Romney Talks international policy.

[kentington]

A poster on your lawn is a "statement". A T-shirt can be a statement. A vote for president is a vote for president, not a statement, not a full-fledged endorsement (no matter how much soem try to make that claim).

Statement? I'm talking about cold, hard cash, PLAYER. You're literally taking money away from a third party option by voting for Obama or Romney.

There IS no third party option right now, not at the presidential level. We have a LONG way to go before there will be. And no, my vote doesn't take money from third parties.

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices. Any other vote is no different than just not voting, not participating at all. It means you just let everyone else decide.

If we were talking at some other point than just a few weeks prior to the current election, perhaps.

I think you are kind of making his point here. He is saying that the time to voice your opinion is always "now." You seem to think that it is only time to throw in with your values, beliefs, morals when you think it will win. I happen to agree with him in that. Whoever you believe is the person who supports your morals and values is the person you should be voting for. Any vote for any other person is a vote against yourself. People who vote third party, Repub, or Dem are not wasting their vote unless they are voting for one person as an anti-vote. That is a vote to keep the current standards that they don't agree with. I don't understand why people don't see this.
Do they want to believe they are not sell outs? I mean I know everyone wants to believe they are making the right choice, but I don't think I would go as far as delusion.

[PLAYER57832]

A poster on your lawn is a "statement". A T-shirt can be a statement. A vote for president is a vote for president, not a statement, not a full-fledged endorsement (no matter how much soem try to make that claim).

Statement? I'm talking about cold, hard cash, PLAYER. You're literally taking money away from a third party option by voting for Obama or Romney.

There IS no third party option right now, not at the presidential level. We have a LONG way to go before there will be. And no, my vote doesn't take money from third parties.

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices. Any other vote is no different than just not voting, not participating at all. It means you just let everyone else decide.

If we were talking at some other point than just a few weeks prior to the current election, perhaps.

I think you are kind of making his point here. He is saying that the time to voice your opinion is always "now." You seem to think that it is only time to throw in with your values, beliefs, morals when you think it will win. I happen to agree with him in that. Whoever you believe is the person who supports your morals and values is the person you should be voting for. Any vote for any other person is a vote against yourself. People who vote third party, Repub, or Dem are not wasting their vote unless they are voting for one person as an anti-vote. That is a vote to keep the current standards that they don't agree with. I don't understand why people don't see this.
Do they want to believe they are not sell outs? I mean I know everyone wants to believe they are making the right choice, but I don't think I would go as far as delusion.

Voting is not a statement. It is a practical choice. In the US, unlike other countries we have 2 effective choices. I may wish for a different system, but voting for a third party is not the way to do it. The impact of voting third party in the presidential race is and always has been to be a spoiler in US politics. Ross Perot was the last to come close to breaking that stronghold... and he did not really come close. This is not always true for other offices... a point it seems both you and Woodruff are missing. Nor is it true for "issues".

Its rather like saying that you should not tear down a house, or cut trees, even if there is a fire raging... because you believe in good housing, or trees. I might make you happy in the short run, but won't REALLY advice your goals. Or, maybe a better analogy is that of retreating, rather than fighting to the death. There ARE times to do that, specifically when there is no other choice at all or, when that stand may actually accomplish something (martyrs and all that). You can try to be a "martyr" with your vote for the green cause, but you won't find it even makes notice.

You fight for better candidates BEFORE the election, work toward educating people, toward changing people's minds on issues. Voting for a presidential green party is among the absolute LEAST effective steps to take... and is actually harmful if you care a hoot whether its Romney or Obama. If you don't.. then no vote matters.

[GreecePwns]

Voting is not a statement. It is a practical choice. In the US, unlike other countries we have 2 effective choices. I may wish for a different system, but voting for a third party is not the way to do it. The impact of voting third party in the presidential race is and always has been to be a spoiler in US politics.

I'd say that voting for a third party candidate so they can reach the 5 percent mark, guaranteeing them federal funding so that they can better contest the next election and raise their vote count higher, guaranteeing them more funding, is a practical use of a vote.

