------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daedalus Rising To: All Subject: Rage Date: Fri Nov 11 07:41:14 CST 1994 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: -1 Rage! Engage! Let your agression out before it tears you apart. This is a base to vent your rage .... be it about a shitty day at work or school ... or simply aggrivation at the way fate has screwed with you over the last few years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Oct 13 08:40:29 CDT 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: -8 S> what the difference was between a republican and a democrat, and no one knew BT> BT> There both corrupt political parties that have been changing their agendas BT> since the days of formation, why would anyone care about the modern day BT> difference? More frightening than that is the fact that people think that we live in a democracy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Starfire Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Oct 13 16:15:50 CDT 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: 2 S> More frightening than that is the fact that people think that we live in a S> democracy. Even worse than that, people think that the democracy actually means something.. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Specter Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Oct 13 16:21:44 CDT 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: -9 S> I can't say I think my school sucks in general, but I'm certain much of S> does. How 'bout this, In my government class no less than five people ask S> what the difference was between a republican and a democrat, and no one knew S> what a socialist was. Anyways, we have to make the most of it. Is it better to be ignorant about politics, or to have lots and lots of bad information crammed into your head? Hmm. Went to try and see Michael Moore (TV nation, Roger & Me, Downsize This!) at Macalaster tonight, but the hall they booked was way too small. So after hearing him talk for about 15 mins outside, about 200-300 of us had to leave and go home without hearing him give his speech. Poor planning sucks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Krusty Subject: Choose or Lose. Date: Sun Oct 13 16:24:06 CDT 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: -3 So who are you going to vote for, Clinton or Dole? Welcome to your nightmoare :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfire Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Oct 13 17:22:03 CDT 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 0 S> I can just see you as being a wonderfully patient mother. Thanks, but not always. I am a Scorpio, and my significator for a long time was the Queen of Swords. I was loving and intense, but demanding, I hope in a positive way, and supported them as a good lady judge should. :) I also slept with The Priestess under my pillow, and read using the Queen of Rods as a significator. I have now more grown into the Queen of Rods. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfire Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Oct 13 17:24:24 CDT 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: 1 S> does. How 'bout this, In my government class no less than five people ask S> what the difference was between a republican and a democrat, and no one knew Well, it's an honest mistake. I have been a life long democrat, and neither Clinton nor Dole seem particularly like their parties to me. For one thing, neither one adheres to his party's platform. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DEVIOUS To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Oct 13 17:49:09 CDT 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: 6 F> Thanks, but not always. I am a Scorpio, and my significator for a May he be out there at last. Scorpio is the one who is king. hehe. Just messin with ya. Scorpio is just my fav. Not just because I am in his range (B-day) but he just has lots of meaning to the occult ways which helps me myself understand more of the beliefs I have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Mon Oct 14 16:27:37 CDT 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: 3 S> More frightening than that is the fact that people think that we live in a S> democracy. BT> BT> Even worse than that, people think that the democracy actually means BT> something.. Even worse than that, are the people who think that democracy is something you're given ... not something you have to fight for. If America isn't a democracy, then why? What's stopping us from all going out and voting for the good guys? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Starfire Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Tue Oct 15 17:06:27 CDT 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 1 S> I only have one more year after this. Then I get to go an actually learn S> something from school. Including this year or excluding. In other words are you a senior or a junior? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Tue Oct 15 17:14:40 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: 4 DR> Is it better to be ignorant about politics, or to have lots and lots of ba DR> information crammed into your head? I'd say they're more or less the same. If you have bad information crammed into you then you don't know good information. What I will try to label as a general "truth". If you don't have knowledge of "truth" then one would still remain ignorant. What is true is extremely difficult to define, but hey, that wasn't my point. I'd say that allowing yourself to be crammed full of bad information may at least suggest an interest in knowing what is going on, whereas ignorance by choice suggests a non-desire to know which I believe is worse than faulty information based upon a desire to know. DR> Went to try and see Michael Moore (TV nation, Roger & Me, Downsize DR> This!) at Macalaster tonight, but the hall they booked was way too small. S DR> after hearing him talk for about 15 mins outside, about 200-300 of us had t DR> leave and go home without hearing him give his speech. Ooh, I would have loved to see that. Too bad you missed the chance to hear him, that would have been cool. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Tue Nov 26 13:31:48 CST 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: unavailable DR | Even worse than that, are the people who think that democracy is | something you're given ... not something you have to fight for. I dunno - I coulda sworn that democracy was guaranteed to me by the Constitution. Then again, you may have a point - but who do I have to fight with? DR | If America isn't a democracy, then why? What's stopping us from all | going out and voting for the good guys? Why? Power structures that were put into place before anyone here was born. What's stopping us? You want the whole list? 1) Lack of attractive candidates 2) Electoral College 3) The Demopublican party's stranglehold on the media/election process. That's enough for now - but to expand on #3 there, does anyone here have any idea of how many qualified candidates for President there were in the recent election? Homemade oatmeal-chocolate chip cookie for correct answers. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ This isn't what the govern meant - Steppenwolf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sat Dec 23 17:11:19 CST 1995 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: 12 MW> DR | Even worse than that, are the people who think that democracy is MW> | something you're given ... not something you have to fight for. MW> MW> I dunno - I coulda sworn that democracy was guaranteed to me by the MW> Constitution. Then again, you may have a point - but who do I have to MW> fight with? You fight with whoever and whatever is trying to take your power to vote away from you. Case in point, the right to vote on judges might be taken away from us next year. For good or ill, this is a blatant example. MW> DR | If America isn't a democracy, then why? What's stopping us from all MW> | going out and voting for the good guys? MW> MW> Why? Power structures that were put into place before anyone here was MW> born. Power structures are run by people ... almost by definition, a few people. Guess what? There are more of us than there are of them. Let's gang up on them, using the power and tools we have - our voices, our arms and our vote. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sat Dec 23 17:17:20 CST 1995 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 12 Saved the message too early ... MW> 1) Lack of attractive candidates Try looking beyond the primary and general election, there are plenty of excellent cantidates out there. Just because they don't get through the caucases and endorsement process doesn't mean that they can't, it measn that the excellent citizens aren't there to support them early enough or vocally enough. MW> 2) Electoral College ... which is stupid, but only affects the Presidential election - and not very directly, at that. Mostly what it does is turn the election into 50 small elections, giving the big states too much importance. MW> 3) The Demopublican party's stranglehold on the media/election process. So work within the parties to change them, or join a third party. If the people who bitched the loudest about 2-party rule would spend a few hours each month working to change the system, the system would change. Instead, we have armchair quarterbacks who complain that there's no one to vote for - but who never jump in until the end of the 4th quarter. MW> That's enough for now - but to expand on #3 there, does anyone here have MW> any idea of how many qualified candidates for President there were in MW> the recent election? Statewide, or nationally? And what do yuo mean by qualified? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh Date: Sun Dec 24 00:37:19 CST 1995 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: 14 MW> That's enough for now - but to expand on #3 there, does anyone here have MW> any idea of how many qualified candidates for President there were in MW> the recent election? DR> DR> Statewide, or nationally? And what do yuo mean by qualified? As far as the basic Constitutional requirements, I think they all were qualified. They are only required to be American Citizens over 35. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Wed Nov 27 11:38:19 CST 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > DR | Even worse than that, are the people who think that democracy is > | something you're given ... not something you have to fight for. > > I dunno - I coulda sworn that democracy was guaranteed to me by the > Constitution. Then again, you may have a point - but who do I have > to fight with? DR | You fight with whoever and whatever is trying to take your power to | vote away from you. My contention is that the effectiveness of my vote is already gone - because of many different factors. Our entire electoral system will need to be overhauled before my vote means anything. To achieve this, I'll have to fight against a very large power structure, and every part of that structure will oppose me in its own self-interest. DR | Case in point, the right to vote on judges might be taken away from | us next year. For good or ill, this is a blatant example. Good example - but nothing you or I do will have a deciding effect on that decision, unless one of us is extraordinary. MW > DR | If America isn't a democracy, then why? What's stopping us from all > | going out and voting for the good guys? MW > Why? Power structures that were put into place before anyone here was > born. DR | Power structures are run by people ... almost by definition, a few | people. You're right - power structures *are* groups of people, with the size of the group and the group's resources deciding how much power the group actually has. But while it's run by a few people, it's supported by as many people as are members of the structure - defeat the leaders, and new leaders will come to the fore. Case in point - the Radical Right Christians. Probably no more than a few dozen leaders, both in and out of the public eye. But while it's caused an internal ruckus when one of the leaders goes down (Swaggert, etc.), it hasn't diminished the amount of power the group as a whole has. DR | Guess what? There are more of us than there are of them. Let's gang | up on them, using the power and tools we have - our voices, our | arms and our vote. I don't theenks, so, Quicksdraw. Our government, as it exists today, is much larger than any single group that wishes to force change upon it. Our voices are largely controlled by the media, our arms are disorganized, and our vote is essentially meaningless. We're David to their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that sling got to. When you're part of a *large* grass-roots movement, this may change - but what are the chances of that? -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ I'll continue this in the next message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Wed Nov 27 11:38:20 CST 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: unavailable DR | Saved the message too early ... S'okay. Splitting this into different threads for the different parts of the debate is probably done best now, before it gets unwieldy. This is much too much fun for it to fail to grow. MW > 1) Lack of attractive candidates DR | Try looking beyond the primary and general election, there are | plenty of excellent cantidates out there. Just because they don't | get through the caucases and endorsement process doesn't mean that | they can't, it measn that the excellent citizens aren't there to | support them early enough or vocally enough. Of course they can't - not for the '96 elections, anyway. It's possible, but they have a long uphill road to get there. The existing power blocs have a stranglehold on the caucas, endorsement, and information processes. The best candidates are totally unknown to 90% of the people that vote, and are damn likely to remain that way. To me, an attractive candidate must be a visible canditate. MW > 2) Electoral College DR | ... which is stupid, but only affects the Presidential election - | and not very directly, at that. Mostly what it does is turn the | election into 50 small elections, giving the big states too much | importance. You're right - at least, I agree. The Electoral College is part of a process that I'll get into later, from the looks of other parts of this debate. But rather than leaving you hanging here, I'll give an indication of where I stand by reminding you that if Donald Duck had actually won the general election, the EC could (and likely would) have *really* elected someone more ... suitable. MW > 3) The Demopublican party's stranglehold on the media/election process. DR | So work within the parties to change them, or join a third party. | If the people who bitched the loudest about 2-party rule would | spend a few hours each month working to change the system, the | system would change. Instead, we have armchair quarterbacks who | complain that there's no one to vote for - but who never jump in | until the end of the 4th quarter. I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, my goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as the current process is in place, it doesn't really *matter* what party(s) are ascendant - the abuses, and the insulation between the general populace and *real* power will continue. MW > That's enough for now - but to expand on #3 there, does anyone here > have any idea of how many qualified candidates for President there > were in the recent election? DR | Statewide, or nationally? And what do yuo mean by qualified? To be qualified candidates for President, they'd have to be qualified nationally. Someone else pointed out that any citizen over the age of 35 is qualified, but that's not quite accurate - they're eligible to be qualified. To be qualified, a citizen has to declare, gather signatures, and jump thru a few more hoops to be recognized by the election process. To say "thbppppt!" to an earlier example of mine, while Donald Duck does get some votes every election, he's not a qualified candidate, and those votes don't count. If Perot hadn't had a bunch of people gathering signatures for him early in the process, he could have gotten 80% of the vote without it having any legal effect - those votes simply wouldn't count. I'm talking about canditates who have gone through all of the qualification process, and for whom votes would count - even if they didn't show up on any ballot, and got no media attention. Better hurry - the kids here are eyeing those cookies... -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ If pro <> con, what's the opposite of progress? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Thu Nov 28 04:14:10 CST 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: 16 MW> DR | Case in point, the right to vote on judges might be taken away from MW> | us next year. For good or ill, this is a blatant example. MW> MW> Good example - but nothing you or I do will have a deciding effect on MW> that decision, unless one of us is extraordinary. I'll have to disagree with you strongly on this one. After volunteering for several campaigns and the local DFL this past year, several of the lawmakers know me by name. If I go up to them at the Capitol and say something to the effect of, "You know, Tom, this whole business of taking our right to vote away is setting a really bad precedent. We want people to vote, want them to get involved, but on the other hand work to take their right to vote away. I hope you won't support this bill, and instead vote for the alternative bill which will set aside money for voter guides on judicial cantidates. After all, the problem isn't voting itself - the problem is uninformed votes. So let's work to inform the voters." The lawmakers are human. They're not autocratic machines, they can and do bend to the opinion of their constituents (particularly on well-publicized bills; the lobbyists earn their keep on the small bills which no one ever hears about). MW> DR | Power structures are run by people ... almost by definition, a few MW> | people. MW> MW> You're right - power structures *are* groups of people, with the size of MW> the group and the group's resources deciding how much power the group MW> actually has. MW> MW> But while it's run by a few people, it's supported by as many people as MW> are members of the structure - defeat the leaders, and new leaders will MW> come to the fore. And it is that base of support you must work to change, meanwhile drawing in people who aren't interested/satisfied enough with the system enough to bother. Half the people in this country don't vote. Half of those don't vote in anything but the "big" elections. Half of those don't vote in the primary. Few of those go to the local caucases. I see a hell of a lot of room for improvement, a hell of a lot of votes out there that are not beholden to any party. If that's not enough, consider the number of people who held their nose voting in the last election ... looking for a decent alternative. The will is there, the people are there - all it needs to do is be channeled into a particular direction. While not an easy task, it's certainy doable. It's been done before, and can be done again. MW> Case in point - the Radical Right Christians. Probably no more than a MW> few dozen leaders, both in and out of the public eye. But while it's MW> caused an internal ruckus when one of the leaders goes down (Swaggert, MW> etc.), it hasn't diminished the amount of power the group as a whole MW> has. Swaggart was never one of the religious right apostles, though he was associated with some of them. But that's beside the point - the Christian Coalition has reached the peak of its power, methinks, and people are beginning to realize how full of shit they really are. But as for the point you're trying to make ... so what? In almost every case, leaders can be relaced. Movements cannot. MW> DR | Guess what? There are more of us than there are of them. Let's gang MW> | up on them, using the power and tools we have - our voices, our MW> | arms and our vote. MW> MW> I don't theenks, so, Quicksdraw. Our government, as it exists today, is MW> much larger than any single group that wishes to force change upon it. MW> Our voices are largely controlled by the media, our arms are MW> disorganized, and our vote is essentially meaningless. We're David to MW> their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that sling got to. When MW> you're part of a *large* grass-roots movement, this may change - but MW> what are the chances of that? How is your vote meaningless? What, specifically, is stopping you from getting a bunch of friends together and challenging Goliath? I don't mean this as a rude question, because it's not intended that way ... have you spent any time out on the street, talking to people and trying to get them to vote your way - hell, even to get out and vote period? Because in my mind, that's the way to change things - a little at a time. If everyone who complained that the system was broke spent a bit of time fixing it, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Thu Nov 28 04:28:34 CST 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: 17 MW> DR | Try looking beyond the primary and general election, there are MW> | plenty of excellent cantidates out there. Just because they don't MW> Of course they can't - not for the '96 elections, anyway. It's MW> possible, but they have a long uphill road to get there. The existing MW> power blocs have a stranglehold on the caucas, endorsement, and MW> information processes. The best candidates are totally unknown to 90% MW> of the people that vote, and are damn likely to remain that way. To me, MW> an attractive candidate must be a visible canditate. Pardon the sarcasm, but do you want the cantidates to stand out on the street corner with a little