Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dvdw© who wrote (340578)	1/8/2003 11:12:52 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I am not a Libertarian. It is a party of loonies. I think the "stay out of my face, get out of my life" part of the libertarian message resonates with the non voting public that elected Ventura and represent a big wild card in future elections.

To: dvdw© who wrote (340578)	1/8/2003 11:44:53 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

...willing to shoot themselves in the foot over stupid things like drugs, which I consider to be an issue not worth framing A 65 year-old program with a $20B annual budget might be worth at least a small debate.

To: dvdw© who wrote (340578)	1/8/2003 11:50:54 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I believe that the main reason (in the 20th. century, as opposed to the 19th. century) it has been so hard for new political parties, and new ideas to emerge... is because the twin dominant parties have gotten a stranglehold on the political process, and through exclusionary regulations they keep alternatives from getting a 'fair shake'. Like any other 'professional organization', be it trade union, cartel, or what-have-you... once a degree of oligopolic control is achieved, one of the primary motivations of the organization is to 'protect the bureaucracy' by establishing barriers to entry. The political parties (a development not expected by our founding fathers) have used two main exclusionary tactics: 1) Through local political control, they have promulgated stiff restrictions making it difficult for new groups to get on the ballot... and also restricting the ability of citizens to mount referendums. 2) A TERRIBLE Supreme Court decision in the early '70s allowed the States to pass "anti-fusion" laws... which keep alternate parties down. "Fusion" is when a minor party selects as it's nominee the same person who is the nominee of a big party. (An example is when the Conservative Party of New York picks the same candidate as the Republican Party. New York is one of the FEW States - if not the only one - that hasn't banned this perfectly sensible process). Why can't a Party pick whomever it wants for it's candidate? What's the harm? When the candidate wins... he can see exactly how many of his votes came from the Conservative Party voters, and exactly how many came from the Republican voters. That way, he knows where his support is from, and maybe he even listens to some of the ideas put forward by the 'minor' party. This is how new ideas can get injected into the political process. And, it does away with the old argument that "if you vote for a minor party candidate you are 'wasting' your vote". Another example would be if the Green Party had selected Gore to head it's national ticket (along with the Democrats), or if a "Christian Evangelical" Party had also picked Bush to head it's tickets. It's a way for small parties to grow, new ideas to be expressed, and it is good for Democracy... only the established "Republi-crats" have a hammer-lock on the political process in the US, and are playing 'King of the Hill' with it.