Sure, they won't win, but it will give them a much, much better chance to win next time. Money is everything in politics these days, and if they have to get it through federal funding (since both candidates refused due to the restrictions they come with, meaning a cool $100 million + for the third party candidate) then we should actively work toward them getting that money.

You can try to be a "martyr" with your vote for the green cause, but you won't find it even makes notice.

Try and get this to fit with the 2004 election, where Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for their loss despite having actively worked to get him off the ballot in many states.

[GreecePwns]

So, how do you show the counterfactual? As in, what would a world--where the US engaged in 90% less M.E. wars, and its subsidies to Dickheads was 90% less--look like?

1. Well, if you go back to the Cold War era, the US would not have funded Al Qaeda in Operation Cyclone to the tune of $3 billion. It's possible that this funding went toward 9/11, but let's be conservative and say it didn't. The Soviet Union eventually collapsed and control of Afghanistan wasn't exactly going to change its fate. So all in all we have a less-well funded Al Qaeda.

2. Considering Middle Eastern nations have a hatred of foreign intervention (even in the form of "nation building," whatever that means), 90% less foreign intervention would have meant 90% (well, some number) less anti-American sentiment. This anti-American sentiment is usually used as a reason to support Al Qaeda in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan especially and to some extent in other places (Pakistan and Afghanistan have always been more religious fundamentalist than others).

3. Ghaddafi is still in power. Mubarak maybe is, but probably not. The Egyptian uprisings definitely had more legitimacy behind them. That is, until the election following his departure ended up with an Islamist in first and yet another military man in second; then again, the Islamist was anti-American).

4. Israel would not exist by now. They would not have the military strength to roll over their enemies in the various wars they've participated in without our funding, and would have no power-projecting capabilities in the region or internationally without nuclear weapons we provided them.

5. Iran is likely still a secular nation.

I'm sure I can list plenty more familiar situations, all of which are classified as "blowback" by intelligence officials.

[Woodruff]

You fight for better candidates BEFORE the election, work toward educating people, toward changing people's minds on issues. Voting for a presidential green party is among the absolute LEAST effective steps to take... and is actually harmful if you care a hoot whether its Romney or Obama. If you don't.. then no vote matters.

Unless they're at Husker football games, I hate sellouts.

[BigBallinStalin]

Voting is not a statement. It is a practical choice. In the US, unlike other countries we have 2 effective choices. I may wish for a different system, but voting for a third party is not the way to do it. The impact of voting third party in the presidential race is and always has been to be a spoiler in US politics. Ross Perot was the last to come close to breaking that stronghold... and he did not really come close. This is not always true for other offices... a point it seems both you and Woodruff are missing. Nor is it true for "issues".

Its rather like saying that you should not tear down a house, or cut trees, even if there is a fire raging... because you believe in good housing, or trees. I might make you happy in the short run, but won't REALLY advice your goals. Or, maybe a better analogy is that of retreating, rather than fighting to the death. There ARE times to do that, specifically when there is no other choice at all or, when that stand may actually accomplish something (martyrs and all that). You can try to be a "martyr" with your vote for the green cause, but you won't find it even makes notice.

You fight for better candidates BEFORE the election, work toward educating people, toward changing people's minds on issues. Voting for a presidential green party is among the absolute LEAST effective steps to take... and is actually harmful if you care a hoot whether its Romney or Obama. If you don't.. then no vote matters.

And since you’ve got things under control
There ain’t nothing to it ain’t no reason you should do it
No matter how hard it rains if you don’t profit from the change
You’re back under the hammer totally

Under the hammer from the day you was born
Under the hammer and out there on your own
Good advice don’t make it if there's no one there to take it
You’re just under the hammer totally

[PLAYER57832]

You fight for better candidates BEFORE the election, work toward educating people, toward changing people's minds on issues. Voting for a presidential green party is among the absolute LEAST effective steps to take... and is actually harmful if you care a hoot whether its Romney or Obama. If you don't.. then no vote matters.

Unless they're at Husker football games, I hate sellouts.

When the green party starts being EFFECTIVE instead of pissing in the wind and arrogantly expecting everyone else to just agree, with no need to inform or educate... then I will support them more heavily.

