Politics, the Green Party.

[saxitoxin]

In response to my own question above, I have no particular objection to the U.S.' Thule facility in Greenland (assuming support of the local government) since it has a perimeter defense function. However, every other overseas U.S. military installation is entirely offensively geared and has no purpose except to launch preemptive war.

[Woodruff]

From 1776-Present Day (in many places) elections were/are held with paper ballots. Reintroducing/maintaining them is "un-workable"?

Another point I never made. I did, however say it is not effective. Like how we no longer drive with horses and buggies.

Paper ballots and non-erasable ballpoint pens are the voting system that's hardest to tamper with, and the one with which tampering is easiest to notice. The ballots can be counted either manually or by scanning them. I'd say it's the best method that's available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ

My understanding is that this used to be true, but is not any longer. Electronic voters are both tamper proof and less error-prone to count.

As usual, your understanding is absolutely incorrect. As a computer programmer and network system administrator, I will just go ahead and tell you that there is no such thing as a tamper-proof electronic system unless that electronic system is TURNED OFF.

Paper ballots require SOMETHING to be done with the ballots that are not used. They must be disposed of in some fashion. That leads to at least the potential for evidence. Electronic voting leavs VERY LITTLE SUCH POTENTIAL FOR EVIDENCE.

[Woodruff]

Here, PLAYER reveals that she doesn't actually agree with the Green Party and is, in fact, just another Democratic shill who used to voice Green Party rhetoric because she wanted to sound like she was actually in favor of helping people.

Let's compare notes

You -- worked for the military for years, even teach ROTC in your local school, but are an avid Green Party supporter even though the Green Party is anti-military in a big way.

"Anti-war" and "anti-military" are not synonymous ideas. The simpleton statement "the Green Party is anti-military in a big way" is sophistic and inaccurate.

A 50% cut is being pretty anti military.

Cutting the U.S. military by 50% means you think it's 50% too big, not that you hate the soldiery.

Correct. I'm a pretty pro-military guy, and there need to be major cuts to the military. By the way, the Green Party is not at all anti-military...this is yet another statement by PLAYER about the Green Party which displays her absolute ignorance of the Green Party.
We really don't need to be in most of those countries, even from a force-projection standpoint.

[saxitoxin]

Player either has to be the greatest troll in history or ... I don't think there's another option.

No one could so totally adopt every single hard-right talking point of 2006 without even blinking ... "electronic voting is tamper proof", "if you want to cut defense spending, you hate the soldiers", "jobs programs are best handled by the states, keep the federal government out" ... "the PATRIOT Act isn't ideal but it serves a good purpose" ... this is hilarious. If Player went back in time 6 years, she could be elected to Congress from the Bush-era Republican Party.

[GreecePwns]

Give her credit. At least she didn't accuse Woodruff of "wanting the terrorists to win" like the GOP did back then (yet).

[tzor]

Aargh, too much editing and I lost my edit window. So I will have to retype my response again from memory. The original was far better, I assure you.

From 1776-Present Day (in many places) elections were/are held with paper ballots. Reintroducing/maintaining them is "un-workable"?

Another point I never made. I did, however say it is not effective. Like how we no longer drive with horses and buggies.

Actually in New York, mechanical lever ballots were being used from just prior to the 20th century until a few years ago. SOURCE

The first official use of a lever type voting machine, known then as the "Myers Automatic Booth," occurred in Lockport, New York in 1892. Four years later, they were employed on a large scale in the city of Rochester, New York, and soon were adopted statewide.

It was only recently, because of attempts to unify the election system across the states that New York switched to an optical scanner that reads PAPER BALLOTS. School districts had a few more years of grace time and only this years extra budget request was done with the optical scanner of the Paper Ballots.

[PLAYER57832]

Here, PLAYER reveals that she doesn't actually agree with the Green Party and is, in fact, just another Democratic shill who used to voice Green Party rhetoric because she wanted to sound like she was actually in favor of helping people.

Let's compare notes

You -- worked for the military for years, even teach ROTC in your local school, but are an avid Green Party supporter even though the Green Party is anti-military in a big way.

"Anti-war" and "anti-military" are not synonymous ideas. The simpleton statement "the Green Party is anti-military in a big way" is sophistic and inaccurate.

A 50% cut is being pretty anti military.

Cutting the U.S. military by 50% means you think it's 50% too big, not that you hate the soldiery.

Correct. I'm a pretty pro-military guy, and there need to be major cuts to the military. By the way, the Green Party is not at all anti-military...this is yet another statement by PLAYER about the Green Party which displays her absolute ignorance of the Green Party.
We really don't need to be in most of those countries, even from a force-projection standpoint.

My "misunderstanding" is from the official Green Party website -- though the posting above was largely from a summary becuase the official site is full of a lot of detail that would take too much time to go over piece by piece.

I don't believe we should leave Afghanistan right now. I don't believe we should leave everywhere we are, though we could scale back in some cases. The Green Party insisting on 50% cutbacks, right now, is just too much and won't fly with any large group of people in the US right now. The idea of making Wallstreet pay more, pay back some of what they cost us taxpayers sound great, but it was already ruled illegal. We need to change the laws that created that situation, begin a different system. The Green Party has some of those ideas, but they get buried beneath the extreme, almost sensational ridiculousness. Another example is the "idea" of halting all foreclosures and turning homes already foreclosed upon into mass public housing. It is such a good idea that it is already being implemented by those "nasty" Democrats and Republicans (yep, even them sometimes.. ). It is a good idea in some areas, but not on the massive scale the Green Party wants. On that scale it is actually a very bad idea that would cause a lot more problems than it would solve. (I went into some of this above).