orange cloth and flag down potential voters? If a decent cantidate doesn't come to you, go out and find one (or convince someone you respect to run). At most local caucases, if you being 6 friends along you'll own the place. At the Senate district convention, bring 60 and name your cantidate. Is that an immovable power bloc? MW> I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, my MW> goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an MW> existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as the MW> current process is in place, it doesn't really *matter* what party(s) MW> are ascendant - the abuses, and the insulation between the general MW> populace and *real* power will continue. Unfortunately, legislative change is accomplished mainly through political parties. I certainly don't agree with a good many DFL platform ideas or cantidates, but within that party I can enact some change that will slowly and incrimentally change the party more towards my way of thinking. Why do I have this power? Because no one else wants it. There's almost no competittion, the power is almost there for the taking. All it takes is a good hunk of patience and a strong stomach ... MW> DR | Statewide, or nationally? And what do yuo mean by qualified? MW> MW> To be qualified candidates for President, they'd have to be qualified MW> nationally. Someone else pointed out that any citizen over the age of Nope, sorry ... that's wrong. Each cantidate is approved by each individual state. Not every third party cantidate, for example, was on the ballot in all 50 states. MW> qualified. To be qualified, a citizen has to declare, gather MW> signatures, and jump thru a few more hoops to be recognized by the MW> election process. In Minnesota, you need a thousand (might also be 2 or 3 thousand) signatures to get on the ballot for president. Other states have much harsher requirements, but at least in this state it's fairly easy. (We make up for it in other ways, though, making it hard for third parties to do much of anything else besides run a cantidate for president). MW> I'm talking about canditates who have gone through all of the MW> qualification process, and for whom votes would count - even if they MW> didn't show up on any ballot, and got no media attention. In Minnesota, there were about a dozen cantidates on the ballot. Nationwide, I have no clue .... there might be a lot of 2 to 3 state-ers out there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Thu Nov 28 06:22:27 CST 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 19 MW> Of course they can't - not for the '96 elections, anyway. It's MW> possible, but they have a long uphill road to get there. The existing MW> power blocs have a stranglehold on the caucas, endorsement, and MW> information processes. The best candidates are totally unknown to 90% MW> of the people that vote, and are damn likely to remain that way. To me, MW> an attractive candidate must be a visible canditate. DR> This sounds like a canned answer if I ever heard one. It is obviously not first-hand information from someone who has been there. DR> At most local caucases, if you being 6 friends along you'll own the place. DR> At the Senate district convention, bring 60 and name your cantidate. Is tha DR> an immovable power bloc? DR> At my caucus, I would have only had to bring 1, because only 2 of us showed up. It happens that the woman who did show up and I agree on most things, so we were the power bloc, not because we were manipulating things, but because others didn't come to the caucus. MW> I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, my MW> goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an MW> existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as the He will never find a large group of people who agree with him 100%. The idea is to work together and compromise, first on the party level, then in the larger arena, to make things better in society. One of the great strengths of this country is that we have such a variety of different opinions and trains of thought. We could accomplish a lot more if more thinking people would participate to help select leaders and government policy. MW> DR | Statewide, or nationally? And what do yuo mean by qualified? MW> MW> To be qualified candidates for President, they'd have to be qualified MW> nationally. Someone else pointed out that any citizen over the age of DR> DR> Nope, sorry ... that's wrong. Each cantidate is approved by each individua DR> state. Not every third party cantidate, for example, was on the ballot in a DR> 50 states. DR> Depends on the state law, which governs elections. My original statement that the president be an American Citizen, 35, and not a felon, was correct. Whether they are allowed on the ballots of the states is another question. MW> I'm talking about canditates who have gone through all of the MW> qualification process, and for whom votes would count - even if they MW> didn't show up on any ballot, and got no media attention. DR> In most states, there would be no votes that count, because only the electors' votes really count, and the candidate has to get enough popular support to send his electors. This is why third parties cannot elect a president. They will almost never have enough electoral support to win. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Thu Nov 28 17:17:32 CST 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 16 MW> My contention is that the effectiveness of my vote is already gone - MW> because of many different factors. Our entire electoral system will MW> need to be overhauled before my vote means anything. To achieve this, MW> I'll have to fight against a very large power structure, and every part MW> of that structure will oppose me in its own self-interest. I agree that the effectiveness of a single vote has diminished greatly in our system. But a vote still matters, and a voice matters more. If one believes in something one must fight. You never know when you might hit upon something, stir up a lot of public opinion and lead a succesful struggle. End results are wonderful, but the struggle matters more. The structure will oppose, then you (we, everyone) must oppose in kind. MW> I don't theenks, so, Quicksdraw. Our government, as it exists today, is MW> much larger than any single group that wishes to force change upon it. MW> Our voices are largely controlled by the media, our arms are MW> disorganized, and our vote is essentially meaningless. We're David to MW> their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that sling got to. When MW> you're part of a *large* grass-roots movement, this may change - but MW> what are the chances of that? Again. We have to work to oppose a system where the individual is systematically ignored. Even if we have misplaced the sling, it still exists, it can be found and used correctly. The chances of a large grass-roots movement increase as dissatisfaction with the government increases. More and more people will come to work to change what they feel is wrong and then it takes off. A single person who can at once inflame the hearts of the people and then show them the way to go can always start a truly powerful movement. It gains greater possibility every time someone speaks out. I think there's a great chance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Fri Nov 29 00:20:18 CST 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: 21 MW> My contention is that the effectiveness of my vote is already gone - MW> because of many different factors. Our entire electoral system will S> I agree that the effectiveness of a single vote has diminished greatly in ou S> system. But a vote still matters, and a voice matters more. If one believe This is mostly because of the increase in the voting population. Obviously, the more votes there are, the less impact a single vote has. MW> disorganized, and our vote is essentially meaningless. We're David to MW> their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that sling got to. When Lessee now - between David and Goliath, who won? S> it can be found and used correctly. The chances of a large grass-roots S> movement increase as dissatisfaction with the government increases. More an S> more people will come to work to change what they feel is wrong and then it S> takes off. A single person who can at once inflame the hearts of the people After all, this is how we got the Republican Party in the first place. It was formed by people who were dissatisfied with the existing system and set out to change it. Those who didn't join in with the other dissatisfied people and work for change STILL did not have a voice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Fri Nov 29 09:52:01 CST 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 22 F> This is mostly because of the increase in the voting population. F> Obviously, the more votes there are, the less impact a single vote has. Agreed. The single vote represents a smaller portion of the population now so the people have to make up for that by speaking out, making their voices heard outside the election. F> After all, this is how we got the Republican Party in the first F> place. It was formed by people who were dissatisfied with the existing syst F> and set out to change it. Those who didn't join in with the other F> dissatisfied people and work for change STILL did not have a voice. Exactly. I think there is a growing chance for the development of a major third party, perhaps replacing one of the other two. I don't think it will be the Reform Party, partly because of Ross Perot, and partly because I don't think they pull in enough support from any one side or enough support from many different people to become large. But nevertheless the chance is still there for some small group of dissatisfied people to become important now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Fri Nov 29 13:29:30 CST 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 23 S> Agreed. The single vote represents a smaller portion of the population now S> the people have to make up for that by speaking out, making their voices hea S> outside the election. S> They always did. Humans are sheep, and generally follow charismatic leaders, for good or evil. S> Exactly. I think there is a growing chance for the development of a major S> third party, perhaps replacing one of the other two. I don't think it will S> the Reform Party, partly because of Ross Perot, and partly because I don't S> think they pull in enough support from any one side or enough support from I think that Perot is their main stumbling block. Once he is really out of the picture, the same group of people who formed the Reform Party will be looking for another leader, as well as disenfrancised people in both parties and many who are simply disappointed and uninvolved. Did you notice how neatly the Minnesota Independence Party steered around Ross? :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Fri Nov 29 16:39:14 CST 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: 16 MW> their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that sling got to. When I think everybody's has a very strong proverbial sling, but why rebel? What will it gain? Why not just watch a little tv.. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Fri Nov 29 16:46:00 CST 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 19 DR> At most local caucases, if you being 6 friends along you'll own the place. DR> At the Senate district convention, bring 60 and name your cantidate. Is tha DR> an immovable power bloc? Great...sounds like a plan.. Now how do people find out about the local caucases? It's not in the papers and it's not on TV, so how do you find out about them? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Fri Nov 29 19:04:41 CST 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 26 BT> Great...sounds like a plan.. Now how do people find out about the local BT> caucases? It's not in the papers and it's not on TV, so how do you find ou BT> about them? BT> They have been on a Tuesday evening in March, in the past. They *are* in the newspapers, and this past election they were in TV spots. We also had a lot of discussion about it on here this year, and even had a GT to discuss the caucuses. Because so few people have been attending caucuses, there is pressure to eliminate them. If we lose them, we will lose one of the most significant means we now have to join in the political process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Sat Nov 30 06:22:18 CST 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: 24 F> I think that Perot is their main stumbling block. Once he is reall F> out of the picture, the same group of people who formed the Reform Party wil F> be looking for another leader, as well as disenfrancised people in both F> parties and many who are simply disappointed and uninvolved. Did you notice F> how neatly the Minnesota Independence Party steered around Ross? :) Definitely their main problem. With Perot as their candidate they won't be able to get enough serious support and respect. Perot is pretty loony and that doesn't reflect well on the party. You're right, there are a lot of disenfranchised people in both parties who are looking for somewhere to voice their grievances. And to the last question, yes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sat Nov 30 18:30:45 CST 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: 26 DR> At most local caucases, if you being 6 friends along you'll own the place. DR> At the Senate district convention, bring 60 and name your cantidate. Is tha DR> an immovable power bloc? BT> BT> Great...sounds like a plan.. Now how do people find out about the local BT> caucases? It's not in the papers and it's not on TV, so how do you find ou BT> about them? Caucases aren't well-publicized, but they don't occur in a vacuum either. I don't think the hard past is finding out that they exist, the hard part is understanding why you should bother going. Why bother? Because it makes a difference. With so few participating, your voice is a hell of a lot more important than it is on election day. Because if you don't like the choice between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, this is the place to get some like-minded folks together and bring in Mr. Wizard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Sun Dec 01 06:35:05 CST 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: unavailable |DR | Case in point, the right to vote on judges might be taken away from | | us next year. For good or ill, this is a blatant example. MW > Good example - but nothing you or I do will have a deciding effect > on that decision, unless one of us is extraordinary. DR | I'll have to disagree with you strongly on this one. After | volunteering for several campaigns and the local DFL this past | year, several of the lawmakers know me by name. If I go up to them | at the Capitol and say something to the effect of, "You know, Tom, | this whole business of taking our right to vote away is setting a | really bad precedent. We want people to vote, want them to ... I'll stand by what I said above, without disagreeing with you otherwise. It appears that one of is *is* extraordinary. I don't have that kind of access to the lawmakers, and couldn't get it the way you have. (I'd have serious ethical/moral issues about working for either the DFL or GOP.) DR | The lawmakers are human. They're not autocratic machines, they can | and do bend to the opinion of their constituents (particularly on | well-publicized bills; the lobbyists earn their keep on the small | bills which no one ever hears about). As one who worked hard on the Mpls city council to get them to change their minds about Calhoun Square (the local businesses didn't want to move, the residents didn't want a mall), my experience has been quite different from yours. What I've seen has been more like "they'll promise whatever they have to to get elected, and then pretty much do as they please". I can understand how your experience, as a party worker, has been quite different. I could become a party worker for the party that's closest to my own goals - the Libertarian Party. But that wouldn't get me much access to the movers and the shakers. |DR | Power structures are run by people ... almost by definition, a few | | people. MW > You're right - power structures *are* groups of people, with the > size of the group and the group's resources deciding how much power > the group actually has. > > But while it's run by a few people, it's supported by as many > people as are members of the structure - defeat the leaders, and > new leaders will come to the fore. DR | And it is that base of support you must work to change, meanwhile | drawing in people who aren't interested/satisfied enough with the | system enough to bother. That base of support can be quite large - and the more powerful the structure, the more resistant it is to change. It'd be easier by far to build a new power base, as you hint at below: DR | Half the people in this country don't vote. Half of those don't | vote in anything but the "big" elections. Half of those don't vote | in the primary. Few of those go to the local caucases. I see a hell | of a lot of room for improvement, a hell of a lot of votes out | there that are not beholden to any party. | | If that's not enough, consider the number of people who held their | nose voting in the last election ... looking for a decent | alternative. The will is there, the people are there - all it needs | to do is be channeled into a particular direction. While not an | easy task, it's certainy doable. It's been done before, and can be | done again. It's being tried, with lots of effort - and you've seen how far the third parties have gotten. It's a long, uphill struggle that won't be won in this decade, and probably not in the next. There's got to be a better way for the citizens of the USA to regain some control over their country. MW > Case in point - the Radical Right Christians. Probably no more > than a few dozen leaders, both in and out of the public eye. But > while it's caused an internal ruckus when one of the leaders goes > down (Swaggert, etc.), it hasn't diminished the amount of power the > group as a whole has. DR | But as for the point you're trying to make ... so what? In almost | every case, leaders can be relaced. Movements cannot. That *was* my point - that redirecting a power structure isn't going to be done at the top, that one must convince each and every one of the followers of that structure to make it change direction. Not an easy task, particularly without access to the media. |DR | Guess what? There are more of us than there are of them. Let's gang | | up on them, using the power and tools we have - our voices, our | | arms and our vote. MW > I don't theenks, so, Quicksdraw. Our government, as it exists > today, is much larger than any single group that wishes to force > change upon it. Our voices are largely controlled by the media, our > arms are disorganized, and our vote is essentially meaningless. > We're David to their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that > sling got to. When you're part of a *large* grass-roots movement, > this may change - but what are the chances of that? DR | How is your vote meaningless? What, specifically, is stopping you | from getting a bunch of friends together and challenging Goliath? How is my vote meaningless? During the recent prez election, I had a choice between Clinton, Dole, and Perot if you stretch probablities a bit - the candidate I wanted to see in the White House had less chance than a bottle of single malt at Minicon. My vote had no effect whatsoever, and if I wanted it to have an effect, my only two choices were choices I didn't want. Looks meaningless to me. DR | I don't mean this as a rude question, because it's not intended | that way ... have you spent any time out on the street, talking to | people and trying to get them to vote your way - hell, even to get | out and vote period? It's not taken as rude at all - it's a good question. Not exactly out on the street, but I've been working toward my view of the solution for some years now - at first in coffeehouses and pubs, then electronically - and I'm almost ready to move the venue to Usenet. To be a bit blunter, at the risk of being rude myself: What do you think I'm doing *here*? IMO, voting on one of the possible candidates isn't the way to make any effective changes in the system. DR | Because in my mind, that's the way to change things - a little at a | time. If everyone who complained that the system was broke spent a | bit of time fixing it, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. Oh, yes we would - the solution that works just fine for me will be an anethema to someone else, and they'll want to fix *that*. It's simply impossible to please everyone - the best possible situation would be to give the dissenters a voice loud enough to be heard by the "vaguely dissatisfied" majority. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ If pro <> con, what's the opposite of progress? