PDA

View Full Version : What You Don’t Know About John Kerry



CaptShady
9th March 04, 02:40 PM
With his win in Iowa, Sen. John Kerry could be on his way to the White House. But most Americans are unaware of the real Kerry.

Here are facts and quotations that reveal the character of the new Democrat leader.

Denouncing America with ‘Hanoi’ Jane: Although Wesley Clark and others have attacked former front-runner Howard Dean as a draft-dodging ski bum, Kerry is far more complex than the simple war hero he portrays himself as.
He became a celebrated organizer for one of America's most extreme appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He consorted with the likes of “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, Lyndon Johnson’s radical former attorney general.

He attended a seminar bankrolled by Fonda in Detroit in February 1971. Watching 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testify at a Howard Johnson’s about atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. forces, the man who would be president later said he found the accounts shocking and irrefutable.

Dubbed “The Winter Soldier Investigation,” the protest attracted minimal media attention, according to the Los Angeles Times, because Fonda insisted it be held in the remote Michigan city rather than the less “authentic” Washington, D.C.

Still, the event gave Kerry an idea for a protest that was sure to be a media smash, and he immediately set out to organize one of the most confrontational protests of the war.

Operation Dewey Canyon III began on April 18, 1971, when nearly 1,000 Vietnam veterans and people claiming to be veterans gathered on Washington’s Mall for what they called “a limited incursion into the country of Congress.”

The group staged mock firefights on the steps of the Capitol and Supreme Court and defied U.S. Park Police after the Department of Justice issued an injunction barring it from camping on the Mall.

Those evil American soldiers: Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry claimed that U.S. soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

‘We are not the best’: In his testimony, Kerry claimed there was no communist threat and said: “In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said ‘some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,’ and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country ….”
U.S. Veteran Dispatch noted in 1996: “Kerry's testimony, it should be noted, occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons. Kerry was a supporter of the ‘People's Peace Treaty,’" a supposed ‘people's’ declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.”

Throw as I say, not as I do: On that same day he led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
Kerry later admitted the medals he threw were not his. To this day they hang on the wall of his office.

Communist stooge: The communist Daily World delightedly published photos of him speaking to demonstrators and boasted that the marchers displayed a banner depicting a portrait of Communist Party leader Angela Davis, on record stating, “I am dedicated to the overthrow of your system of government and your society,” the New American recalled in May 2003.
“By frequently participating in VVAW’s demonstrations, Kerry found himself marching alongside what the Boston Herald Traveler identified as ‘revolutionary Communists.’ While noting that known Reds had openly organized these events, the December 12, 1971 Herald Traveler reported the presence of an ‘abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government.’"

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry says: “As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain.

“Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.”

Sen. John McCain revealed that his North Vietnamese captors had used reports of Kerry-led protests to taunt him and his fellow prisoners. Retired General George S. Patton III angrily noted that Kerry’s actions had “given aid and comfort to the enemy.”

In recent years when Kerry has exploited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for photo opportunities on Veterans Day, some veterans, still outraged by his betrayal, have turned their backs on him.

The book he doesn’t want you to see: When Kerry ran for election to the U.S. House of Representative in 1972, “he found it necessary to suppress reproduction of the cover picture appearing on his own book, The New Soldier. His political opponent pointed out that it depicted several unkempt youths crudely handling an American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima,” according to Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.
“Suddenly, copies of the book became unavailable and even disappeared from libraries. But the Lowell (Mass.) Sun said of the type of person shown on its cover: ‘These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for,’” the New American reported. Even today it is hard to find this infamous photo and book.

CaptShady
9th March 04, 02:41 PM
Friendly with the enemy: Kerry’s fondness for Vietnam’s communist dictatorship, one of the most oppressive in the world, continues.
As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, created in 1991 to investigate reports that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam, Kerry badgered the panel into voting that no American servicemen remained in Vietnam.
“[N]o one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry,” noted U.S. Veteran Dispatch.