Until then, they are part of the group that is adding to, not helping the problem. The problem is a general lack of understanding of how the world really works. I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

You call me a "sell-out". Phattscotty calls anyone advocating compromise to be "capitulating". Seems like you are acting a lot more like him than I in this instance.

[Woodruff]

You fight for better candidates BEFORE the election, work toward educating people, toward changing people's minds on issues. Voting for a presidential green party is among the absolute LEAST effective steps to take... and is actually harmful if you care a hoot whether its Romney or Obama. If you don't.. then no vote matters.

Unless they're at Husker football games, I hate sellouts.

When the green party starts being EFFECTIVE instead of pissing in the wind and arrogantly expecting everyone else to just agree, with no need to inform or educate... then I will support them more heavily.

You're a sellout, PLAYER. I know it hurts to hear that, but it's the truth.

I have no problem with someone voting for Obama (or Romney) if they legitimately believe he or his party is best for America. You don't believe that. Sellout.

Until then, they are part of the group that is adding to, not helping the problem. The problem is a general lack of understanding of how the world really works.

How the world really works is that we're piling debt on top of ourselves at a massive rate. Obama is very much a part of the problem. By re-electing him, you are veryy much "adding to the problem".

You say "until then", but if they can get to 5% of the vote, "until then" just might arrive a hell of a lot quicker than you fear.

I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

You call me a "sell-out".

Yes, I do.

Phattscotty calls anyone advocating compromise to be "capitulating". Seems like you are acting a lot more like him than I in this instance.

Phatscotty is a sellout himself. Like you, he will do everything possible to try to convince himself that his sellout isn't a bad one.

[PLAYER57832]

Voting is not a statement. It is a practical choice. In the US, unlike other countries we have 2 effective choices. I may wish for a different system, but voting for a third party is not the way to do it. The impact of voting third party in the presidential race is and always has been to be a spoiler in US politics.

I'd say that voting for a third party candidate so they can reach the 5 percent mark, guaranteeing them federal funding so that they can better contest the next election and raise their vote count higher, guaranteeing them more funding, is a practical use of a vote.

Sure, they won't win, but it will give them a much, much better chance to win next time. Money is everything in politics these days, and if they have to get it through federal funding (since both candidates refused due to the restrictions they come with, meaning a cool $100 million + for the third party candidate) then we should actively work toward them getting that money.

The FIRST step, though is to get close to garnering that 5% support. That is where the Green Party is falling short.

You can try to be a "martyr" with your vote for the green cause, but you won't find it even makes notice.

Try and get this to fit with the 2004 election, where Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for their loss despite having actively worked to get him off the ballot in many states.

Because those who voted for Nadar would have voted Democratic and likely would have made the difference in that election. Instead, did Nadar gain anything? No. But he DID act as a spoiler to the Democrats, did very much assist Bush in winning.

So, Nadar running actually wound up helping the Republicans.. and did absolutely nothing to further "his cause". A case in my argument.

[BigBallinStalin]

You fight for better candidates BEFORE the election, work toward educating people, toward changing people's minds on issues. Voting for a presidential green party is among the absolute LEAST effective steps to take... and is actually harmful if you care a hoot whether its Romney or Obama. If you don't.. then no vote matters.

Unless they're at Husker football games, I hate sellouts.

When the green party starts being EFFECTIVE instead of pissing in the wind and arrogantly expecting everyone else to just agree, with no need to inform or educate... then I will support them more heavily.

Until then, they are part of the group that is adding to, not helping the problem. The problem is a general lack of understanding of how the world really works. I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

You call me a "sell-out". Phattscotty calls anyone advocating compromise to be "capitulating". Seems like you are acting a lot more like him than I in this instance.

Do you consider the Green Party to be too alarmist?

[Woodruff]

Voting is not a statement. It is a practical choice. In the US, unlike other countries we have 2 effective choices. I may wish for a different system, but voting for a third party is not the way to do it. The impact of voting third party in the presidential race is and always has been to be a spoiler in US politics.

I'd say that voting for a third party candidate so they can reach the 5 percent mark, guaranteeing them federal funding so that they can better contest the next election and raise their vote count higher, guaranteeing them more funding, is a practical use of a vote.

