When is exactly the right time to have enough courage to end the staus quo

[Christ was Socialist]

I'm sick of people on hear bashing nader supporters. Even though I am not so far voting for him, people on here sound ridiculous. How many times have you heard "Now is not the time to think about third parties". Well when is? The best times of political change come from turmoil. Is the right time when everything is in your favor? then what motivation do you have to change the status quo? Weather you admit it or not most people on here are ultra conservative dems. Proof is look at the way everyone reacted to dean. "He can't win, he's too honest" no he was just too different. Same with Sharpton. The dems will center themselves into irrelevance soon. 60% of college students identify themselves as independant. The next generation won't follow the endless party line. The best example is the african american community, the vast majority of the ones i know chose to leave the party, in frustration with being ignored. And told that there were bigger concerns in 04, as the pparty elite tells the gays, and marijuna advocates, and every other minority. I noticed it seems to be a power lust with no rela plan for change. In fact it seems to be let's vote this way because we feel everyone else will. That is why Kerry is the nominee, and everyoen assumes Nader won't win. Democracy is in a terrible state, when individuals stop thinking for themselves. Even though i have many disagreements with nader supporters,at least they can break free of the party line, and vote for whom they want' which is the essence of democracy. And another point to illustrate how fucking stupid this country is. 70% of the people have there mind made up before the first debate, or even heard the issues. No wonder Castro doesn't want american democracy, his local form seems to work better,a nd 95% of the people vote versus are 49%-50%.

Here are other canidates:

So far as of May 3rd 2004

Green Party-On the ballot in 23 states
Shelia Bilyeu (G),
'02 CA Gov. nominee Peter Camejo (G),
'02 TX Att. Gen. nominee / attorney David Keith Cobb (G),
Paul Glover (G),
Jack Jackson (G),
Kent Mesplay (G),
'97 & '98 Congressional nominee / health care advocate Carol A. Miller (G),
author Christina "Chris" Rosetti (G),
'02 Congressional nominee / environmental activist Lorna Salzman (G),


Liberty Union Party(socialist party usa affiliate)
'02 Congressional nominee ex-St. Rep. / attorney Walter F. "Walt" Brown
1996 VT Gov. candidate Mary Alice Herbert


Peace and Freedom Party
Leonard Peltier,

Socialist Equality Party
reporter Bill Van Auken
'96 Congressional candidate James "Jim" Lawrence


Socialist Workers Party
Gov. nominee Martin Koppel
'02 Lt. Gov. nominee Arrin Hawkins

Working Families Party
Ralph nader

Workers World Party
still caucusing

[RoyGBiv]

1. A Little History

Question: What is the most successful "third party" of all time?

Answer: The Republican Party

Question: Why?

Answer:

The Republican Party was formed in the 1850's out of the remnants of the Whigs, whose only standard party principle was opposition to the Democratic Party, various other minor parties such as the so-called Know Nothings and the Free-Soilers, and disaffected elements of the Democrats, largely those who were deeply disturbed by their party's official abandonment in 1850-52 of the principles embodied in the Missouri Compromise.

In short, the party formed around a broad base with different interests but all united by a common element, opposition to the expansion of slavery. The party remained viable after the Civil War due to shifting coalitions of interests falling under its umbrella that had benefited from the destruction of slavery and the subjugation of the former Confederate states.

So, my answer would be that the time for backing a third party is when that third party is able to model itself on the only truly long-term successful alternate party in this nation's history. The Populists almost did it but beat themselves largely due to disagreements on matters of race. The so-called Reform Party in 1992 had a good start but picked a horrible leader and thus lost its momentum.

The Greens, I'm sorry to say, have no broad base. Their message is focused, but far too specific to provide a sound foundation for a major political party.

FWIW, I would heartily endorse a third party, if it were built around the elements I identified. Otherwise, I see the support of a third part as largely a symbolic, yet principled vote. That has its merits. However, I truly feel this election may well determine the fate of democracy in this nation. Any effort that takes away from the Democratic Party without also challenging the Republican Party will doom us to overall failure.

[Zinfandel]

2. Certainly not now. And the way this two party system oprerates...

maybe not anytime soon, (they indeed rely on each other)...I'm not thrilled by Kerry, I will vote for him as well...However, I do have the same thoughts as you...we've got to break this cycle...but as these true corporate fascist are so fucking threatening (not that we'll be able to rid ourselves of them in the future) I think we have to make a stand, (sometime soon I hope)...but "when", is a great question...Can it get worse?

And we must consider these are the same fucks, in this administration who go back to Reagan and Pappy (1979 and some as far back as Nixon)...will they ever die?

Do new ones just take their place, keep the INF, WTO, Rockefeller's and Rothschild's in total control and force us in to this bullshit two party system forever?

[GirlinContempt]

3. Wow...

I almost never hear about the US socialist parties... curious :\


Not being overly familiar with a two party system, it's hard for me to say... but I think a time of political turmoil should be a time of political change. In times of upheaval, people tend to become rutted. Either they look at their situation and see no real way out of it, because no new options present themselves, no new ideas are coming out, nothing is really changing (on that front) they become jaded. Or, they take on the notion 'This is the way it is, nothing can change, lets just keep going along'.
When things are at their worst is the time to introduce a party or group with a different stance, different members, different ideals. Theoretically, presenting another influence could jump start some political apathy.



Then again, the only thing thats going to jump start my political apathy is a real democracy.

[info being]

41. I don't think we'll get real change through Democracy

We have to take a different angle to win over hearts and minds first...and the votes will stem from that. A good place to start would be devising some sort of "system" whereby people could earn a good living and be taken care of by joining the movement.

The fact is...we Progressives are good at pointing out all the problems...but we're not too rich with real solutions and alternatives.

Here's a start: Yes, today's corporations are evil. So what alternatives we suggest for feeding a family? Address that in a meaningful way and we win over people's hearts and minds.

[GirlinContempt]

72. Well...

I have my answers.. I'm a pinko... I just keep them to myself unless directly asked, because people tend to attack... Well... and I try to turn the NDP back to its socialist roots from the inside....


REAL democracy can effect REAL change... I believe that, as much as I believe we have very little real democracy going on in the world.