“But Kerry's participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992,” reported the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, “when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry's cousin.”

The “odd coincidence,” according to FrontPageMagazine.com, involved a deal worth $905 million.

Jeff Jacoby, the token conservative columnist at the Boston Globe, notes that Kerry continues his apologia for Vietnam's never-ending atrocities. "Far from taking the lead on the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, he has prevented it from coming to a vote. He claims that making an issue of Hanoi's repression would be counterproductive."

Kerry is also a fan of China’s communist dictatorship. “On May 19, 1994, five years after Tiananmen Square, Kerry spoke on the Senate floor against linking China's Most Favored Nation trade status to its human rights record,” Slate reported.

Kerry said: “China is the strongest military power in Asia. We need China's cooperation. We cannot afford to adopt a cold-war kind of policy that merely excludes and pushes China away.”

Limiting China's MFN status “would make us a bit player in a production of enormous proportions. We possess no stick, including MFN, which can force China to embrace internationally recognized human rights and freedoms.”

More extreme than Hillary and Kucinich: Among the White House wannabes, long-shot Rep. Dennis Kucinich has the reputation of holding the most left-wing congressional voting record. In fact, this “honor” goes to Kerry.
According to American Conservative Union, Kerry has a lifetime rating of 6 percent, compared to 13 for the demolished Rep. Dick Gephardt, 14 for Sen. John Edwards, 15 for Kucinich and 19 for Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle score 13 percent. Only the likes of Sens. Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer have more left-wing records than Kerry. In contrast, Sen. John Breaux, one of the upper chamber’s few remaining moderate Democrats, has a 46.

Drive as I say, not as I do: Like Al Gore and other self-described environmentalists, Kerry has a radical agenda that would devastate the U.S. economy in favor of the likes of communist China, yet he enjoys the gas-guzzling modern conveniences that greens denounce. Kerry, a delegate to the environment-destroying Earth Summit in 1992 (where he met his future wife, left-wing activist Teresa Heinz, the multimillionaire widow of GOP Sen. John Heinz), the Kyoto climate talks in 1997 and the Hague Conference of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2000, has attacked President Bush for withdrawing from the anti-U.S. Kyoto Protocol. This treaty, which then-President Bill Clinton had signed, would impose severe restrictions on the United States but not Third World polluters that already enjoy huge trade surpluses with the U.S.
However, although Kerry spouts the party line on anti-U.S. ecopolicy, he doesn’t like to practice what he preaches. Kerry was humiliated in April 2002 when photographed attending a rally against energy independence and then heading back to his SUV, the symbol of all that is evil to self-described greens.

Bone to pick: Bush-hating conspiracy theorists find it alarming that the president, like his father, was a member of the secretive Skull and Bones society at Yale University. Another alum of this club: John Kerry.

Get out your wallets: One reason Kerry and Edwards did well in Iowa: Losers Dean and Gephardt admitted they'd repeal all of the president's tax relief. However, although Kerry has taken credit for middle-class tax cuts, child tax credit and relief of the marriage penalty, he voted against them, GOP.com disclosed.
"Kerry will have to expend an awful lot of time and money to convince people that he's not the classic Massachusetts liberal," Larry Sabato, a respected political analyst at the University of Virginia, told the Associated Press in December 2002. "And that's going to be tough, because mainly he is."

Waffling on Iraq: Kerry has the tough job of wooing Howard Dean’s anti-war Democrats despite his support of the war in Iraq. His favorite tactic, claiming the president outfoxed him, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
On “Meet the Press” in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate in October 2002 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq “capable of quickly producing weaponizing” of biological weapons that could be delivered against “the United States itself.”

Kerry insisted: “That is exactly the point I’m making. We were given this information by our intelligence community.”

However, as columnist Robert Novak noted, “as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was.”

No doubt Dean, Lieberman, Clark and other rivals will now use these and other details to do to Kerry what the Democrats did to Dean.