Sure, they won't win, but it will give them a much, much better chance to win next time. Money is everything in politics these days, and if they have to get it through federal funding (since both candidates refused due to the restrictions they come with, meaning a cool $100 million + for the third party candidate) then we should actively work toward them getting that money.

The FIRST step, though is to get close to garnering that 5% support. That is where the Green Party is falling short.

Do you even listen to yourself? Think about what you're saying here. You've just admitted that you won't even support the party that you allegedly agree with IN THEIR FIRST STEP. No wonder they're falling short, they can't count on support from their "supporters" who are too busy selling out.

It's too bad you're allowing your fear to control you to the point where you're now an active, accepting part of the problem.

[Woodruff]

Just think, PLAYER...one day, you'll be able to tell your grandkids about how you were part of the movement and gave your support to these brave candidates who were doing whatever they could to make things happen when they were just starting their drive to their eventual place in the White House:

http://www.businessinsider.com/jill-stein-arrested-at-the-second-debate-2012-10

Oh wait...that's right. Never mind.

[GreecePwns]

The FIRST step, though is to get close to garnering that 5% support. That is where the Green Party is falling short

You do realize that 5% is based off of voting.

I'm not voting for you because not enough people are voting for you. How ridiculous does this sound?

Because those who voted for Nadar would have voted Democratic and likely would have made the difference in that election. Instead, did Nadar gain anything? No. But he DID act as a spoiler to the Democrats, did very much assist Bush in winning.

So, Nadar running actually wound up helping the Republicans.. and did absolutely nothing to further "his cause". A case in my argument.

I present to you an election result that occurred this year outside the US with very simplified terms (for a winner-take-all election, mind you)

Right-wing 39%
Left-wing 31%
Center-left 19%
Other single-issue or non-sympathizing parties 11%

Who are the supposed spoilers in this election? With your logic, the center-left candidate is the "spoiler" in this election. Your reason is that if that center-left candidate didn't exist the left-wing candidate would have won because their voters would have voted for them instead.

What is the function of elections? For voters to decide which of the list of candidates is the best candidate. It is not to decided which of the list of candidates is the most likely to prevent another candidate which I personally don't like to not win, policy positions be damned.

You want more parties in government, yet you complain when they attempt to get involved in government unsucessfully due to a system actively working against them. Instead you should have been proud that Ralph Nader and his 3 percent were able to make such noise given the circumstances.

All it takes is 5 percent of votes. Your reason for not voting is that you believe they won't get 5 percent of votes. If you want more parties involved, you can most actively support them through votes. Yet you work against him using the most active means of working against them with a vote for Obama or Romney. A vote for Obama only in fear of Romney is also a vote for Obama in fear of everyone else.

[BigBallinStalin]

Guys, player is making the rational choice because she is not willing to forego her expected profits derived from a pro-Obama government for her ideal political beliefs. She expects to profit from the changes in healthcare policy which Obama caused. She wants that money, so she must vote for Obama; otherwise, she risks losing that insurance/coverage/cost-savings for herself and/or her family.

Y'all will continue to fail in changing her valuation of a pro-Obama government and the expected profits as compared to the expected benefits from voting Jill Stein or whoever because your words will not effectively impact her incentives.

(Note: this is not a normative argument, so park your accusations at your end of the wire--not here.)



In my value-laden opinion, player's incentives and the political institution in which she votes exemplifies the sad reality of American politics (not so sad for the politicians with the government goodies, but hey). Sometimes, no amount of arguing will effectively change one's incentives, and also "don't hate the player, hate the game."

[GreecePwns]

What is easier to change, though? 5 percent of players or the game?

[BigBallinStalin]

What is easier to change, though? 5 percent of players or the game?

Great question. It's difficult to answer... so here's the best way to answer it:

"It depends." :p


Peaceful means:


(1a) Get a masters/PhD in political theory, economics, philosophy, and/or psychology while concentrating on voter behavior, public choice, political decision-making, etc., and write, write write write write.

(1b) Work in academia to influence impressionable minds and maybe become a public intellectual (to transfer the ideas of your general field into layman terms). Work in think-tanks to engage with the policy-making circles. Work within government.

(2) Get into the journalism shtick. (write write write write write).

(3) Become a local leader of some sort.