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sun Dec 01 06:35:06 CST 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > [Speaking about alternative candidates' chances] It's possible, but > they have a long uphill road to get there. The existing power > blocs have a stranglehold on the caucas, endorsement, and > information processes. The best candidates are totally unknown to > 90% of the people that vote, and are damn likely to remain that > way. To me, an attractive candidate must be a visible canditate. DR | Pardon the sarcasm, but do you want the cantidates to stand out on | the street corner with a little orange cloth and flag down | potential voters? If a decent cantidate doesn't come to you, go out | and find one (or convince someone you respect to run). Standing on the corner with an orange hankie is what they're reduced to already. The current election/media setup ensures that they *can't* come to me - and most voters won't search high and low for one - they'll try to choose between the two candidates offered by the Demopublican party. DR | At most local caucases, if you being 6 friends along you'll own the | place. At the Senate district convention, bring 60 and name your | cantidate. Is that an immovable power bloc? That's not available unless I join the DFL or the GOP - options which I don't find palatable. MW > I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, > my goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an > existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as > the current process is in place, it doesn't really *matter* what > party(s) are ascendant - the abuses, and the insulation between the > general populace and *real* power will continue. DR | Unfortunately, legislative change is accomplished mainly through | political parties. I, too, consider that unfortunate - and unnecessary. This is where the focus of my drive to change the world is. DR | I certainly don't agree with a good many DFL platform ideas or | cantidates, but within that party I can enact some change that will | slowly and incrimentally change the party more towards my way of | thinking. The DFL is *never* going to agree with my agenda. Less still, the GOP. Oddly enough, I'm not worried about getting the citizenry at large to agree with me - that's going to be one of the easier parts. |DR | Statewide, or nationally? And what do yuo mean by qualified? MW > To be qualified candidates for President, they'd have to be > qualified nationally. Someone else pointed out that any citizen > over the age of DR | Nope, sorry ... that's wrong. Each cantidate is approved by each | individual state. Not every third party cantidate, for example, was | on the ballot in all 50 states. Not every qualified candidate in this state was on the ballot that you used to vote with, either. Most of 'em aren't attached to any third party - the have their very own platforms. DR | In Minnesota, you need a thousand (might also be 2 or 3 thousand) | signatures to get on the ballot for president. Other states have | much harsher requirements, but at least in this state it's fairly | easy. (We make up for it in other ways, though, making it hard for | third parties to do much of anything else besides run a cantidate | for president). Somebody who qualifies as a presidential candidate in Arizona is qualified in any of the 50 states - getting your name actually on the *ballot* is much tougher. With all of the media attention the "other" candidates get, though - just getting on the ballots wouldn't help much. DR | In Minnesota, there were about a dozen cantidates on the ballot. | Nationwide, I have no clue .... there might be a lot of 2 to 3 | state-ers out there. Qualified candidates are qualified everywhere, even if nobody in that state ever hears of them - that's what the write-in slot on the ballot is supposed to be for. Hell, there was a guy in CA who tried to get his name changed to "None of the above", just to get the votes from the people who write that in on their ballots. The courts decided it was an attempt to defraud, so they disallowed the name change. Had it worked, he'd have gotten a respectably higher number of votes than he was getting with the name on his birth certificate. Okay - I'll drop the other shoe, since nobody is even close to earning those cookies, and they're almost gone anyway. Everyone who decided between Clinton, Dole, and Perot has a much more varied choice than they thought - there were just over 100 eligible candidates for the presidential election. The large majority of these candidates are quite serious - they have platforms that they are serious about, and have found enough people who agree with them to qualify as candidates. But, because they're not running for the DFL or GOP, they get damn little (if any) media coverage, no chance of public debate with the other candidates, and they're not going to be changing their address to Pennsylvania Ave. Hell, nearly 90% of the citizens over the age of 10 can tell you who the two *major* candidates were - but 90% of them don't know anything about any of the other candidates, and less than 2% knew anything about more than 4 of the candidates. The DFL and GOP, who are awfully alike in many important ways, have a stranglehold on American politics - and they're not going to be dethroned by another politician. Perot is coming close, but when you get right down to it, he shares several agendas with the Demopublicans - it'll be a minor change, not anything that the guy in the street is going to notice. Yup - I think this sucks. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Would Jefferson endorse what they've done to his dream? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sun Dec 01 06:35:07 CST 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > It's possible, but they have a long uphill road to get there. The > existing power blocs have a stranglehold on the caucas, > endorsement, and information processes. The best candidates are > totally unknown to 90% of the people that vote, and are damn likely > to remain that way. To me, an attractive candidate must be a > visible canditate. F | This sounds like a canned answer if I ever heard one. It is | obviously not first-hand information from someone who has been | there. Ah, the Tom Bernard school of debate - sneer at what they say without ever having to say *why* it's wrong. I'd hoped for better. That "canned answer" was arrived at after over 5 years of political action within the system. Nothing I've seen since then has given me reason to change my mind about it. Do any of the politically active folks here know anything about Harry Browne besides his name and party affiliation? How 'bout the Grass Roots candidate? Do you consider yourselves well-informed about even 5% of the possible choices for president in the recent election? MW > I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, my goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as the F | He will never find a large group of people who agree with him 100%. | The idea is to work together and compromise, first on the party | level, then in the larger arena, to make things better in society. | One of the great strengths of this country is that we have such a | variety of different opinions and trains of thought. We could | accomplish a lot more if more thinking people would participate to | help select leaders and government policy. I don't need a large group of people who agree with me 100% - I need to find (or convince) a large group of people who agree with me on one radical notion - that democracy is sick unto death in this country, but can be revived. I'm reading what you said as "One of the great strengths of this country is that we have such a variety of different opinions and trains of thought. It'd be wonderful if they all believed in this one method of change and growth." Kind of self-contradictory, looked at that way. MW > I'm talking about canditates who have gone through all of the > qualification process, and for whom votes would count - even if > they didn't show up on any ballot, and got no media attention. F | In most states, there would be no votes that count, because only the | electors' votes really count, and the candidate has to get enough | popular support to send his electors. This is why third parties | cannot elect a president. They will almost never have enough | electoral support to win. Are you agreeing with me in that our votes don't really count? Or are you sidestepping the topic at hand? I was talking about the popular vote - where people go to the polls and check off/write in their choices. That it doesn't *actually* elect the prez isn't germaine to the point I was trying to make. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Nice try, but no cigar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Specter Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Sun Dec 01 06:35:08 CST 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > My contention is that the effectiveness of my vote is already gone > - because of many different factors. Our entire electoral system > will need to be overhauled before my vote means anything. To > achieve this, I'll have to fight against a very large power > structure, and every part of that structure will oppose me in its > own self-interest. S | I agree that the effectiveness of a single vote has diminished | greatly in our system. But a vote still matters, and a voice | matters more. If one believes in something one must fight. You | never know when you might hit upon something, stir up a lot of | public opinion and lead a succesful struggle. End results are | wonderful, but the struggle matters more. The structure will | oppose, then you (we, everyone) must oppose in kind. I don't believe that any popular vote still matters at all, unless the voter in question gets lucky - and luck doesn't cut it with me. More on this later, if you're curious about why. I do agree that a voice matters more - all we *have* now is our voices. But while the struggle may be glorious, it's wasted effort unless it achieves the end result it's tried for. Try telling a Chech in 1983 that the struggle matters more than the result, and they'd have likely strung you up. MW > Our government, as it exists today, is much larger than any single > group that wishes to force change upon it. Our voices are largely > controlled by the media, our arms are disorganized, and our vote is > essentially meaningless. We're David to their Goliath, but nobody > seems to know where that sling got to. When you're part of a > *large* grass-roots movement, this may change - but what are the > chances of that? S | Again. We have to work to oppose a system where the individual is | systematically ignored. Even if we have misplaced the sling, it | still exists, it can be found and used correctly. Here, I agree wholeheartedly. S | The chances of a large grass-roots movement increase as | dissatisfaction with the government increases. More and more people | will come to work to change what they feel is wrong and then it | takes off. A single person who can at once inflame the hearts of | the people and then show them the way to go can always start a truly | powerful movement. It gains greater possibility every time someone | speaks out. I think there's a great chance. I hope so - it's a large part of what I'm trying to do here. I've been working on this for damn near a decade now, and I think I've found a sling - not a great sling, but a possible sling. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ I apologize for the lack of bloodshed in tonite's show. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Sun Dec 01 06:35:09 CST 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: unavailable Okay - to avoid confusion, since nobody here is all that familiar with how I attribute quotes: F | = Froggy S : = Specter MW > = Midnight Writer (little ol' me) MW > My contention is that the effectiveness of my vote is already gone > - because of many different factors. Our entire electoral system > will S : I agree that the effectiveness of a single vote has diminished : greatly in ou system. But a vote still matters, and a voice matters : more. If one believe F | This is mostly because of the increase in the voting population. | Obviously, the more votes there are, the less impact a single vote | has. I'm not saying that a single vote has less impact - I'm saying that it cannot decide *any* policy reliably. Say that Jones campaigns, and when pushed back into a corner, stands foursquare for reproductive rights. Jones gets elected, then has to vote upon a controversial and unpopular bill that supports reproductive rights. Jones may wimp out, and vote against hir campaign promises - in which case, the people who voted for Jones because Jones was for reproductive rights are screwed - the vote they thought counted *for* reproductive rights became a vote *against* reproductive rights. This happens so frequently that the phrase "campaign promise" is synonymous for "lie". *This* is why I believe that the popular vote has become meaningless. There are other reasons, but this alone makes my point. MW > disorganized, and our vote is essentially meaningless. We're David > to their Goliath, but nobody seems to know where that sling got to. F | Lessee now - between David and Goliath, who won? Yup - but how would David have fared if he hadn't had that sling? S : The chances of a large grass-roots movement increase as : dissatisfaction with the government increases. More an more people : will come to work to change what they feel is wrong and then it : takes off. A single person who can at once inflame the hearts of : the people ... F | After all, this is how we got the Republican Party in the first | place. It was formed by people who were dissatisfied with the | existing system and set out to change it. Those who didn't join in | with the other dissatisfied people and work for change STILL did not | have a voice. This is not, to me, the ideal that our country was founded upon. Yes, the Whig party is no longer with us, and it's theoretically possible for the Reform or Libertarian party to replace one of the big two - but that *still* won't give the citizens themselves a voice - for the reason that I outlined above. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ I want to see your hands in the air. - Seger ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sun Dec 01 08:25:33 CST 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 29 DR> Why bother? Because it makes a difference. With so few participating, your DR> voice is a hell of a lot more important than it is on election day. Because DR> if you don't like the choice between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, this is t DR> place to get some like-minded folks together and bring in Mr. Wizard. In fact, it is darned near impossible to get a Resolution or candidate added at any time AFTER the precinct caucuses. If Tweele-Dee and Tweedle-Dum were tha only candidates brought out of the caucuses,the only choice you have is to oppose their nominations and leave the party with no candidates at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Sun Dec 01 08:44:56 CST 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: 30 MW> I'll stand by what I said above, without disagreeing with you otherwise. MW> It appears that one of is *is* extraordinary. I don't have that kind of MW> access to the lawmakers, and couldn't get it the way you have. (I'd MW> have serious ethical/moral issues about working for either the DFL or MW> GOP.) MW> What is wrong with working for an individual candidate and not the party? I have serious ethical/moral problems about not working to improve our system at all. The number of people who are standing back refusing to get their hands dirty is one of the main reasons why we are having so much trouble today. Also, I would suggest that if you have not been working with either party, you do not know enough about them to pass judgement. MW> As one who worked hard on the Mpls city council to get them to change MW> their minds about Calhoun Square (the local businesses didn't want to MW> move, the residents didn't want a mall), my experience has been quite MW> different from yours. What I've seen has been more like "they'll MW> promise whatever they have to to get elected, and then pretty much do as MW> they please". I can understand how your experience, as a party worker, MW> has been quite different. MW> Not really. I have been a "party worker" for about 35 years. One of the most important things I have learned is that politics is about compromise. The fiasco about closing down the federal government last session was an example. The new Republicans were sworn to outright demolish welfare, Social Security, the Department of Commerce, the IRS, and several other things. They were not smart enough to see that the American people would not allow this and would insist on some compromise on these issues. As a result, Newt is practically gone, and theeeey have had to considerably give up their original agenda. Just because you lost that one issue with the City Council does not mean that what DR was telling you is wrong. You win some and you lose some. You lost that one. The real solution is to run for City Council yourself and change things from within. MW> DR | But as for the point you're trying to make ... so what? In almost MW> | every case, leaders can be relaced. Movements cannot. MW> Oh yeah? Where is the Temperance Union? They were so strong at one point that they were able to amend the Constitution. Now they are gone and so is their amendment. There are other examples. MW> MW> To be a bit blunter, at the risk of being rude myself: What do you MW> think I'm doing *here*? MW> The same thing that others of us are -- to express our opinions. But to really make any changes, we have to do more than express. We have to act. MW> Oh, yes we would - the solution that works just fine for me will be an MW> anethema to someone else, and they'll want to fix *that*. It's simply MW> impossible to please everyone - the best possible situation would be to MW> give the dissenters a voice loud enough to be heard by the "vaguely MW> dissatisfied" majority. Dissenters *DO* have that voice. They just have to be determined enough to use it wisely. And to accept that, no matter how bitter the pill is, this is a democracy. One person cannot exert his absolute opinion in every matter, because that would be a tyranny. In a democracy, the dissenter must get the majority of people to listen to him, agree with him, and act to change things. It can be done. It has been done, and it will be done again. But never by a tyrant. That is one thing our founding fathers protected us against very well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sun Dec 01 09:13:08 CST 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: 31 MW> I, too, consider that unfortunate - and unnecessary. This is where the MW> focus of my drive to change the world is. MW> This is where you are wrong. It *IS* necessary, to keep one person from seizing power and foisting his opinions on others. There are many worthwhile mechanisms that enforce that one person cannot gain power alone. You have to have a large group of people to do it. And in order to get a large group, you have to learn to compromise. I once heard a joke that the height of conceit is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on its mind. This is a similar mindset. MW> Not every qualified candidate in this state was on the ballot that you MW> used to vote with, either. Most of 'em aren't attached to any third MW> party - the have their very own platforms. MW> Yes they were. To be "qualified," they have to meet the requirements of the Constitution, the state, and the by-laws of the office they are running for. If they met all these requirements, they were on the ballots. MW> Not every qualified candidate in this state was on the ballot that you MW> used to vote with, either. Most of 'em aren't attached to any third MW> party - the have their very own platforms. MW> One requirement is that they have a minimum number of other people support them, as DR told you before. No matter how much you want it another way, it will NOT be that way, because we are guaranteed to not ever have a tyranny in this country. MW> The DFL is *never* going to agree with my agenda. Less still, the GOP. MW> Oddly enough, I'm not worried about getting the citizenry at large to MW> agree with me - that's going to be one of the easier parts. MW> Then do it and get your candidates elected into offices. If you think the citizen support is there, that is how it should work. MW> Qualified candidates are qualified everywhere, even if nobody in that MW> state ever hears of them - that's what the write-in slot on the ballot MW> is supposed to be for. Hell, there was a guy in CA who tried to get his MW> name changed to "None of the above", just to get the votes from the Not if they have not met the state requirements to be on the ballot. Part of the responsibility of advancing a candidate is to get his name known to the public. There is nothing stopping you from putting up lawn signs, buying newspaper and TV space, making phone callls, knocking on doors, and hanging out at fairs handing out literature. MW> agree with them to qualify as candidates. But, because they're not MW> running for the DFL or GOP, they get damn little (if any) media MW> coverage, no chance of public debate with the other candidates, and MW> they're not going to be changing their address to Pennsylvania Ave. MW> MW> Hell, nearly 90% of the citizens over the age of 10 can tell you who the MW> two *major* candidates were - but 90% of them don't know anything about MW> any of the other candidates, and less than 2% knew anything about more MW> than 4 of the candidates. Then quit griping and DO something about it!!!! Even Senator Wellstone and the DFL Party supported Dean Barkley's right to participate in the Senate debates. What did you do? MW> dethroned by another politician. Perot is coming close, but when you MW> get right down to it, he shares several agendas with the Demopublicans - MW> it'll be a minor change, not anything that the guy in the street is MW> going to notice. MW> MW> Yup - I think this sucks. MW> This sounds to me like the majority ruling and you bitching because you lost. I think sour grapes suck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sun Dec 01 09:18:00 CST 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: 32 MW> That "canned answer" was arrived at after over 5 years of political MW> action within the system. Nothing I've seen since then has given me MW> reason to change my mind about it. MW> No, you have repeated a number of times how little regard you have for the major parties and made it obvious that you do not value compromise. You have not been