CaptShady
9th March 04, 02:42 PM
* Kerry voted for the Patriot Act
* Kerry voted for the war.
* Kerry got the same intel as the President.
* He knew the PA was going to expand police powers under time of war.
* He knew voting for the war was going to lead to war.
* He knew the state of the intel and endorsed it.
* Now he wants to pretend he did not understand the PA, that he did not know we would actually go to war, and that the intel was manipulated.

Jenfucius
9th March 04, 02:49 PM
some guys will do anything for pussy.

coner400
9th March 04, 05:13 PM
so which side are you voting?.......or will you even vote?

CaptShady
9th March 04, 05:16 PM
My patriotic beliefs insist that I vote. But it won't be for one of "the 2 parties"

KageReaper
9th March 04, 05:17 PM
Pussy is one hell of a drug

coner400
9th March 04, 06:01 PM
libertarian perhaps.....

Dochter
9th March 04, 06:14 PM
What is more shocking is that oh my god, all those atrocities did occur.

What a traitor for pointing out the problem.

By the way Fonda hadn't yet gone to Hanoi in 1971 so it is a flase association that you are making.

Jenfucius
9th March 04, 06:31 PM
jane fonda ovary-rider.

Stick
9th March 04, 07:30 PM
Yeah Cap.... we totally didn't massacre that village..... nope, didn't fucking happen.

Women and children weren't mowed down by US troops, just not possible.

Besides, this is nothing I didn't already know, thanks for wasting my time, man.

:: goes off to warm up his voting card for election day ::

kismasher
10th March 04, 01:14 PM
YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZING PUKE, YOU MAKE ME FUCKING SICK.

NOW YOU HIGH TAIL YOUR ASS DOWN TO GUANTANAMO RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE JUST FORFEITED ALL YOUR RIGHTS YOUR TRAITOROUS PIECE OF SHIIIOOOOTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

PeedeeShaolin
10th March 04, 01:59 PM
LOL

Stick
10th March 04, 02:37 PM
So true kismasher, so true.

CaptShady
10th March 04, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Yeah Cap.... we totally didn't massacre that village..... nope, didn't fucking happen.

Women and children weren't mowed down by US troops, just not possible.

Besides, this is nothing I didn't already know, thanks for wasting my time, man.

:: goes off to warm up his voting card for election day ::

Anyone running, is a VC .. anyone standing still, is a well disciplined VC .. aint' war hell?

kismasher
10th March 04, 03:08 PM
but, how can you shoot women and children?

CaptShady
10th March 04, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by kismasher
but, how can you shoot women and children?

LOL! EASY!!! You just don't lead 'em so much!

Balloonknot
10th March 04, 03:22 PM
Kerry is our next president. Get over it Capt. and start dealing with it. He's still a better man than Bush could ever try to be. This time, all the democrats and some republicans are coming out of the closet to vote against Bush. I personally know many people who are registering for the very first time in their lives just so they can vote Bush out (including me).

Bush has had over 3 years to do some good, but has he? Absolutely not! It's time for another (kerry) to step up to the plate and swing! Hopefully, he'll do a better job or at least not fukk the country up even more than Bush has.

PeedeeShaolin
10th March 04, 03:26 PM
Kerry is just as dirty as ANY politician in Washington. I actually AGREE with Capt. in the fact that he's probably going to vote for numb nuts Nader. Nader IS the most honest out of them all but he'll never win so your vote is basically wasted.

Opposing the war in Vietnam is a GOOD thing. It was a war fought for bankers and the U.S. killed millions of people to stop "communism"....a bunch of bullshiit in other words.

There's never been a president that had got us into more shiit than Bush.

The way i see it is Kerry would have to work DAMN HARD to be as TERRIBLE as Bush. I dont think he CAN be as bad, so right now I'm voting for him.

At least he FOUGHT in the war and didnt have daddy BUY his way out of it.

Deadpan Scientist
10th March 04, 03:31 PM
Bullshit. Andrew Jackson.