Main point: Ideas influence institutions, thus incentives, so it's about the production and facilitation of ideas into the general sphere. Arguably, even transferring ideas to the general public may not be necessary because the above means can influence politicians and bureaucrats--if their incentives line up with the expected outcomes of your desired ideas. Usually, they don't, and it may take a crisis to change their incentives; however, crises usually lead to the negative consequences (expanded state, reinforcing well-intended decisions that lead to negative unintended consequences, etc.), so there's that problem with the demand-side.


Violent Approach
I wouldn't recommend this, but the results vary. It ranges from the poor outcomes of the environmental militants (or ecoterrorists) to successful revolutions (for better or worse).



Conclusion

Either of the above can result in the 5+% change for the players or for the game, but it's hard to determine, so let's say doing one affects the other.

If you get violent, you go up against the most violent organization in the world: the State, so I wouldn't recommend it because you'll be outgunned. Nevertheless, we must admit that entrepreneurial endeavors in the past have resulted in swift changes through the use of force (e.g Greeks rioting against austerity cuts, thus changing political incentives in adhering to the conditionality of those loans; Mao's rise to power in China; the American Revolutionary War including its terrorist tactics; etc.).

The peaceful approach seems most effective and won't land you in prison (:p). You can talk to people like player, but if their incentives aren't right, then there's no hope in changing their opinion. However, this does not apply to everyone, so please do try, but also do realize the diminishing returns from the failed investments of your efforts.

[PLAYER57832]

What is easier to change, though? 5 percent of players or the game?

Great question. It's difficult to answer... so here's the best way to answer it:

"It depends." :p


Peaceful means:


(1a) Get a masters/PhD in political theory, economics, philosophy, and/or psychology while concentrating on voter behavior, public choice, political decision-making, etc., and write, write write write write.

(1b) Work in academia to influence impressionable minds and maybe become a public intellectual (to transfer the ideas of your general field into layman terms). Work in think-tanks to engage with the policy-making circles. Work within government.

(2) Get into the journalism shtick. (write write write write write).

(3) Become a local leader of some sort.

Main point: Ideas influence institutions, thus incentives, so it's about the production and facilitation of ideas into the general sphere. Arguably, even transferring ideas to the general public may not be necessary because the above means can influence politicians and bureaucrats--if their incentives line up with the expected outcomes of your desired ideas. Usually, they don't, and it may take a crisis to change their incentives; however, crises usually lead to the negative consequences (expanded state, reinforcing well-intended decisions that lead to negative unintended consequences, etc.), so there's that problem with the demand-side.

This idea of the alternative is part of the very problem. Its not getting PhDs that will help..though writing is certainly good. The way minds are formed is not by listening to PhD lecturers, unless you are one of the elite scientists or an academic yourself. Average people's ideas about the world are form in elementary, middle and high school. THAT is where the concentration has to be... and conservatives have very much been doing that. THAT is why they are gaining ground.

[PLAYER57832]

I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

My vote is my battle for the next 4 years ONLY. I would far rather have Obama than Romney, absolutely. So I vote for Obama.

HOWEVER, my "fight" is in education. My fight is day to day, trying to improve science text books and local science education in small and big ways. I recently found out, just as an example, that our local middle and high school no longer teaches about the Holocaust because its "too controversial". The green party is too busy trying to fight windmills and make "statements" to be effective.

[Woodruff]

I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

My vote is my battle for the next 4 years ONLY. I would far rather have Obama than Romney, absolutely. So I vote for Obama.

HOWEVER, my "fight" is in education. My fight is day to day, trying to improve science text books and local science education in small and big ways. I recently found out, just as an example, that our local middle and high school no longer teaches about the Holocaust because its "too controversial". The green party is too busy trying to fight windmills and make "statements" to be effective.

You're clearly not involved with the Green Party, but I am. I hate to say it again, but you need to refamiliarize yourself with the policies of those whom you allegedly support (as opposed to actually support).

[BigBallinStalin]

What is easier to change, though? 5 percent of players or the game?

Great question. It's difficult to answer... so here's the best way to answer it:

"It depends." :p


Peaceful means:


(1a) Get a masters/PhD in political theory, economics, philosophy, and/or psychology while concentrating on voter behavior, public choice, political decision-making, etc., and write, write write write write.