[info being]

76. I sympathize with your cause.

My wife is from a former Communist country and a lot of the people were much better off under a Communist system (as bad as that system was and as much as it could have been improved upon). The tricky part about Communism would be balancing personal freedom, which I think is important. But then on issues such as polution, etc., there has to be a limit to freedom.

I can imagine some form of voluntary, cyber-communism where a community choose to live in a sort of virtual community and yet remain under the laws of their physical country.

[GirlinContempt]

82. Communism

IS personal freedom. At least, the communism I subscribe to.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Yawn.

>I'm sick of people on hear bashing nader supporters.

I'm sick of Nader supporters demanding to be treated as if their actions have no consequences for the rest of us.

>Even though I am not so far voting for him,
Not much of a supporter, then, are you?

>How many times have you heard "Now is not the time to think about third parties."

Too damn many.

>Well when is?

When we have a veto-proof majority in congress and the presidency and the supreme court. Then maybe we can cut y'all some slack. Until then we'll continue under the two party system that has more-or-less served this country since its inception(with a few notable, and short-lived exceptions)

>The best times of political change come from turmoil.

In other words, change comes from change. Yes. But turmoil doesn't necessarily produce *good* change. Turmoil can just as easily produce chaos. Chaos is bad. Bad bad bad.

>Weather you admit it or not most people on here are ultra conservative dems.

If you're gonna toss that bomb, I'd at least like to hear your definition of what an "ultra-conservative dem" is. I don't exactly hear a lot of people arguing against civil rights or abortion.

>(regarding Dean) "He can't win, he's too honest" no he was just too different.

I remember a few Dean *supporters* saying that. I remember a lot of people saying "He can't win, he's doesn't know when to shut his damn yap, or has the appreance of being insane, or the media hates him, or whatnot.

>the vast majority of (african-americans) i know chose to leave the party, in frustration with being ignored.

And a fat lot of damn good it's done them, eh?

>In fact it seems to be let's vote this way because we feel everyone
>else will. That is why Kerry is the nominee,

I believe people voted for Kerry because they thought he had the best chance of beating bush. So, yes, in a completely cynical light you could say that people chose to follow the crowd. In reality, they chose to go with who they thought was a winner. Remember, this is an election. The person who everybody votes for *wins*

>and everyoen assumes Nader won't win.

No, everyone *KNOWS* Nader won't win. I mean... Jesus kid.

>Even though i have many disagreements with nader supporters,at least
>they can break free of the party line, and vote for whom they want

And again, a lot of good it's done them. We are all suffering for their ideological purity.

>And another point to illustrate how fucking stupid this country is.
>70% of the people have there mind made up before the first debate, or
> even heard the issues

Then I assume you're keeping an open mind towards voting for Bush.

[noiretextatique]

5. the rest of us...

include nader supporters...and bush supporters. i'm really pissed at the latter.

[gpandas]

55. naderites and our stupid fucking country, way to go yibbe n/t

[Serenity-NOW]

6. Look you ninny what benefit did 3rd party receive as a result of

the 2000 election? Did it make 3rd party more or less appreciable? Are Nader's fans pleased with all the effort Bush has gone to to acknowledge their existence?

The proof is in the pudding. Drop the Kook-aid and try the pudding for a foul taste from your recipe. Sure wish you'd clue in to the real world one day.

[noiretextatique]

8. the republicans sure benefitted from stealing the election

while democrats are still whining about nader. who, exactly, are the ninnies?

[Serenity-NOW]

11. The ninny's are those that believe that voting third party right now is a

good idea. You can bash Dems as much as you like but until you do some introspection and dump this messiah complex you won't get no joy in the real world. Nobody ever said Kerry is the end all save all. We thinking folk also understand that if Bush has been something less than desirable now he will be a whole different animal as a lame duck prez with a perceived mandate.

Do you understand what that means to your intitiatives?

[noiretextatique]

15. listen....who anyone, except you, votes for is none of your business

but if you have extraordinary powers of persuasion, here are two groups i suggest use work on convincing:
1) the 11% of democrats who voted for bush in 2000, and who will likely vote for bush in 2004
2) republicans who voted for bush

there numbers far exceed the number of people who vote for 3rd party candidates.

you know nothing about me, so please stop assuming who i will vote for. the topic at hand is when is the best time to affect the kind of change that some of us desire. i don't think it is now...or ever for that matter, for a few simple reasons, e.g., people don't want, and don't see the need for the kind of change some of these parties are proposing.

[RapidCreek]

59. Nope the ninnys are the ninnys

Who ya gonna blaim if Bush cheats again? Ninnys are panty wastes who ain't got the balls to slap a cheating bully around...so they slap their little sister around instead.


RC

[Zinfandel]

13. A two party system? (and fuck Nader I'm not talking about 2000, Gore won)!

We know this...Have you forgotten? Have we all forgotten because the republican owned corporate media won't and doesn't bring it up? (Isn't it in your heart forever)?

Ask yourself are you really content with a two party system?

Is this the corner our "democracy" is forced into? Too sad if true.

Status Quo?

[noiretextatique]

7. do you think people here want real change?

they don't...for the most. the status quo is just fine...as long as they get the panacea of a D in the white house. and of course, with D's controlling the house and senate...you have: utopia. all problems solved, and no need to post on DU anymore. how much you wanna bet the membership here steeply declines if bush, inc doesn't steal the election and kerry wins?
the insane hatred of nader...given the fact that the republicans stole the election in broad daylight is telling. yet, you know what happpened here when the florida disenfranchisment became known? what's that you say...everyone was outraged?!?! hardly...
and the CBC's protest of the coup...surely die-hard democrats supported their courage? nope...can't afford to offend swing voters who vote for bush anyway.
if this is the base from which these third parties have to glean support...you can see why they aren't more successful.
i agree with you...the only hope of change is younger voters.

[Serenity-NOW]

10. Look this stupid messiah complex is so boring

You sound as if you expect to absolve yourself through a freaking politician. Won't happen but if you really want to try then run your candidates for local offices, then state. Make the message a bit more comprehensible to the mainstream and wowee perhaps you might have something like a shot at the whitehouse. Bashing Dems is just plain dumb since Dems are the more likely of the two parties to entertain your beliefs. Make sense?

Here it is again- local > State > Federal.