CaptShady
10th March 04, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
Kerry is our next president. Get over it Capt. and start dealing with it. He's still a better man than Bush could ever try to be. This time, all the democrats and some republicans are coming out of the closet to vote against Bush. I personally know many people who are registering for the very first time in their lives just so they can vote Bush out (including me).

Bush has had over 3 years to do some good, but has he? Absolutely not! It's time for another (kerry) to step up to the plate and swing! Hopefully, he'll do a better job or at least not fukk the country up even more than Bush has.

I can guaran-damn-tee ya it'll be just as fucked up. You seem to think that I'm a Bush supporter ... how many times do I have to say that I'm NOT before it sinks in, boy?

"Still a better man than Bush" has soooooooo much leeway it's pathetic. Slightly better than Satan doesn't mean GOOD, do you get the drift? Kerry and Bush are both fucking con men, and are lying their asses off. BOTH will fuck you in the ass with no lube, just to make themselves look good. They don't care about YOU, the state of the U.S. OR it's economics. That's the point I'm trying to make. ALL the shit you've said about Bush can be said about Clinton, and by the time Kerry's term is over, that will be true of him as well.

Notice when Anita Hill claimed sexual harrassment/assault? How the dems were sooo pissed off about it, and republicans said you couldn't take the word of her against his? So just to reiterate ..

Dems: that poor woman Anita, that GUILTY shit Clarence (no trial, no judgement of innocence/guilt)

Repubs: where's the proof? Witnesses don't count as proof.

flash fwd, to Paula Jones, and the same thing was said, except by different parties.

Repubs: that poor, poor Paula, that shit GUILTY Clinton (no trial, no proof of innocence/guilt)

Dems: where's the proof? Witnesses don't count as proof.

Kerry is NOT .. I repeat NOT good for this country.

Even worse, is you've not brought up any facts to support the cute little buzzwords that Kerry keeps saying like "the wealthiest people getting tax breaks", or how he hasn't said a fucking thign about how he's going to FIX the problem in Iraq, just that he doesn't like how Bush is handling it. Kerry sucks ass, and Bush sucks ass. You're registering to vote for the first time, for THAT mother fucker? What a sad, sad day. You've been effectively conned. Chalk one up for Johnny boy.

CaptShady
10th March 04, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
Opposing the war in Vietnam is a GOOD thing.



Yes, but spitting on Vets is NOT. Turning an entire generation onto drugs is NOT. Teaching violent protest against your own countrymen is NOT.


Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
It was a war fought for bankers and the U.S. killed millions of people to stop "communism"....a bunch of bullshiit in other words.


Yes, but you can't look backwards in time and make the judgement. We can look back at slavery and make the call that it was horrid, vile, unnecessary. But we can't look back and even begin to understand the mindset of slave owners who beat them so badly, torturing, starving them. There's no way to begin to understand how someone could DO that.

PeedeeShaolin
10th March 04, 03:45 PM
Someone squeeze my nuts because I must be having a nightmare; I agree with almost everything Capt says.

Kerry seems more likely to send our troops home than Bush because he has less ties to the oil industry. Everyone on Bush's cabinet, including Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Cheny...they ALL have ties to oil.

All those kids getting killed for nothing really has me bothered. This never had to happen and Bush lied about something pretty substantial in WMD. Read between the lines and I think you'll see that Bush wanted to invade REGARDLESS and was just looking for an excuse. He never really cared if WMD were there or not.

Iraq has never attacked the U.S. or threatened to.

From what Kerry sasy, if you can believe him, he sounds at least more willing to help the country than Bush. Bush really Is spend crazy and is all for getting us into shiit and placing the U.S. FURTHER away from the rest of the world.

I didnt like Clinton either but the world loved us when he was in office.

People put Bush OVER Bin Laden as the worlds most hated man. Just not in America.

PeedeeShaolin
10th March 04, 03:53 PM
Yes, but you can't look backwards in time and make the judgement. We can look back at slavery and make the call that it was horrid, vile, unnecessary. But we can't look back and even begin to understand the mindset of slave owners who beat them so badly, torturing, starving them. There's no way to begin to understand how someone could DO that.