(1b) Work in academia to influence impressionable minds and maybe become a public intellectual (to transfer the ideas of your general field into layman terms). Work in think-tanks to engage with the policy-making circles. Work within government.

(2) Get into the journalism shtick. (write write write write write).

(3) Become a local leader of some sort.

Main point: Ideas influence institutions, thus incentives, so it's about the production and facilitation of ideas into the general sphere. Arguably, even transferring ideas to the general public may not be necessary because the above means can influence politicians and bureaucrats--if their incentives line up with the expected outcomes of your desired ideas. Usually, they don't, and it may take a crisis to change their incentives; however, crises usually lead to the negative consequences (expanded state, reinforcing well-intended decisions that lead to negative unintended consequences, etc.), so there's that problem with the demand-side.

This idea of the alternative is part of the very problem. Its not getting PhDs that will help..though writing is certainly good. The way minds are formed is not by listening to PhD lecturers, unless you are one of the elite scientists or an academic yourself. Average people's ideas about the world are form in elementary, middle and high school. THAT is where the concentration has to be... and conservatives have very much been doing that. THAT is why they are gaining ground.

Okay, Player.

[PLAYER57832]

I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

My vote is my battle for the next 4 years ONLY. I would far rather have Obama than Romney, absolutely. So I vote for Obama.

HOWEVER, my "fight" is in education. My fight is day to day, trying to improve science text books and local science education in small and big ways. I recently found out, just as an example, that our local middle and high school no longer teaches about the Holocaust because its "too controversial". The green party is too busy trying to fight windmills and make "statements" to be effective.

You're clearly not involved with the Green Party, but I am. I hate to say it again, but you need to refamiliarize yourself with the policies of those whom you allegedly support (as opposed to actually support).

I am not involved in the green party because there IS no green party in which to be involved here... and that pretty much sums it up.

And, like I said before.. crow all you want about "voting green", but if Obama loses by a slim margin, then you can thank the green party for allowing Romney to win. I am not happy with that outcome, though it seems you are.

Most of politics is not decided at the polls. Our choices there are narrow. The effort has to come long before. The green party HAS failed there. That is evidenced by their lack of support. You can whine about how folks are not voting green.. or you can get out and figure out why. So far, your claiming my vote will somehow furthe endanger democracy instead of just trying to ensure the biggest jackass ever won't make president... is pretty much proving my point.

The green party barely made a dent in Northern California, the entire time I lived there. They have not changed since then. In fact, they have gone from trying to slowly build support to whining over not having it.

[Woodruff]

I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

My vote is my battle for the next 4 years ONLY. I would far rather have Obama than Romney, absolutely. So I vote for Obama.

HOWEVER, my "fight" is in education. My fight is day to day, trying to improve science text books and local science education in small and big ways. I recently found out, just as an example, that our local middle and high school no longer teaches about the Holocaust because its "too controversial". The green party is too busy trying to fight windmills and make "statements" to be effective.

You're clearly not involved with the Green Party, but I am. I hate to say it again, but you need to refamiliarize yourself with the policies of those whom you allegedly support (as opposed to actually support).

I am not involved in the green party because there IS no green party in which to be involved here... and that pretty much sums it up.

Shocking I know, but the Green Party of Pennsylvania would appear to disagree with you on that point: http://www.gpofpa.org/

And, like I said before.. crow all you want about "voting green", but if Obama loses by a slim margin, then you can thank the green party for allowing Romney to win. I am not happy with that outcome, though it seems you are.

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, PLAYER. Romney SOUNDS worse because he's playing to his party's base. Have you looked at his policies as Governor? My God, he's Obama but white. I am not happy with being a sellout, though it seems you are.

Most of politics is not decided at the polls. Our choices there are narrow. The effort has to come long before. The green party HAS failed there. That is evidenced by their lack of support. You can whine about how folks are not voting green.. or you can get out and figure out why. So far, your claiming my vote will somehow furthe endanger democracy instead of just trying to ensure the biggest jackass ever won't make president... is pretty much proving my point.