[noiretextatique]

12. i always vote for the least objectionable candidate...with the best chance

of winning, genius...and that still means democrats, for all national races. and as you may know...the green party is winning some local offices.
'bashing' is a term that is very overused here, btw, and i, for one, am sick of it. criticism is necessary when it is well-deserved.

democrats, for the most, are no more interested in change than republicans...two sides of the same coin. we have a moment when the differences are heightened, but as i said, if bush, inc doesn't steal the election...that moment will disappear as fast as will DU's membership numbers.

[Serenity-NOW]

18. You yammer on about status quo but neglect to recognize

that the 'status quo' of the previous administration was actually more inclined to discussion of the very real possibility a third party. Now you've got a real anomoly in politics since indeed a third party has gained control. Or do you really think these are your garden variety republicans?

I don't really get your point since it makes zero sense in light of the current surreality in governance. You should get on your knees and pray for the old status quo instead of your brass ring or trying to convince yourself that the Democratic party is anything like what we've got in office today. Wake the fuck up.

[noiretextatique]

21. thank you messiah...for telling me what i should be thankful

for :eyes: garden-variety or not...they do have people who actually support and vote for them. those people are the biggest threat to democrats...not nader, not me, and not the green party...or any third party.
i have already told you i will vote democratic...but if you want me to be grateful for the PATHETIC leadership that contributed to getting us to this point...you can forget it.
you can be grateful if you like...get on your knees and pray, knock yourself out.
but don't presume to tell me what i should be grateful for...EVER. that's arrogant...to say the least.
and in the future, you may want to stop sounding messianic, if you will be using that accusation against others.

[Serenity-NOW]

23. Who ever said you should be thankful?

You can be as miserable as you please for all I care, its still a free country for the most part. If you think pathetic leadership got this admni in office you need to do a wee bit of research on the 2000 election. No the wanker 3rd party didn't throw it, no it wasn't the piddling pussy Dems that voted puke, no it wasn't even the puke voters. It was Kathryn Harris and her voter scrub list.

So if you are pissed at the party of peace prosperity and progress and grateful for 3rd party candidates funded by pukes that's your right. And its my right to laugh in your face. But nobody ever told you to be grateful; I intoned that your psycho messiah complex makes the real world look inferior to what your fertile imagination can conjure. Since you clearly suffer from that I further suggested you might want to pray for the previous status quo that allowed for the possibility of dreamers like you, even if it did require actual work.

[noiretextatique]

26. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM?

democrats are not GODS...it's you who sound messianic. the 'party of peace and prosperity' is also the party of triangulation and the enablers of NAFTA and welfare reform, and the current mess we are entangled in with Iraq...are you too much of a cheerleader to acknowledge that or notice any of that? F&^% YOU if your expectations are so lowered that you accept whatever you get because it has a D behind it...and F%^% YOU, if you think i should.
i will vote for democrats...but i don't have to like them, not even if arrogant pricks on the internet think i should.
and yes...even god-like democrats make strategic errors, e.g., losing sight of the long-term goal because of the ego and arrogance of one man...who happened to be a sex addict.
at least we agree on the real culprits of the mess we are currently in...the bush cabal in florida and on the supreme court.

as to the rest...you sound just like the authoritarians you claim to be against. because i am not a cheerleader, i must not have a job...is that it, you hard-headed realist, and presumably, gainfully employed contributor to society?
:eyes: perhaps...you're just more like the opposition than you care to admit. now...kindly, fuck off.

[Serenity-NOW]

28. Dear dear. Struck a nerve eh? So sorry.

But just to dial you in, no I'm not employed. I started my own business after the chimp wiped out the best job I ever had.

Peace progress and prosperity isn't something I made up silly, its the party platform. But you knew that right?

And as usual you are mistaken about NAFTA, that was a Reagan/Bush baby that Clinton bought into then thought better of. Far as I'm concerned the worst thing Bill did was end the Fairness doctrine and that was a HUGE mistake. As far as cheerleading goes you are entitled to your personal opinion but in spite of the longstanding Democratic practice of tolerating diverse opinions I simply don't think now is the time to raise doubts. I'd love to see a strong third party, Green or Socialist, but it will take a Dem administration before that is a plausible option. I'd prefer Socialist but once the Greens get a chance to prove some ideas I'd be more willing to entertain them. Sweet dreams potty mouth.

[noiretextatique]

30. the doubts are not just being raised...they exist

and the platform notwithstanding, it wasn't just republicans who supported the war on iraq. as i recall, some members of the peace and prosperity party did as well. i have some criticisms of clinton, but overall...he WAS a god compared to what we have now. and i think, a decent human being...unlike the current occupant of the white house.
as to proving ideas...if you recall what happened with clinton's healthcare proposal, you know very well the challenges. and frankly, i don't agree with nader's belief that things will have to get much worse before people wake up. the extent of the brainwashing is far greater than hard times will cure. but...maube he has a point. it seems some republicans are waking up.
i suggest you deal with your own potty mouth. you don't have to use profanity to be insulting.
peace to you.

[info being]

37. I'm on your side

That's all I wanted to say.

[bigbillhaywood]

103. Me too. n/t

[sandnsea]

9. It's not time for selfishness

That's the real problem. Selfishness.

Voting for Nader because he's for legalizing marijuana.
Voting for Nader because he's for IRV.
Voting for Nader because he's for free music downloading.

Or maybe, vote for Nader because he promises "free" health care for all. Which isn't free, it's going to cost a percentage of a paycheck, just like SSI.

Or maybe, vote for Nader because he's going to pull us out of NAFTA. Which doesn't address what will happen to third world nations who won't have any possibility to benefit from trade improvements for THEIR economies.

A whole bunch of short-sighted, selfish reasons to vote for Nader.

And a whole lot of promises with absolutely NO answers to the difficulty or near impossibility of implementing those promises, OR what the consequences of those promises might be.

Empty promises and no accountability from a guy who is just feeding people's egos to get votes. Sounds familiar.

[Kanary]

14. What's your problem with SSI?

[sandnsea]

17. None..

Not even my point. It's just that I always hear people talk about "free" health care, and it's not going to be FREE. We'll have to pay for it, with a tax just like SSI. That's all.

[Kanary]

20. As the saying goes........

"We're already paying for it, we're just not getting it"

When you had "SSI" in a post with "selfishness", it begged the question........