I agree, but we have a responsibility as taxpayers to speak out when our dollars are being used for causes that are unjust. Those soldiers in Iraq right now wen't there thinking their families were in danger from WMD and fought for that reason. Its not fair to them OR the country OR the innocent people that dies to just say "oh well".

Call a spade a spade is what I'm saying.

The U.S. has fought ALOt of wars for wrong reasons. Technology has finally caught up to the point where information is more readily accesible and we can find out whats going on alot easier than ever before.

I just cant support this kind of behavior, just like I cant support the sanctions against Cuba which ban medical supplies and prevent free trade with North American farmers. There's just no reason for it. It helps nobody and hurts many.

When you read history impartially you really get a feel that things have been pretty bad as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned. The only people who can change that are U.S. citizens. The only reason they'd see a NEED to change it is by educating themselves about history.

I'd never spit on a soldier for fighting for what he thought was right. Thats sick. The guy is there risking his life because he thinks our cuntry is in danger. I really cant ignore all the facts that say our country was NOT in danger though. Thats not speaking bad about of soldiers, thats speaking bad about the people that told them to fight.

Clinton did his share of violence as well. That bombing in the Sudan was HORRIFIC,...people just dont realize it. That factory produced 1/3 of all the countries medical supplies. An INSANE amount of people died because of THAT, not eh bombing itself. People need to be educated on these things and not just ignore them because they think its patriotic to wave a flag no matter what your country does with your tax dollars.

CaptShady
10th March 04, 03:59 PM
Your best post yet! .. HOWEVER ...


Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
When you read history impartially you really get a feel that things have been pretty bad as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned. The only people who can change that are U.S. citizens. The only reason they'd see a NEED to change it is by educating themselves about history.

That is PRECISELY my point. Which is why my vote is not a wasted vote! YOURS IS, for voting for a man with such a tremendously strong record of blatant lying, and corruption, just because he's not as big of a shit as the one in power now. The shit in our govt is because of the dominance of the 2 party system. Honestly, do you know ONE single extreme liberal, that's just a regular old citizen, and NOT a politician, member of the media or hollywood celebrity? Any of them extreme conservative? But we, as citizens keep getting fucked RIGHT UP the ass, because we FUCKING TAKE IT!

Southpaw
10th March 04, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
My patriotic beliefs insist that I vote. But it won't be for one of "the 2 parties"

I agree 100%


I will vote against the two party system.

snuffles
10th March 04, 11:50 PM
i dont see why people insist on not "wasting" their vote, like it really matters somehow....(electorol college)

people need to wake up and fucking realize the power they have. WE own this place. WE keep this fucking country going. WE CAN do something.... remember the phone soliciting thing with the "do not call list"? it was revoked, and almost EVERYONE in the whole country got pissed and called there senators and whatnot. that law was changed in like 5 days. the politicians know they have to bend over for us, or they will not be re-elected, and they will lose that little amount of power they are so proud of.... get rid of the elctorol college. it's bad.

oh yeh, vote Nader!!

Balloonknot
11th March 04, 10:17 AM
Given the choices, there is no other choice than to vote for Kerry. Like it or not, that's how it is. Kerry is the lesser of two evils. I think most people will agree with that. Although, I believe Nader is the best person out of the three (but he's not who he use to be anymore) it just ain't gonna happen! Don't waste your vote.

Kerry may very well end up being a total fukkup also, but hey, let's give the dude a shot! If he sucks, he'll end up being a one-term prez also. Hopefully, things will be better. Even more so, hopefully Mass will get a piece of the pie (real estate is brutal in the Bos area).

PHILBERT
11th March 04, 11:19 AM
I've said it several times before. I don't care if the Democrats nominate a goat, I am voting on that goat. I am sick of Bush, I use to like him up until about 6 weeks ago and since then, I've been counting down to the November elections.

