QuoteBegin-{SHELL%SHOCKED}

@14 August 2004 - 19:03
There&#39;s always some idiot that will attempt to rationalize this UNDEMOCRATIC activity by pointing out some one else&#39;s UNDEMOCRATIC activities and that&#39;s bunk.

i take it from this that you agree that the republicans do undemocratic things.
"2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right" is what i see in this statement .....Well done for admitting the Republicans can be undemocratic


(apart from the idiot bit)

One would assume that the spirit of fairness would move you to clearly add the caveat that Democrats are guilty of similar doings. vid.

Shame on you for spinning by omission. [/b][/quote]
Oh absolutely...i didn&#39;t try to say that the copy/paste part of his post was untrue..... but then you didn&#39;t raise the point until i turned it around...shame on you

gosh admitting to something like that must leave a lump in shocks throat

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 14:20
gosh admitting to something like that must leave a lump in shocks throat &nbsp;

Why would you say that?

He is as much a realist as anyone else here; everyone knows (or should know) what really goes on.

For example:

It hasn&#39;t been fully discussed (and I hope it is not, because to do so would be DUMB), but Jim McGreevey, having "resigned", says he will not be leaving office until November.

Now, political neophytes might be fooled into believing he&#39;s going to hang on "for the good of the people", but those of us in the know (I&#39;ll include you, unless you tell me otherwise) are aware of the blatant politics of the situation, and the fact McGreevey didn&#39;t mention the true "WHY" of the situation in his press conference indicates he wishes this bald intent not be noticed or commented upon.

Wouldn&#39;t you agree?

[vidcc]

it&#39;s one thing knowing something to be so...another admitting it B)

i agree that there is political games being played in NJ. by both sides. The same would happen if the situation were reversed. I do think there should be an election, but i feel it should take place at the same time as the presidential election...purely for cost and efficiency.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 14:43
it&#39;s one thing knowing something to be so...another admitting it B)

i agree that there is political games being played in NJ. by both sides. The same would happen if the situation were reversed. I do think there should be an election, but i feel it should take place at the same time as the presidential election...purely for cost and efficiency.

Then let him make an interim appointment now, and hold the election as you&#39;ve described.

[Darth Sushi]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@15 August 2004 - 13:50
However I do not have a clue what you just said. Once again revelling in my own ignorance.

Well, here&#39;s my short version: Nader is (or rather was) a member of the green party. The green party is ultra liberal in ideology. The green party can realistically grab 3% of the vote but grab it from the democratic party, which range from ultra to moderately liberal. Remember, the democrats lost the Presidential elections (particularly, The State of Florida) by a few votes (less than 1%). Losing that 3% in Florida cost Al Gore the elections. The green party now realized error of their ways so a semi-liberal candidate (currently Kerry) is now preferable over a conservative republican like Bush. Thus the green party is no longer supporting Nader. Nader, for some strange reason is trying to run as a independent (very late decision and very strange). Without the support of the green party, Nader cannot get on several state ballots (without the green party because he applied too late in many states), and will be lucky to grab 1% of the votes later this year. Yet both the green and democratic parties are afraid that 1% can have a repeat of the last elections. That&#39;s why there is a campaign to stop him (legally of course). The cry of &#39;undemocratic&#39; is simply the conservatives hoping for a repeat of the Florida results. Remember, Nader is or was an ultra-liberal so why would the GOP republicans try to protect Nader? (conservatives don&#39;t sleep with liberals let alone ultra-liberals). A few years ago, the republicans removed a party member (David Duke) who was a klu-klutz-klan leader (white supremacy group) during a presidential election. The green party is essentially trying to do the same thing by removing Nader, which is why I chuckle at the phrase &#39;undemocratic&#39; especially when both the democratic and republican parties have done similar things legally.

Conspiracy theorists believe Nader is being funded by Bush lovers hoping for a repeat of the last elections. Who knows?

[J'Pol]

Darth,

Thanks for that, I appreciate the obvious effort you put in.

What we are talking about then is, in essence tactical voting. Which has been an integral part of the democratic process for as long as it has existed. It makes absolute sense for the Green Party to realize that they prefer one outcome of the election to another and to factor this into their political decisions.

If they then chose to withdraw support from someone who could scupper their political ends that in my view is entirely democratic. Particularly if by doing so they see a positive benefit to their political agenda. For a group like the Green Party it must surely be the policies which are important, rather than the power to make them.

I fail to see the problem.