Kanary

[noiretextatique]

22. ain't THAT the bitch...

well...i'm off to bed before i bust a cap is someone's ass.

[sandnsea]

25. Because I dare say Nader isn't God?

That he's a self-serving asshat who hasn't been held accountable to actually account fully for one single thing he's proposing? What kind of change is that? Promising the moon while not having to be accountable for anything you say because you know you'll never get into office anyway. It's flat out bullshit, that's what it is. Whether Bush or Kerry is in the picture or not.

[noiretextatique]

27. the topic of this thread, since you clearly missed it: is not nader

:eyes: and i was talking about the freak who is stalking me above...not you. curiously, it believes democrats are gods...perhaps this is a part of the dilemma the discussed in the original post.

[sandnsea]

44. Really??

"I'm sick of people on hear bashing nader supporters."

Part of the dilemma is that Third Party candidates are never held to the level of accountabiity for their "solutions" as Democratic or Republican candidates. So they can say anything they want to appeal to the tiniest margin of voters. They're not trying to actually win the Presidency, so they don't even have to worry about the broad views of Americans overall. And people who don't take that into consideration and vote on a couple of pet issues are selfish and short-sighted.

[noiretextatique]

101. you know...that's UTTER NONSENSE

you write:
Part of the dilemma is that Third Party candidates are never held to the level of accountabiity for their "solutions" as Democratic or Republican candidates

it's unbelievable that you would write something this after living through the media's coverage of the bush campaign and presidency. since WHEN has he been held accountable...FOR ANYTHING?

the media didn't touch the AWOL story during the campaign (that didn't surface until recently), noe did they really pursue the DUI story at the end of the campaign.

you know...being so anti-nader puts many of you in the unenviable, and inexcusable position of excusing republicans...as you do in the statement you make. accountability...and republicans? the republicans who disenfranchised voters in florida? one of them was re-elected governor and the other was elected to the house. the republicans of the supreme court? please tell me who they have been held accountable for their bogus/treasonous decision...the one that dienfranchised every voter in the country?

finally...
please tell what bush, inc has been held accountable for...and by whom?

republicans and accountability....what fucking JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RapidCreek]

93. How old are you?

I'm guessing between 17 and 25.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Nader instigated reform in everything from water pollution to nursing home abuse.

His work is largely credited for the development of:

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Consumer Product Safety Act
Freedom of Information Act


He was the only major witness last summer to testify before Congress in opposition to the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court, saying Breyer's opinions showed a pro-business, anti- consumer bent. He has vigorously opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), maintaining they will undercut environmental and minimum wage standards in the United States.

You might also be surprised to know that you have Mr. Nader largely yo thank for airbags and seatbelts in your automobile.


RC

[sandnsea]

24. And accountability

And people who lead others to believe they're going to get "free" health care aren't being accountable to the truth and are being selfish and self-serving by saying it. And those who demand "free" health care at the expense of everything else we're facing, are being selfish and self-serving as well. And SSI was nothing more than an example of the type of tax it will take to pay for the "free" health care. Hence the word "like". Which shouldn't have begged a question at all.

[info being]

64. Nobody is saying "free" healthcare except you.

I know, I know...you took Econ 101. Shit, so did most of us. The point about Single-Payer healthcare is that everyone is covered and costs are kept in check. Of course that comes with a price. Some of us are willing to pay a little to make sure poor children in this country get a basic level of healthcare.

[sandnsea]

70. I see it all the time

"Why can't America have free health care like the rest of the world?" It isn't free and it isn't about the children. Most of the country is reaching 95% coverage of children because of SCHIP. The biggest problem now is adults. Disabled, unemployed, low-income adults. You think you try to pass single-payer and that fact won't be hammered away at every single day? Do you not understand that most Americans really don't want to pay for somebody else's health care? We tried to pass it in Oregon, OREGON, and 60% voted no. So how is Ralph going to get it through? If he can't, it's empty promises and he ought to have the guts to say so. No accountability. The luxury of running for President when you don't actually have to have your plans scrutinized.

[info being]

73. So I should change my beliefs because the country disagrees?

All I'm doing is saying that I support it. When more of us to that then maybe it will happen. It isn't that complicated.

[sandnsea]

79. Be accountable

Answer the criticisms of the plan. It's just not enough to say "I support single-payer". A legitimate Presidential candidate has to consider all the consequences of his proposals and provide answers to criticisms. A legitimate Presidential candidate has to consider the country as a whole. He's supposed to represent the WHOLE country, not just a small percentage. Is it responsible for a President to demand single-payer and forfeit the opportunity to get health care to ALL children and more uninsured adults? Is that responsible? The greater good, isn't the President's job to consider the greater good?

[info being]

83. I think you're trolling

Kucinich has laid out EXACTLY how the plan would work. I've done so repeatadly in this thread, and you pretend there's no plan?

[sandnsea]

85. Trolling, huh?

Been called worse. I know Dennis has said alot of things. But he's alot like Ralph Nader. He doesn't have to really be accountable either because he knows full well his plans won't be implemented.

UN in, US out. Love that one. No UN troops to PUT in, but he calls that a plan. Just like he called for inspections back in the summer of 2002, but never explained exactly how he was going to get those inspectors into Iraq.

No accountabiity.

[info being]

87. He was never given an honest chance to explain.

Because his plans go against the whims of powerful corporations.

Oh, and I think the UN would step in IF the US would get out and give up control.

[sandnsea]

91. Explain

How? With what troops? How would the UN accomplish this?

[noiretextatique]

31. if someone were to vote for nader because they thought he was the

best candidate in the race...would you consider that selfish also? and...will anyone vote for kerry for selfish reasons? i won't ask about bush...we know that answer.

[GirlinContempt]

34. NAFTA and the third World?

The only country that could be classified as 'third world' is Mexico, and I'd hardly call them a third world nation.

"Though the encouragement of exportation and the discouragement of importation are the two great engines by which the mercantile system proposes to enrich every country, yet with regard to some particular commodities it seems to follow an opposite plan: to discourage exportation and to encourage importation. Its ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by the advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture, and of the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations in all foreign markets; and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities."