Te No Kage!
11th March 04, 11:40 AM
vote libertarian, a vote is never wasted if you can still look at yourself in the mirror the next day

Balloonknot
11th March 04, 02:45 PM
Fukk the mirror Te No Kagel! It's not about that. Accept things as they really are; not how you think they are. It's either gonna be Bush or Kerry. You choose. To vote otherwise IS a wasted vote.

Phrost
11th March 04, 03:19 PM
Yes, at this point I am very serious about voting Libertarian. We need more than 2 major parties in this country, and I agree more with them than either the corporate controlled-hyper fundamentalist Christian Rublicans or the leftist hippy socialist Democrats.

Te No Kage!
11th March 04, 03:30 PM
Even if the democrats or republicans win, when they see that there is a contigency of voters that go another moderate way, ie Green Party, Libertarian, etc..., they will start getting candidates that share some of those values, they will also start catering to the ideals and values of these "non-traditionalists". I would vote Republican or Democrat if they represented my stances on issues. But I'm not going to vote for somebody that doesn't represent my values just to serve the party--that's just communist.

PeedeeShaolin
11th March 04, 03:33 PM
We should have a cartoon for politics which shows the Republicans(smiling) standing behind a bunch of well fed guys in business suits all red-faced and bald, the Democrats(also smiling) standing behind a bunch of hippies wearing rose colored glasses, and then the working man standing in front of them both with his pockets inside out giving them the middle finger.

KC Elbows
11th March 04, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Honestly, do you know ONE single extreme liberal, that's just a regular old citizen, and NOT a politician, member of the media or hollywood celebrity? Any of them extreme conservative?

First, I know plenty of extremists on the left and right who are not members of the organizations you've mentioned, and can think of rightists and leftists in those positions. Studies have shown the so-called "liberal bias" of media is not so cut and dried, and that there is also a "conservative bias" at play as well.

As for being in politics, we're all supposed to be in politics. Every one of us, and not just by voting.

However, I'm in full agreement with you regarding the problems of the two party system, but I'm not voting a third party at such a crucial time. The last three elections, the third party was used as a tactic by one of the main two parties, and the repubs'd like to do the same this time, and have stated so. Voting for Nader will not be a vote wasted, it will be a vote for Bush, in effect. Nader will not draw republican votes, and Nader will not win, because the two party system is more entrenched than wishful thinking can solve. Without campaign finance reform on a major level, there will be two parties and two parties only fighting for the presidency, imo.

Voting for Nader again will throw power to Bush, and every consecutive term one party is in power will tip the odds further and further in their favor.

I think people sometimes forget that the two parties, while in a psuedo symbiotic relationship, are also in this to win, and not just the presidency, but the whole arena of American politics. That's why turn limits, that's why the supreme court is formed the way it is, to limit the capacity to achieve that by any one group. I really wish I knew who said this, but all republics end in dictatorships, and we are an elected republic.

The idea of people voting for solely one party bothers me for this reason, but it is a reality that if I don't always vote one way, someone elsewhere is surely voting the other way, and neither of us for more reason than to keep power from being too concentrated in the other person's favored party too long.

As for Kerry snubbing Spiro Agnew, Spiro Agnew was an unamerican sob who loved such traitorous practices as blacklists and only looked acceptable when compared to the guy he answered to. Good for Kerry. Dissent is important to american politics.

The Wastrel
11th March 04, 07:19 PM
Campaign finance reform won't begin to address the limit of two parties. Listen please...Single-member districts with simple plurality rule leads with rule-proving exception to two-party domination. It's called Duverger's law, and it is one of the few principles within political science that even comes close to deserving the title.

The reason multiple parties exist in other countries is not because of campaign finance laws, but because of different electoral rules. Primarily, what is known as proportional representation, or p.r.


Proportional Representation
(Redirected from Proportional representation)


Proportional Representation (PR) describes various multi-winner election systems which try to ensure that the proportional support gained by different groups is accurately reflected in the election result. Proportional representation is also used to describe this (intended) effect.