No, he was the President before Obama.

The green party barely made a dent in Northern California, the entire time I lived there. They have not changed since then. In fact, they have gone from trying to slowly build support to whining over not having it.

You don't even know the very basics about the party, PLAYER...you keep demonstrating that.

[PLAYER57832]

I am fighting a lone, losing battle in my area. Claiming my not voting for a green party nominee who hasn't even bothered to make herself known in this area... even on the public radio and TV stations (except the national broadcasts of Democracy Now!) means you yourself are part of that group.

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

My vote is my battle for the next 4 years ONLY. I would far rather have Obama than Romney, absolutely. So I vote for Obama.

HOWEVER, my "fight" is in education. My fight is day to day, trying to improve science text books and local science education in small and big ways. I recently found out, just as an example, that our local middle and high school no longer teaches about the Holocaust because its "too controversial". The green party is too busy trying to fight windmills and make "statements" to be effective.

You're clearly not involved with the Green Party, but I am. I hate to say it again, but you need to refamiliarize yourself with the policies of those whom you allegedly support (as opposed to actually support).

I am not involved in the green party because there IS no green party in which to be involved here... and that pretty much sums it up.

Shocking I know, but the Green Party of Pennsylvania would appear to disagree with you on that point: http://www.gpofpa.org/

I said HERE, not PA. I do realize there is a green party in PA. Despite the fracking issue, they are not active here, though... and there are reasons for that. (Wlliamsport is several hours drive from here.)

And, like I said before.. crow all you want about "voting green", but if Obama loses by a slim margin, then you can thank the green party for allowing Romney to win. I am not happy with that outcome, though it seems you are.

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, PLAYER. Romney SOUNDS worse because he's playing to his party's base. Have you looked at his policies as Governor? My God, he's Obama but white. I am not happy with being a sellout, though it seems you are.

He doesn't just sound worse, he IS worse.

Most of politics is not decided at the polls. Our choices there are narrow. The effort has to come long before. The green party HAS failed there. That is evidenced by their lack of support. You can whine about how folks are not voting green.. or you can get out and figure out why. So far, your claiming my vote will somehow furthe endanger democracy instead of just trying to ensure the biggest jackass ever won't make president... is pretty much proving my point.

No, he was the President before Obama.

Romney would be far worse.

The green party barely made a dent in Northern California, the entire time I lived there. They have not changed since then. In fact, they have gone from trying to slowly build support to whining over not having it.

You don't even know the very basics about the party, PLAYER...you keep demonstrating that.

I know what they claim.. .and what they are. But fine, enlighten me.

[Woodruff]

Your vote is your battle. You're throwing your support behind half the problem, that being Obama.

My vote is my battle for the next 4 years ONLY. I would far rather have Obama than Romney, absolutely. So I vote for Obama.

HOWEVER, my "fight" is in education. My fight is day to day, trying to improve science text books and local science education in small and big ways. I recently found out, just as an example, that our local middle and high school no longer teaches about the Holocaust because its "too controversial". The green party is too busy trying to fight windmills and make "statements" to be effective.

You're clearly not involved with the Green Party, but I am. I hate to say it again, but you need to refamiliarize yourself with the policies of those whom you allegedly support (as opposed to actually support).

I am not involved in the green party because there IS no green party in which to be involved here... and that pretty much sums it up.

Shocking I know, but the Green Party of Pennsylvania would appear to disagree with you on that point: http://www.gpofpa.org/

I said HERE, not PA.

Oh...I thought you lived in Pennsylvania? So your problem is that the Party isn't directly in the town you live in? Well Jesus Christ, if that's the best excuse you've got, that's some weak shit.

And, like I said before.. crow all you want about "voting green", but if Obama loses by a slim margin, then you can thank the green party for allowing Romney to win. I am not happy with that outcome, though it seems you are.

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, PLAYER. Romney SOUNDS worse because he's playing to his party's base. Have you looked at his policies as Governor? My God, he's Obama but white. I am not happy with being a sellout, though it seems you are.

He doesn't just sound worse, he IS worse.

Based on? His policies as Governor, I presume? Because you don't have much to go on otherwise, do you?