-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter VIII (Everyman's Library, Sixth Printing, 1991), p.577


Straight from the capitalists mouth... 'Free' trade benefits the US. Period. You want a good way to keep a country poor? Sign 'Free Trade' agreements with them, pay their workers shit, sue them if you think they're trying to hamper you in ANY way (especially environmentally), and STILL create import barriers much like hoops for them to jump through.

[sandnsea]

40. "trade improvements"

Which is why I specifically said that. And NAFTA was just an example of the variety of trade agreements we have around the world. What's your solution? Just give aid to starving people and let them continue living in refugee camps with the worst living conditions possible?

[GirlinContempt]

46. Nice false dichotomy!

Try a fair trade system!

Radically different FTAA proposals are needed if developing countries are to be enabled to protect and promote their interests, and encourage sustainable development and poverty reduction.
Differential treatment in agriculture must include the right to protect producers by raising tariffs and increasing internal support.
Countries must have the right to regulate transnationals.
To promote fair agricultural trade, dumping by rich countries must be ended and market access for developing countries must be improved.

Regulating foreign investment to promote national development must include:

linking export sectors and local economies
developing local production capacities
promoting international labour and environmental standards
exempting basic services from privatisation
limiting speculative and short-term investment
limiting foreign investors’ ability to bypass host-country legal systems.

IP rules guaranteeing public welfare must include:

promoting TRIPS reforms and implementation of the Doha Declaration
prohibiting patenting of genetic plant resources.

[info being]

51. And they say we don't have solutions

Laughable.

[GirlinContempt]

52. The number of solutions are uncountable

The numbers so vast :P

[sandnsea]

58. Jordan Trade Agreement?

Is that fair?

[GirlinContempt]

62. The ONLY difference

in the Jordan agreement is that they wrote in workers rights, which can be taken out, or rewritten by congress. So, no, it isn't fair. All of the other problems with 'Free' trade still exist, barring this one. And that can be amended at any time. And, based just on the fact that this IS the first trade agreement including workers rights, how hard do you think they're going to work to uphold them?
How much pressure will the U.S. Trade Representative put on the government of Jordan to improve their laws and enforcement? Will the interest and energy shown for improving intellectual property rights apply to labor standards? There are difficulties in securing the rights of workers that do not arise in trading goods between nations. Human rights are not checked at the border by customs officials. Information on violations is often scarce and building a convincing case takes considerable time and resources.


But yes, I'll give you the workers laws. Just not the 'fairness'.

[sandnsea]

66. Not true

Environmental legislation is in it too. Is Bush going to work to uphold them? We know the answer to that.

Would Nader be able to take office and instantaneously cut off trade with every country that doesn't do things the way he says he thinks they should be done? What would happen to the global economy? How many MORE people would suffer if he did that? If the reality is that he can't do it, what's the point of voting for him?

Would Kerry work hard to uphold them? Well, he's attended every environmental summit that's been held for the last 20 years. He's fought to have environmental legislation included in every trade agreement, although Congress hasn't been on his side. He supports unions and worker's rights. He's been on most of the commissions that have investigated and exposed human rights abuses around the world, particularly those involving the U.S. Like Central America, Cambodia, the Philippines and others. Why would he suddenly just stop?

Bush, who won't do anything. Nader, who can't do what he pretends he can. Or Kerry, who has already proven that he figures out a way to make things happen. Like the Jordan Trade Agreement, which he clearly would enforce.

[GirlinContempt]

69. Environmental leg.

has been in other agreements... And it's bullshit. I don't support Nader, or Bush, or Kerry. I hope Kerry is the god of environmental and worker issues you claim he is, and gets elected, and does these things. I, however, KNOW that with the WTO, world bank, etc behind trade agreements, free trade will reign and fair trade will continue to be confined to little collectives distributing coffee and fruit to 100 or so people. I wasn't attacking Kerry's stance on trade, or supporting Nader's, I was responding to your assumption that this free trade holds up the world market and without it third world nations would be destitute and starved. Because it's crap, and the poor destitute are being pushed further into poverty with trade agreements such as this.

[sandnsea]

75. Which way do we go?

As a world. Do we go forward, and try to lift the living standards around the world, lift people up? Or, do we let things stay as they have for thousands of years? It started with the Peace Corps. Was that a good idea?

What we're doing now is horrific. But I don't think this was ever the intention of Clinton or any Democrats that passed these agreements. I think they hoped to use them as building blocks to improve everyone's lot in life around the world. Building blocks that could be used to encourage human rights and environmental changes in the future. We all go up together.

Just like I think if Al Gore were in office, we wouldn't be missing those technology and manufacturing jobs that went offshore. Because he would have set us on a path of developing the energy and medical technologies of the future. IT skills would have been transferable and we would have been manufacturing new energy products, etc. I think Clinton had a long-term plan and Bush fucked it up royally.

It's a mess, but I don't think going backwards is an option. And I see the pull out of the WTO mantra as just that. The rest of the world going backwards. Not that I'm pleased with the WTO as it stands. We have to work to change this stuff and move forward. Not stop it all in its tracks.

And yes, I think Kerry is the logical choice to do just that.

[GirlinContempt]

80. Ri...giht

I don't understand the concept of building something great on something smutty. Of denying human rights in favour of corporate rights. How do you build from there? Where was Clinton going with that? "Oh, well, if I first fuck some countries over royally, it'll be easier to set up fair trading in the future"? The kind of long term plan that seems more likely is "If we make things REALLY shitty now, in the future when we amend them to be LESS shitty people will be pacified and we can still walk all over whomever we please in the same manner we've done for years upon years"

The way I see it, corporations benefit from Free Trade as it is. The WTO and the G8 governments benefit from corporations. Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improvement, at least not the kind of improvement I mean.

Call me cynical, I just don't believe one president can undo the work of generations of backstabbers who've set things up to benefit his country.

[sandnsea]

84. Where do you want to go?

Because so far I've seen leave them to living the way they have for thousands of years. Huts, dirty rivers, disease, poverty. Leave countries cut off from the world, like NKorea? Or start working to bring them into the world, like Vietnam? Even if it's not perfect.