In practice this usually involves ensuring that political parties in parliament or legislative assemblies receive a number of seats (approximately) proportional to the percentage of vote they received. This is known as party-list proportional representation.

Another kind of election system that strives to achieve proportional representation but which does not rely on the existence of political parties is the single transferable vote (STV).

Some systems, such as the single non-transferable vote and cumulative voting are sometimes categorized as "semi-proportional".

Systems that do not result in proportional representation are known as majoritarian systems. These include first-past-the-post (plurality), runoff voting (majority), the alternative vote and the bloc vote. Here, parties can receive seat numbers that bear no relationship to the national percentages they received in parliament.

The district or constituency magnitude of a system (i.e., the number of seats in a constituency) plays a vital role in determining how proportional it can be. When using proportional systems, the greater the number of seats in a district or constituency, the more proportional an electoral system can become. Any system with single-member districts is by necessity majoritarian at district or constituency level. However, district or constituency borders may be gerrymandered to create "majority-minority" districts or constituencies where a group of voters in the minority system-wide form the majority in a particular district or constituency, thus allowing a simulation of proportionality system-wide.

However, multiple-member districts do not ensure that a system will be proportional. The bloc vote can result in "super-majoritarian" results in which, in addition to the normal disproportionality of single-member majoritarian systems, geographical variations that could create majority-minority districts become subsumed into the larger districts.

Proportional representation seems unusual to Americans, but it is actually a much more common system of voting than first-past-the-post. In general, first-past-the-post is only used in former British colonies, and even Britain itself uses PR for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies and for its EU delegation. Nonetheless, PR does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York, used it for their city councils as a way to break up Democratic Party monopolies.

Some electoral systems incorporate additional features to ensure absolutely accurate or more comprehensive representation, based on gender or minority status (like ethnicity). Note that features such as this are not strictly part of proportional representation; depending on what kind of PR is used, people tend to be already represented proportionally according to these standards without any such enforcements.


Now, I know no one's going to read this. And in a few weeks the same people are going to claim that campaign finance laws or perverse votes for third parties are going to change the logic of simple math. But please, I'm giving you a free elementary lesson in political institutions. This is real, correct and valuable knowledge.

Dochter
11th March 04, 08:05 PM
Ha, I was actually about to search for a link to the thread on the topic when I saw your post.

KC Elbows
11th March 04, 09:07 PM
I read it. What would be required to enact that on a national level in the US? If it's congress supporting it and the pres not vetoing it, wouldn't that mean something would have to make both less solidly two-party first?

punchingdummy
11th March 04, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by KC Elbows
Dissent is important to american politics.

Ah yes, a simple truth. Dissention is the progenator of demacracy

The Wastrel
11th March 04, 09:40 PM
If it's congress supporting it and the pres not vetoing it, wouldn't that mean something would have to make both less solidly two-party first?

KCElbows has brought down a thundering herd of two-ton korrekts!!

Te No Kage!
12th March 04, 08:29 AM
Wastrel--are you intimating that this PR system would be useful in our electoral college to disseminate the two-party system? I believe a step in the right direction would be to do away with the electoral college altogether. At least that would stop presidential candidates from pandering to only a few key states.

The Wastrel
12th March 04, 09:31 AM
The electoral college has nothing to do with it. It's a legislative electoral rule.

KC Elbows
12th March 04, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
KCElbows has brought down a thundering herd of two-ton korrekts!!

Thanks. So, wouldn't some form of strict campaign finance reform suffice to weaken the hold of the two parties in national politics? Or would there be better ways to achieve that?

Xango
13th March 04, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Now, I know no one's going to read this. And in a few weeks the same people are going to claim that campaign finance laws or perverse votes for third parties are going to change the logic of simple math. But please, I'm giving you a free elementary lesson in political institutions. This is real, correct and valuable knowledge.

That was pretty cool, Wastrel.

Personally, I'm in favor of reconstituting the House so that Congresscritters can collect votes from the entire country. So, rather than a bunch of adversarial races, we'd have the 500 most popular representatives.