Most of politics is not decided at the polls. Our choices there are narrow. The effort has to come long before. The green party HAS failed there. That is evidenced by their lack of support. You can whine about how folks are not voting green.. or you can get out and figure out why. So far, your claiming my vote will somehow furthe endanger democracy instead of just trying to ensure the biggest jackass ever won't make president... is pretty much proving my point.

No, he was the President before Obama.

Romney would be far worse.

Hell, Obama's not far from it, frankly. Other than the two data points of ObamaCare and DADT, I'm having difficulty seeing any difference.

The green party barely made a dent in Northern California, the entire time I lived there. They have not changed since then. In fact, they have gone from trying to slowly build support to whining over not having it.

You don't even know the very basics about the party, PLAYER...you keep demonstrating that.

I know what they claim.. .and what they are. But fine, enlighten me.

I have been. Three times now I've had to correct you on things regarding the Green Party. You're making statements about them that do not hold water, as I've shown you from their own website. It's not like I had to do any significant research.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Oh...I thought you lived in Pennsylvania? So your problem is that the Party isn't directly in the town you live in? Well Jesus Christ, if that's the best excuse you've got, that's some weak shit.

No, its that they have essentially zero support around here. And, there are some pretty good reasons for that, which I meantioned earlier. (but can repeat, if you wish)

And, like I said before.. crow all you want about "voting green", but if Obama loses by a slim margin, then you can thank the green party for allowing Romney to win. I am not happy with that outcome, though it seems you are.

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, PLAYER. Romney SOUNDS worse because he's playing to his party's base. Have you looked at his policies as Governor? My God, he's Obama but white. I am not happy with being a sellout, though it seems you are.

He doesn't just sound worse, he IS worse.

Based on? His policies as Governor, I presume? Because you don't have much to go on otherwise, do you?

I have his words and his constant flip-flopping, in ability to be exact about things I consider important, such as taxes... and an ability to be all too clear in the wrong direction about things like International relations.

I dislike Bush, but at least he did believe in what he said, for the most part. That was part of his problem.. he thought his way was the only way. I dislike him, but respect him far more than Romney. Romney actually did some good things as governnor... but is now backing off from every single good thing he did.

Most of politics is not decided at the polls. Our choices there are narrow. The effort has to come long before. The green party HAS failed there. That is evidenced by their lack of support. You can whine about how folks are not voting green.. or you can get out and figure out why. So far, your claiming my vote will somehow furthe endanger democracy instead of just trying to ensure the biggest jackass ever won't make president... is pretty much proving my point.

No, he was the President before Obama.

Romney would be far worse.

Hell, Obama's not far from it, frankly. Other than the two data points of ObamaCare and DADT, I'm having difficulty seeing any difference.

Healthcare reform act is a pretty big one, given it will mean the difference between my family having insurance and medical care and not.

HIs approach to education is better. Not great, but better. And, he has a much better grasp of foreign relations, even though he falls short of what I would wish in many cases. He largely did what he set out to do, though not necessarily in the time frame he set out.

The green party barely made a dent in Northern California, the entire time I lived there. They have not changed since then. In fact, they have gone from trying to slowly build support to whining over not having it.

You don't even know the very basics about the party, PLAYER...you keep demonstrating that.

I know what they claim.. .and what they are. But fine, enlighten me.

I have been. Three times now I've had to correct you on things regarding the Green Party. You're making statements about them that do not hold water, as I've shown you from their own website. It's not like I had to do any significant research.

No, actually you have not done that at all. You have said I was wrong, but have definitely not demonstrated it. Saying that the nominee is making an appearance in Williamsport is not saying anything about the real green party in PA or its effectiveness.

The green party has a LONG way to go. Rather than whining about not being in the presidential debate... a piece of nonsense anyway, they should be out talking to individuals, convincing them that their policies are good and actually trying to garner local support. They should concentrate on more and more local races, until they actually have a real base.. THEN, and only then will they be in a position to shoot for the presidency. That WAS the plan initially, but they failed. They failed because it became the party of essentially any extreme liberal view, even nonsensical ones, rather than a party of comparison. Further, they don't bother to really convince people their extreme views are correct. They "preach to the choir", and far too often just insult those who oppose them.