And I agree with you 100% about our corporations abusing people in other countries. It's disgusting. I've also seen people bash Wal-Mart and praise Target. You know what? I was in Target last weekend. I honestly don't shop much, I'd just as soon run across a nice top at Salvy's as go spend money for crap at these places. Anyway, I took a stroll through the clothing section. ALL of it, every single piece, was from a third world country. So much for Target and activism.

Overall, I'm just saying that there's alot of things to be considered in this election and all the problems the world faces. It's all intertwined and I don't see the kind of simplistic slogans thrown around as being workable solutions. Like I've said, it's easy for a Ralph Nader to say any old thing he wants when he knows he doesn't have to really implement any of it. He's not accountable. And it's esay to get on that bandwagon and rant against everything as evil when you don't personally have to suffer the consequences. And the consequences third world countries will suffer from 4 more years of George Bush is considerably more than what we'll have to suffer.

[GirlinContempt]

86. I gave you workable solutions to Free Trade

You brought up free trade. I responded to that. And I'm not backing any candidate, or expressing distain for Kerry.

[info being]

49. No, hear's a solution:

Get the World Bank and the WTO out of policy. Let people in "3rd world countries" make a living how they did for the thousands of years before the rich and powerful started fucking with things. Stop privatizing natural resources and let the locals mine / harvest it to earn a living. Stop flooding their markets with subsidized food so that local farmers can't make a living. Stop creating conditions that force people into crowded cities and hellish sweat-shops...which of course is the end-game of these policies to begin with.

If you think these institutions are designed to help the 3rd world...you might want to read "When Corporations Rule the Word", a classic by David C. Korton. Your opinions are based on false assumptions.

[GirlinContempt]

50. Exactly

.

[sandnsea]

57. Leave them in huts, good plan

"Let people in "3rd world countries" make a living how they did for the thousands of years before the rich and powerful started fucking with things."

You ready to head off to Africa and live in a hut and eat rice and fish heads for the rest of your life?

[info being]

61. I'm not an African. But I bet that's a happier life than...

working 20 hour days in a sweat shop. Part of the reason American's can't solve 3rd World problems is that we are too ethnocentric. You're a shining example.

[sandnsea]

68. Go baby!!

Hey, you don't even have to go to a third world nation. There's lots of deserts in the U.S. where you can put your plan into action!

I'm ethnocentric? Ha. I refuse to accept a world where people are left in poverty while convincing myself I'm doing good by sending a $20 Americare check. Uhuh. We wouldn't do it in this country and I'll be damned if I buy into abunch of anti-American bullshit that says we can't possibly ever do good so best to leave people to fend for themselves. Total and complete crap.

[Christ was Socialist]

102. Even people here are worshippers of capitalism

dont they realise low prices means slave labor

[info being]

38. You've done an excellent job...

pointing out why I'm very reluctant to call myself a Dem. Those are all issues that are of the highest importance to me.

[sandnsea]

42. Exactly

Smoking pot, downloading free music and IRV. Gotta' have those are the world will surely go to hell. :eyes:

And gotta' have that free health care, even though it's not going to be free and Nader is never asked how in the world he's going to manage to convince a majority of Americans to support it. And gotta' end those trade agreements, no matter what it does to people in third world countries. Just like we gotta' pull out of Iraq. And if hundreds of thousands Iraqis are killed in a civil war, oh well, at least it won't be our troops.

Selfish, self-serving and short-sighted.

[info being]

43. We just want Freedom and Justice. We just want what's right.

Sorry if that strikes you as selfish. Not all of us are willing to sacrifice everything to the Corporate Gods.

[sandnsea]

45. Oh how simple it all is

Freedom and Justice and what's right. No solutions. No accountabilty. Just a happy little campaign slogan. Good grief.

[info being]

47. It is that simple.

If a plan / solution gets us closer to what's right for the people, then it is right. Its called Populism or Progressivism.

You say "no solutions" (whatever you mean by that)...I have a handful of "solutions" posted in my signature lines. You're the one telling us how we *can't* have solutions...and then you're somehow packaging that up as a solution?

[sandnsea]

53. Accountabilty

Progressive issues Kerry needs to address: single-payer healthcare, getting us out of Iraq, promising no more illegal and aggressive wars, repealing the Patriot Act, ending the WTO's grip on power, cut military spending to improve social programs, fighting media consolidation.

How are we going to pay for single-payer, how do you convince Americans to accept it, how do you get it passed, what's the consequences on our economy when 18% of GDP is health care, what's the consequences on world health since we create a good portion of the world's new medicines and treatments.

What's the acceptable level of death in Iraq if it breaks out into civil war because nobody is there to keep the peace? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? How long do we let the people suffer under those conditions? 40 years, like we did in Afghanistan? If we were wrong to abandon Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out, why are we not wrong to abandon Iraq?

How many 9/11's are acceptable to you if we have no means of tracking and arresting terrorists?

I mean, come on, ACCOUNTABILITY.

[info being]

60. Answers

Single-payer: simple, eliminate waste and eliminate profit. Establish a "single-payer" (which basically means, a "national insurance" plan to spread the cost of healthcare across all citizens). This centralized national insurance plan will be able to negotiate / regulate lower prices than we see today, and simplify the payment process. Of course, if you want better healthcare that goes beyond the minimum, guaranteed level, you buy it on your own. You might want to spend time on Kucinich.us for more detail.

By the way, you need to educate yourself about how the health care system works. "Single Payer" has nothing to do with drug companies...they'd remain private and would be free to market their drugs around the world like they do now.

The 9/11 argument is way too fluffy...but I contend that when we stop fucking with the middle east like we are today, we'll have fewer enemies and fewer 9/11's (assuming the NeoCons weren't behind 9/11). We probably should abandon Iraq. The international community will do what's right to minimize the damage...but how long should we stay there murdering innocent Iraqis who just want freedom?

Accountability to whom?

[sandnsea]

71. Accountability

What's health care without medication???? Jeebus. No accountability.

Stop fucking with the ME? Good idea. Should we have helped get Iraq out of Kuwait? Because that's sort of when the current fucking started.

Accountability. To the facts. To the truth. To the consequences of all the grand schemes.

[info being]

77. Are you really that slow?

OK...very simple: a "single payer" is like what we call today an "insurance company." The insurance company does not make the drugs, they "buy" them. They also "pay" for healthcare services (that's why they are commonly called "Payers"). The function of a payer is to spread the risk out amoung a group of people. A government-funded Payer would do the same thing.