Actually, my idea would be more complicated, more of a situation where you rent out your vote to whomever you approve of, with the option to act on it any time you please by registering your vote on some issue directly, but that's another story. They're related.

Now, how to convince politicians that these schemes are in their own self-interest?

-Xango

Choke
14th March 04, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin

I just cant support this kind of behavior, just like I cant support the sanctions against Cuba which ban medical supplies and prevent free trade with North American farmers. There's just no reason for it. It helps nobody and hurts many.




Cuba is home to some of the most fertile soil on this side of the world. Why can't a Cuban citizen grow his own food on his own land? If you can answer this for me you'll get the gold star.

Kein Haar
14th March 04, 12:43 AM
So, wouldn't some form of strict campaign finance reform suffice to weaken the hold of the two parties in national politics?

NO! Mr. Duverger said so!

Seriously. Wastrel isn't making that up.

Te No Kage!
14th March 04, 07:43 AM
Campaign finance reform would weaken the grip of special interests (ie big companies, the MAN, etc...) on our politicians.

patfromlogan
14th March 04, 04:05 PM
Single-member districts with simple plurality rule leads with rule-proving exception to two-party domination.

I don't understand this sentence.

The Wastrel
14th March 04, 04:10 PM
Exactly.

Deadpan Scientist
14th March 04, 04:11 PM
heh

Dochter
14th March 04, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by CaptShady
Yes, but spitting on Vets is NOT. Turning an entire generation onto drugs is NOT. Teaching violent protest against your own countrymen is NOT.



Where did he do any of those things?

He participated in protests and testified before congress about factual occurences. That is entirely appropriate.

The funny thing is that McCain is a FRIEND and fan of Kerry. Would he be if what the veterans against kerry say was in anyway true?

No. He wouldn't be.

patfromlogan
14th March 04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Exactly.

fuck off

patfromlogan
14th March 04, 04:27 PM
Maybe a comma after leads? And after exception?

I mean I am reading and I am trying to understand.

So if you want to be flippant, eat shit.

If you want to make yourself understood...

But feeling superior is probably so much more important than communication.

The Wastrel
14th March 04, 04:47 PM
Pat,
I've gone over this with you before. You never listen to me anyway. Why bother?

patfromlogan
14th March 04, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Pat,
I've gone over this with you before. You never listen to me anyway. Why bother?

But I'm sober!

Seriously, I am trying at this point to get it.

I think 'rule proving' is the part that is unclear.

Remember, if you talk down to the jury, your client will hang.

The Wastrel
14th March 04, 05:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_election_system


First Past the Post electoral system
(Redirected from First-past-the-post election system)


The first-past-the-post electoral system is a voting system for single-member districts, variously called first-past-the-post (FPTP or FPP), winner-take-all, plurality voting, or relative majority. In political science, it is known as Single-Member District Plurality or SMDP. This system is in use at all levels of politics; it is very common in former British colonies. For a thorough list, see below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

Canada and the UK's significant additional parties "prove the rule" because in many ways they replace one of the other parties in regional politics. So in Scotland you have the SNP, in Canada the Quebecois party, whatever it's called.

It's important to remember that Duverger's law specifies two EFFECTIVE parties. In the US, obviously we have more than two parties.

I have posted this many times over.

Dochter
14th March 04, 05:13 PM
...to equate the election process with a race offends my teenage naivete.



(sorry, had to be there)

patfromlogan
15th March 04, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel

I have posted this many times over.


Originally posted by patfromlogan
So sorry I'm too busy watching my favorite movie to think about a response:

Karate Kid and the Pedophile
http://www.uvmdudeman.com/karate.jpg

Had to throw it in!

Just to prove that I'm not always a dismissive jerk, there will be a response.:confused: Of some sort. Hopefully clever insightful and so forth. Or at least make a modicum of sense.

I do feel bad that it (my rep with Wastrel )has gotten so bad. I know I've fucked up in a few threads...