These are pretty fundamental differences.

Nor do I have respect for their ability to convince people their agenda is correct.

Even on what ought to be very pivotal, given the "Green" label.. they are not talking more effectively about green energy and how to actually get there. I hear too much about pie in the sky and attack the oil companies. They don't work hard enough to talk in ways that people of all backgrounds and ideas will understand and care about. After all, that is what politics is REALLY about.. convincing people to believe as you do. When they so alienate even someone like me who is in favor of a good deal of their positions.. and make no mistake, I am hardly alone in this .... then its a pretty strong symptom of something wrong with their platform and discussion. BUT.. instead of going out and asking why and really fundamentally changing, concentrating on what is popular and can be effective, they act as you have and basically blast anyone who doesn't agree as being "misinformed" or a "sell out" or "hypocrite".


In one (small) way, the Green Party is somewhat similar to the Tea Party. The Green Party doesn't have a strict set of policies. They have a platform, but individuals can choose as they wish. (true of the other parties to a point) As a result you see a good deal of variation. Part of that is because they are not yet so big or popular that they have to unite. There are a lot of disassociated groups.

I am actually not even sure why you are so insistant on demanding I accept everything in the Green Party or that I vote green. I have said that I agree with a lot of what the Green Party positions, but that is meaningless when the group, as a whole, has failed so miserably to have a message that people really want to hear and believe. The Green Party is a failure because it is putting the "cart before the horse". They will be elected if and when a large number of Americans support their positions. They won't get their by lecturing folks and making plain ludicrously ineffective demands to be "considered". You EARN respect.. you don't demand it. The Green Party has some good ideas, but they don't earn respect, not really.

[Woodruff]

I don't believe we should leave Afghanistan right now.

Our mission in Afghanistan is completed. We are not furthering our aims by winning the hearts and minds of the people there (which is the only justifiable reason for staying).

I don't believe we should leave everywhere we are, though we could scale back in some cases.

Where, outside of the United States, do we NEED to be for our own defensive purposes?

I am actually not even sure why you are so insistant on demanding I accept everything in the Green Party or that I vote green. I have said that I agree with a lot of what the Green Party positions, but that is meaningless when the group, as a whole, has failed so miserably to have a message that people really want to hear and believe.

As opposed to the Democratic Party, which is failing so miserably in everything other than "telling the people what they want to hear and believe"?

[pmchugh]

The (scottish) green party are the only party I would consider voting for these days, because they actually seem to give a f*ck.

[spurgistan]

Umm, the reason the Green Party doesn't attract voters is because the system is rigged against it (and any other third party) attaining the tools to compete, and the system is really good at that. If you asked the average voter why they don't vote Green, you're probably not going to get a lot of responses about their attitude.

[GreecePwns]

The US has bases all over the world for purely aggressive reasons. We have no purpose in Afghanistan anymore. The military is begging, literally begging the government to stop giving it new tanks since all the other ones are gathering dust somewhere in the deserts of IIRC Nevada.

We can easily cut 50% of the military budget.

[saxitoxin]

Give her credit. At least she didn't accuse Woodruff of "wanting the terrorists to win" like the GOP did back then (yet).

+250 SaxBucks

the Green Party insisting on 50% cutbacks, right now, is just too much

If the U.S. cut defense spending by 50% it would still be spending more than every other world power combined.

That's still not enough guns for Player. LOL.

Who do you think is coming to getchya, Player? Why are you so 'fraid?

[BigBallinStalin]

I never knew player was a neocon. LOOK AT WHAT SHE'S SAYING!

This thread is freakin' amazing!


(she's gotta be a troll! Someone slap me in the face and tell me that she's just messing with us!)

[saxitoxin]

[Commander62890]

I voted Obama last time, but after read through the Green Party platform, I doubt I'll be doing so again.

In general, it reflects my views much better than the Dems, who I think are probably too close to the center for me.

Sure, there's some parts of the Green platform that are too extreme and/or completely unfeasible, but the general "feel" of it seems right to me. I don't feel the need to agree with every one of their proposals.

The idea of voting Obama to stop Romney from winning just doesn't hold water for me, even if I were in a swing state, b/c the likelihood of my vote being the deciding vote is close enough to 0 that we can basically just call it 0.

[BigBallinStalin]

[quote="Commander62890"]I voted Obama last time, but after read through the Green Party platform, I doubt I'll be doing so again.

In general, it reflects my views much better than the Dems, who I think are probably too close to the center for me.

Sure, there's some parts of the Green platform that are too extreme and/or completely unfeasible, but the general "feel" of it seems right to me. I don't feel the need to agree with every one of their proposals.

The idea of voting Obama to stop Romney from winning just doesn't hold water for me, even if I were in a swing state, b/c the likelihood of my vote being the deciding vote is close enough to 0 that we can basically just call it 0.[/quote]

So why vote at all?

[Commander62890]

So why vote at all?

Good question. I'm sure the majority of voters know their individual vote won't count for shit when all is said and done, but we've all got our own reasons as to why we go through with it nonetheless.

As for me, I submit willingly to the duty placed upon me as a citizen in a democratic nation, even though I don't fully understand the gravity of this responsibility. Plus, my family would be pissed if I didn't vote, and I don't lie to them about important things.