Drug companies and health care "providers" (hospitals) would be unaffected...other than their profit levels might go down a little.

[info being]

78. We should not have told Iraq to invade Kuwait

See, that's the problem with getting all your information from the mainstream news. You are being rational...but your opinions are all based on a false set of assumptions.

[sandnsea]

81. Told them???

That's an extreme interpretation of what MIGHT have happened. Nobody has ever reported anywhere that we TOLD Iraq to invade Kuwait. I think the quote was something along the lines of "We don't get involved in border disputes." Which, by the way, Saddam didn't HAVE to interpret as permission to invade Kuwait. So I take it you were against military action on behalf of Kuwait.

What about Rwanda? Were we right to ignore that situation?

[info being]

88. If Bush 1 had said....

"No. If you invade we will crush you." They wouldn't have invaded Kuwait.

[sandnsea]

90. Oh good lord

He said, "Get out or we will crush you", and Saddam didn't. Get a freakin' clue.

By the way, I didn't support that military action either. I think we should have done more diplomatically instead of blustering and bullying from the gate too. Doesn't mean it would have ended any differently.

[Guava Jelly]

16. voting nader will ensure the status quo

the status quo of the last 4 years.

Do america and our world a favor

Pinch your fuc_en nose close your eyes and vote for Kerry..Or cast a protest vote and teach us all by not fighting Bush and the republicans.
And not adding your power to the ONLY CHANCE WE HAVE OF DUMPING THE MONKEY KING!!!
to quote bush "you are either with us or you are against us"

Help a Brother out ..help Brother bush back to crawford and Brother Kerry to the white house.

Or watch 4 more years of preemptive stupidity by julius Bushler.
Watch the world hate us more
watch the supreme court be controlled by the neoCons.
we dont want this do we?

[noiretextatique]

19. gore won in 2000...with nader in the race

and all the other third party candidates. i am encouraged by the fact that some republicans seem to be waking up, as they should be. and hopefully, we will be better prepared with more than "i strongly disagree" when they attempt to steal the election in november.

[Christ was Socialist]

29. So what are the important issues?

I mean so far i've established what the dems here consider selfish

Healthcare
Medical marijuana
conservation
affirmative action
public school funding
Gay marriage

Well I got news for you, if this is the believe of the party nader just got a few million votes for those who care about the country,

[noiretextatique]

32. as far as i can tell...there is one important issue

to vote democratic...and to do so with messianic fervor. it's not enough to just vote against bush...we must also be lemming-like in support of the democratic party.
so...does that answer your original question? why yes...it does.

[sandnsea]

48. Not destroying the world

For starters. That is the most important issue for me. Getting a President who is going to treat the world with respect and create an atmosphere of mutual cooperation for the benefit of ALL people. Raising living standards, health standards, environmental standards; keeping US from destroying everything. Does Ralph really have a solution that's going to HELP people around the world? Not temporary aid, but long-term solutions?

And here at home? How is Ralph going to get his "free" health care passed? Or his "free" education for all? Or whatever the hell he's peddling.

Everybody cares about health care, the environment, education and equality. Democrats actually have to consider ALL the affects of any given policy; on local economies, tax bases, community social structures, ALL of it. They actually have to explain how they're going to pay for things. They actually have to answer criticisms on their plans, from the left and the right. They don't have the luxury of just spouting off any grand scheme they want because they have to answer to America as a whole for anything they say or do.

It's great to be five years old and say, "Mommy, just write a check for my candy"; and not have to worry about how the money gets into the bank or what is being sacrificed to write that check or that it's the 5th bag of candy the kid has had this week.

Hold Nader to the same level of accountability that Democratic Presidential candidates are held, and see how well his "plans" come off.

[info being]

54. Now you're on to something. Let me ask:

Please explain exactly how Kerry is going to "not destroy the world." I'm serious, if you can lay out that argument I'm sure a lot of us are all ears.

Here's a suggestion: drop the condescending, propagandistic language like "free" and "peddling". Newsflash...the rest of the industrialized world believes its a responsibility of all of us to guarantee a minimal level of healthcare for all...at least children for christ's sake. And I'm not sure how I can take someone seriously who is so condescending about the value of human life.

[sandnsea]

63. Our choices

Bush, who has already clearly implemented a plan to militarily "spread democracy" and clearly has no interest in doing anything to enforce anything resembling fairness in our trade agreements. Let's call that "Plan A".

Kerry, who has clearly stated we have to respect other countries and cultures and work together. Called for a summit of all world religious leaders to create more understanding around the world. Has criticized the pullout of Kyoto and other international treaties. Supports the landmine bans, nuclear freeze treaties, and all the rest of it. Has consistently worked to get his own environmental legislation in trade agreements and supported human and labor rights in them as well. Has worked for AIDS assistance around the world. Wrote a child health care plan that was incorporated into SCHIP. Has actually DONE something about all of the things the far left claims to care about.

But because he sees that change happens in steps, not radical leaps, he's just no good at all.

Sorry, but I find people who are willing to let the whole planet suffer because their grandiose ideas aren't being catered to, selfish and short-sighted.

[info being]

65. Thanks. That's good stuff.

I do like that aspect of Kerry. Thanks.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. I didn't read the whole rant but...

The best weapon against the status quo will come from criminal investigations and civil actions. If wealthy, well-connected individuals aren't held accountable for the way they abuse the system, they will continue their unethical/criminal behavior. And believe me, it becomes a chuckle over cocktails about how they screwed over people like us.

Where Nadar fails is that he has moved away from where he was the strongest -- leading the advocacy groups that demanded criminal investigations and civil actions. Politics is not his forte. He was always best as a watchdog -- as the thorn in the side of politicians. That's the role we need him to play again.

[info being]

35. I went to a District caucus in WA this weekend...

and came home and tore up my Democratic Party membership card. This is a Party run by Conservative geezers. I learned at the event that these geezers-in-charge actually shut out younger volunteers so they can keep things in "order". There were a lot of complaints being voiced...and with good reason:

The event moved at a pace that was suitable for 80 year olds. We had to wait 3 hours, on a beautiful Saturday, just to count votes. It was an ALL DAY event.

But worse than all this was the condecending tone of the people in charge. This is a party in trouble. Shit, look who this party nominated. A great choice for seniors.

Yes I'll probably vote for Kerry, by the way.

[Missy Vixen]

67. Wondering if you

were at the 45th District Democrats caucus this weekend...

>The event moved at a pace that was suitable for 80 year olds. We had to wait 3 hours, on a beautiful Saturday, just to count votes. It was an ALL DAY event.<

How many people were there? Our caucus had over 1000 delegates present. It takes awhile to count those votes. (It also took quite some time to identify whether or not delegates were present; several didn't bother to sign in as being there. It also seems people weren't paying attention to the repeated requests by organizers to identify themselves, which took even longer.) Would you rather have them counted accurately, or someone who's more interested in "just good enough"?

BTW, I've been waiting three and a half years for Bush to be out of office. It won't kill me to spend a Saturday afternoon working on it.

>But worse than all this was the condecending tone of the people in charge.<

Again, I don't know if you were at the same caucus that I was, but I am curious to hear what you found "condescending".

Julie

[info being]

74. I was at the 41st District.

There werew about 600 people. The chair person was very condescending and wouldn't let anyone speak. I was there to Caucus for Kucinich...when we didn't get our 15% I just left. There really wasn't much value for me to add.

I just don't think that is the best system. I want to be active, but we aren't doing much good sitting an an auditorium waiting all day.

My larger concern was that 3 people brought up the fact that they tried to volunteer and nobody got back to them. It was obvious that it was an insiders club and those insiders were all seniors.

[seabeyond]

36. from what i see the perfect time

is after this election and taking the next four years to build the grassroot and get it going. you know this half ass coming into the scheme of things, with no ads, no intent to battle just easy sipher off enough votes to sway an election is no grand prize of a third party

what i would like to see is get kerry going, and then getting a grassroot thru internet and someone like yup....dean heading it. and seeing what that creates.

i am not for nadar, didnt know much about him and wasnt impressed and watching him last couple months even less impressed. i feel he is in hypocrisy and not integrity and that he really doesnt have higher intent to make this a grander nation, just using it

would like for a third party to seriously be created, adn that means putting in the work, not a last minute jump in the race. what is that

[info being]

39. I agree. I even went to watch Nader speak recently.

I agree with everything he says, and I wasn't impressed. This is not the way we will create real change. We have to somehow elect Kerry and then all jump ship to start a new party to compete in 2008.

[seabeyond]

56. why i like the idea of dean

he is pro not taking away guns, he is pro fiscal responsibility and then liberal leaning views. i dont want to see a party created where it is a jump ship of one party. i want to see the third party take some from both, then we have a more viable choice of candidate.

if it is just one party breaking up, then again we are to a one party country

then if like say a fundie kkk party is created and takes some repug votes, and a green party for the extreme left..........

then we would have more choice, it would be fewer votes for any given party to be elected

interesting to see what we create

[corporatewhore]

89. Dont bother waiting around for leaders to try to change the status quo

the prez will always be owned by corps . I think progressives/lefties/radicals whether they want to vote dem or not should spend more time to civil disobedience direct action and organizing than on Prez campaigns just my .02

[GirlinContempt]

92. Yes

.

[bigbillhaywood]

95. Props to corporatewhore and GirlinContempt for telling it like it is

Flex your economic muscle and the political power will follow.

[GirlinContempt]

98. If it comes right down to it

Flex your muscle, period.



I hope it never does.

[bigbillhaywood]

99. Well, I've got no problem with armed revolt, but given that the

military, police and Feds have access to much better hardware than ordinary citizens, I think a general strike would be more effective. Imagine this scenario: 20 million workers launch sit-down strikes in all the major industries, occupy the workplaces, defend with small arms if necessary. After the capitalists are brought to their knees, workers organize to resume production on their own. Not saying it will happen, but it nearly did in the 30s.

If the sit-downs and other strikes that occured back then had been more closely coordinated, and organized labor had not been willing to take the handjob deals of the Wagner Act and New Deal, we could have had a revolution. Of course, maybe it was for the best, as the CP was pretty powerful back then and the revolution easily could have turned into a Soviet-style nightmare.

[GirlinContempt]

100. A revolution

With enough organization and education behind it could work. If needed, and desperate.


Sit down strikes can be great too... and very effective if you can get enough of the people behind them. I was just refering to last ditch efforts :)

Sorry for the disjointed reply... cooking dinner & distracted

[bigbillhaywood]

94. I think now is the time to build a third party, but not necessarily the

time to vote for a third-party candidate for President. I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I think it's foolish for progressives and working people in general to put their faith in a Democratic Party that is beholden to the corporations. On the other hand, the Repubs are nastier than the Dems, and they are seeking permanent one-party control, and they're getting pretty close to it. As bad as things are now, can you imagine how bad they'll be if they get it? You're right that great change comes from time of crisis, but the technology available to the gov't and corporations exceeds that of yesteryear, and so does the level of social control.

My idea:

1. The AFL-CIO and its consituent unions need to start building the Labor Party, dump lots of resources into it. In my opinion, the Labor Party should take a strong stand in favor of social (not economic)libertarianism (civil rights/liberties including the 2nd amendment). They should also take a strong stand on lowering taxes for the working class, and raising them on the rich. These issues increase chances of defection from the working-class libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Abortion rights and gay rights should be among the civil rights advocated by the party, but they should not fall into the Republican trap of making these wedge issues the center of their platform. Keep people focused on their pocketbooks.

2. Start running candidates on a local level. You could start with school boards, municipal gov't.

3. When the time is right, start launching national candidates. Then the Dems will be forced into the same predicament they have been throughout history-- co-opt the third-party's agenda or risk demise.

[Christ was Socialist]

105. The greens are doing ok at the local level

but only in college towns. Me i think they (3rd parties) should go national soon as possible, so all 50 states can have a chance to be free and see a canidate not beholden to intrests.

[West Coast Democrat]

96. Hold On! A moment ago you said you knew 100 ex-Bush* supporters...

who were unhappy with Kerry. Now you claim to be a Naderite. What gives?

[bigbillhaywood]

97. Nader is WFP's man? Funny, they normally support Dems. n/t

[Christ was Socialist]

104. they endoresed him this tiome around<nt>