working "within the system" at all. I have. DR has. Dole, Gingrich, and Clinton have. We have a right to make that claim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Sun Dec 01 09:28:17 CST 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 32 MW> Do any of the politically active folks here know anything about Harry MW> Browne besides his name and party affiliation? How 'bout the Grass MW> Roots candidate? Do you consider yourselves well-informed about even 5% MW> of the possible choices for president in the recent election? MW> I place a lot of importance in their platforms, and base my opinions on them. I think the platforms of both the Libertarian and the Grass Roots party are stupid and ineffectual, and would never support their candidate for that reason. MW> MW > I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, my MW> goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an MW> existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as th MW> The only way to change the process is to garner enough people behind you to form a coalition and gain offices. Once you do that, Voila! another party. MW> radical notion - that democracy is sick unto death in this country, but MW> can be revived. MW> I guess some of us are too busy practicing democracy to agree with you. MW> Are you agreeing with me in that our votes don't really count? Or are MW> you sidestepping the topic at hand? I was talking about the popular MW> vote - where people go to the polls and check off/write in their MW> choices. That it doesn't *actually* elect the prez isn't germaine to No, but it is apparent that you don't know where the real power is. As it stands now, it is not in the popular vote. I pray that it never will be, because if it is, the media will actually have the power to mull people as sheep that you think they have. The power to elect the president is in the Electoral College, which is, in turn, chosen by the populace. This is germaine to the issue. That people don't undersatnd and participate in the electoral process *is* the issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Sun Dec 01 17:26:32 CST 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: 33 MW> I don't believe that any popular vote still matters at all, unless the MW> voter in question gets lucky - and luck doesn't cut it with me. More on MW> this later, if you're curious about why. I can see where you're coming from and I have in the past been tempted to agree with you. I'll still place my chances on luck though. Might as well keep on telling me why. MW> I do agree that a voice matters more - all we *have* now is our voices. MW> But while the struggle may be glorious, it's wasted effort unless it MW> achieves the end result it's tried for. Try telling a Chech in 1983 MW> that the struggle matters more than the result, and they'd have likely MW> strung you up. It might be wasted effort. I'd say that if the fight was fought and lost, the effort was lost, I'd disagree that it was a waste. A fight even a fight that loses, can inspire others to fight later. I still think a valiant effort even in losing is not wasted because if the attempt was never made the outcome would always remain uncertain. MW> I hope so - it's a large part of what I'm trying to do here. I've been MW> working on this for damn near a decade now, and I think I've found a MW> sling - not a great sling, but a possible sling. Good. I'm glad. I'm still looking for a sling I can use, but I haven't worked as long as you have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Mon Dec 02 04:46:13 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > I'll stand by what I said above, without disagreeing with you > otherwise. It appears that one of is *is* extraordinary. I don't > have that kind of access to the lawmakers, and couldn't get it the > way you have. (I'd have serious ethical/moral issues about working > for either the DFL or GOP.) F | What is wrong with working for an individual candidate and not the | party? Nothing at all - if there's an individual candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell that I can both agree with and trust. I did just that in this past election - support with both my effort and my money. It didn't do any good in the long run, but then, I didn't really expect it to. That the Libertarian Party's backward focus and dismaying willingness to compromise on their final goals (not just their intermediate goals) gives me serious reservations about supporting them didn't mean I wasn't supporting their candidate as best I could. To do this within the GOP or the DFL, considering the basic party platforms, would have me working against my own morals, ethics, and goals. I simply could not stomach such dishonesty within myself. F | I have serious ethical/moral problems about not working to improve | our system at all. The number of people who are standing back | refusing to get their hands dirty is one of the main reasons why we | are having so much trouble today. Who says that the only way to improve our system is by working with the DFL or GOP? Your scope is a wee bit narrow for my tastes, though it may suit you just fine. F | Also, I would suggest that if you have not been working with either | party, you do not know enough about them to pass judgement. I'm not currently breastfeeding, either - this says nothing about what I've done in the past. If you look hard, and ask around some of the old-timers in the DFL crew in Omaha, NE, you'd probably find some who remember me - most likely, remembering me as a hard worker, but a troublemaker, always asking inconvenient questions. I've posted my share of handbills and handed out my share of flyers, thanks. MW > As one who worked hard on the Mpls city council to get them to > change their minds about Calhoun Square (the local businesses > didn't want to move, the residents didn't want a mall), my > experience has been quite different from yours. What I've seen has > been more like "they'll promise whatever they have to to get > elected, and then pretty much do as they please". I can understand > how your experience, as a party worker, has been quite different. F | Not really. I have been a "party worker" for about 35 years. One | of the most important things I have learned is that politics is | about compromise. There was no compromise on that one - the people that elected the representatives didn't want CS - just some out-of-town developers. I strongly suspect payoffs. This was a seminal experience for me in politics - when a whole bunch of elected representatives could, with impunity, fail to represent the people who put them in office. F | [...] Just because you lost that one issue with the City Council | does not mean that what DR was telling you is wrong. You win some | and you lose some. You lost that one. The real solution is to run | for City Council yourself and change things from within. I'm unelectable. Trust me on this one - both my private life and my public stances on several issues make for a lousy campaign trail. Nor will I lie to the public to get elected. MW> DR | But as for the point you're trying to make ... so what? In almost MW> | every case, leaders can be relaced. Movements cannot. F | Oh yeah? Where is the Temperance Union? They were so strong at one | point that they were able to amend the Constitution. Now they are | gone and so is their amendment. There are other examples. Looking carefully, you'll see that you quoted me quoting Deadalus - the statement you were objecting to wasn't mine. Nonetheless, I'll answer your question: The people who would once have been Temperance Union members are now busy with D.A.R.E and other strict measures against victimless crimes. Gone? I sincerely doubt it, even if the name has changed. He's right, you know - leaders can be replaced, often quite easily. Power blocs and large movements are *much* harder to redirect, or replace if they're really gone. MW > To be a bit blunter, at the risk of being rude myself: What do you > think I'm doing *here*? F | The same thing that others of us are -- to express our opinions. But | to really make any changes, we have to do more than express. We have | to act. If a grassroots movement isn't started by expressing your viewpoint in a convincing manner to other citizens, how *is* it started? I put in about 2 hours a day, minimum, at this terminal and other places - and that's not the part I do that's just fun for me. At my professional rates, that's about 10K/year. At what point do you consider it action? MW > Oh, yes we would - the solution that works just fine for me will be > an anethema to someone else, and they'll want to fix *that*. It's > simply impossible to please everyone - the best possible situation > would be to give the dissenters a voice loud enough to be heard by > the "vaguely dissatisfied" majority. F | Dissenters *DO* have that voice. They just have to be determined | enough to use it wisely. And to accept that, no matter how bitter | the pill is, this is a democracy. No, I'm afraid it's not a democracy - nor has the US ever been. It certainly could be, though. Nothing would please me more. F | One person cannot exert his absolute opinion in every matter, | because that would be a tyranny. In a democracy, the dissenter must | get the majority of people to listen to him, agree with him, and act | to change things. It can be done. It has been done, and it will be | done again. And I hope to see it done again - and quickly, while there is still time. F | But never by a tyrant. That is one thing our founding fathers | protected us against very well. Not well enough - or J. Edgar (among many others) would have a very different biography. Those protections can be, and hopefully will be, shored up. It has long been my belief that if our founding fathers were somehow resurrected, to walk around and see what we've done with their dream, they'd spend several weeks getting as much information as they could before they sat down to plot the 3rd American Revolution. It's a risk for us now, without them - the populace has never seen a lower point of faith in gov't and courts, which has, historically, been a pointer toward revolution. I believe that it can be averted, but not without radical changes in both gov't and court systems. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Democracy: 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Mon Dec 02 04:46:14 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: unavailable (For clarity's sake, I'll re-insert the comment from Daedalus Rising that I was responding to in the first comment that Froggy quoted - no other quotes have been added/altered, unless you see a [...] or , which indicate something cut for brevity. Anyone who thinks I've cut to misrepresent is welcome to call me on it, publicly - it may happen, but it's unlikely, and certainly unintentional.) DR | Unfortunately, legislative change is accomplished mainly through | political parties. MW > I, too, consider that unfortunate - and unnecessary. This is where > the focus of my drive to change the world is. F | This is where you are wrong. It *IS* necessary, to keep one person | from seizing power and foisting his opinions on others. How in the world does a political party keep one person from seizing power? Take another look at Hitler - who was, indeed, backed by a political party. OTOH, there are many other safeguards possible to prevent dictatorship - a political party isn't necessary, or particularly effective. The most common method of legislative change that does *not* necessitate a political party is a voter's referendum - which is hardly "one person seizing power and foisting his opinions on others". F | There are many worthwhile mechanisms that enforce that one person | cannot gain power alone. You have to have a large group of people to | do it. And in order to get a large group, you have to learn to | compromise. I once heard a joke that the height of conceit is a | flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on its mind. This is a | similar mindset. Just how large a group do you think our forefathers were? How willing were they to compromise with tyrrany? "Those few colonial hotheads" were likely viewed as a flea to the elephant of the British Empire, in their day. Do you see something wrong with that mindset? Re-reading what you've written, it occurs to me that you likely have entirely the wrong idea about my goals. I don't want power over my neighbors. I just don't want anyone else to have power over them, either. Total freedom is not possible in any sane society, but it's not hard to decide which actions infringe upon another's rights (as defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and must thus be prohibited. *There* is where I draw my line, too. I do not need a political party to draw that line, or to convince others that this is where the line should be drawn. If you don't believe that political action can be taken in this country without a party, I think it's time for you to re-read the history of this country. MW > Not every qualified candidate in this state was on the ballot that > you used to vote with, either. Most of 'em aren't attached to any > third party - the have their very own platforms. F | Yes they were. No, they *weren't*. TBppppppt! Froggy - if a citizen of Florida meets the (federal) qualifications for candidacy for presidental office, they can be voted for, legally and effectively, in any state in the union. No state can, by constitutional law, force higher qualifications upon presidential candidacy than the federal governement does. Nationwide, there were over 100 qualified candidates for the office of President of the United States. There were not 100 candidates listed on the ballots in this state. I doubt it was over a dozen - certainly less than 1/4 of the valid candidates. F | To be "qualified," they have to meet the requirements of the | Constitution, the state, and the by-laws of the office they are | running for. If they met all these requirements, they were on the | ballots. No state of the union can *disqualify* a candidate who has met the requirements of the Constitution. Finis. Plenty of candidates *did* meet federal requirements, and still didn't get listed on the ballots of this state. Why do you think there's a blank to write one in? MW > Not every qualified candidate in this state was on the ballot that > you used to vote with, either. Most of 'em aren't attached to any > third party - the have their very own platforms. F | One requirement is that they have a minimum number of other people | support them, as DR told you before. No matter how much you want it | another way, it will NOT be that way, because we are guaranteed to | not ever have a tyranny in this country. I'm quite aware that the *toughest* requirement is a demonstration of popular support - signatures on a petition. Those signatures on a petition do *not* constitute a party affiliation. Many of these candidates have no "political party" per se - they have a political agenda and the ability to convince enough people to sign the petitions. Those are *not* equivalents. MW > The DFL is *never* going to agree with my agenda. Less still, the > GOP. Oddly enough, I'm not worried about getting the citizenry at > large to agree with me - that's going to be one of the easier > parts. F | Then do it and get your candidates elected into offices. If you | think the citizen support is there, that is how it should work. Of course I think that the citizen support is possible - or I wouldn't waste my time. But when did I say that I wanted to get a candidate elected into office? That's the *last* thing I want to do. MW > Qualified candidates are qualified everywhere, even if nobody in > that state ever hears of them - that's what the write-in slot on > the ballot is supposed to be for. Hell, there was a guy in CA who > tried to get his name changed to "None of the above", just to get > the votes from the F | Not if they have not met the state requirements to be on the ballot. | Part of the responsibility of advancing a candidate is to get his | name known to the public. There is nothing stopping you from | putting up lawn signs, buying newspaper and TV space, making phone | callls, knocking on doors, and hanging out at fairs handing out | literature. Froggy - there's a difference between the qualifying to be a presidential candidate in this country (and thus, in each of the 50 states) and qualifying to get your name on the ballot in this state. Don't take my word for it - look it up yourself. The presidential candidate I supported was Harry Browne - though I'd have been happier if he were running on his own, rather than with Libertarian party backing. His name was out there, though most people don't see *anything* that doesn't happen on TV news. MW > agree with them to qualify as candidates. But, because they're not > running for the DFL or GOP, they get damn little (if any) media > coverage, no chance of public debate with the other candidates, and > they're not going to be changing their address to Pennsylvania Ave. > > Hell, nearly 90% of the citizens over the age of 10 can tell you > who the two *major* candidates were - but 90% of them don't know > anything about any of the other candidates, and less than 2% knew > anything about more than 4 of the candidates. F | Then quit griping and DO something about it!!!! Even Senator | Wellstone and the DFL Party supported Dean Barkley's right to | participate in the Senate debates. What did you do? Watched the presidental debates without seeing any mention of Harry Browne, for one. I do know that he'd have loved to be there - he's a very convincing speaker. He just didn't have the funding that Perot did, so he couldn't get any press coverage. Why is it that a presidential candidate who is markedly different from the Demopublican party just isn't news? Hmmmm? MW > dethroned by another politician. Perot is coming close, but when > you get right down to it, he shares several agendas with the > Demopublicans - it'll be a minor change, not anything that the guy > in the street is going to notice. > MW > Yup - I think this sucks. F | This sounds to me like the majority ruling and you bitching because | you lost. I think sour grapes suck. No, dear - the majority are bitching about the lack of candidates that they can feel good about voting for. I'm just more vocal about that than most. This isn't sour grapes about the results of the last election - the last election went as well as I could hope for. This is sour grapes about how low my expectations are for the next election. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Democracy: 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Mon Dec 02 04:46:15 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > That "canned answer" was arrived at after over 5 years of political > action within the system. Nothing I've seen since then has given > me reason to change my mind about it. F | No, you have repeated a number of times how little regard you have | for the major parties and made it obvious that you do not value | compromise. You have not been working "within the system" at all. I | have. DR has. Dole, Gingrich, and Clinton have. We have a right | to make that claim. You're very good at jumping to conclusions, but I won't say how good you are at taking aim at the right conclusion. I don't breastfeed these days, either. Don't assume that I never have, or that I've always been and always will be where I am right now. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ Don't you just hate it when that happens? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Froggy Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-2 Date: Mon Dec 02 04:46:16 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > Do any of the politically active folks here know anything about > Harry Browne besides his name and party affiliation? How 'bout the > Grass Roots candidate? Do you consider yourselves well-informed > about even 5% of the possible choices for president in the recent > election? F | I place a lot of importance in their platforms, and base my opinions | on them. I think the platforms of both the Libertarian and the | Grass Roots party are stupid and ineffectual, and would never | support their candidate for that reason. You didn't answer my questions, so I'll have to assume the negative. Your views about the Libertarian and Grass Root Parties' platforms are your right - why do you have such a hard time with me having the same attitude about the DFL and GOP? MW > I'd rather work to change the process than the parties. For one, > my goals are different enough from any one party's that changing an > existing party would be nearly impossible. For another, as long as F | The only way to change the process is to garner enough people behind | you to form a coalition and gain offices. I beg to differ. F | Once you do that, Voila! another party. I don't intend to do that. Another party would be pointless and ineffectual. MW > radical notion - that democracy is sick unto death in this country, but > can be revived. F | I guess some of us are too busy practicing democracy to agree with | you. Heh. You haven't been practicing democracy in the DFL, Froggy. You've been practicing participation in a democratic republic - quite another thing. MW > Are you agreeing with me in that our votes don't really count? Or > are you sidestepping the topic at hand? I was talking about the > popular vote - where people go to the polls and check off/write in > their choices. That it doesn't *actually* elect the prez isn't > germaine to F | No, but it is apparent that you don't know where the real power is. | As it stands now, it is not in the popular vote. I pray that it | never will be, because if it is, the media will actually have the | power to mull people as sheep that you think they have. The power | to elect the president is in the Electoral College, which is, in | turn, chosen by the populace. This is germaine to the issue. That | people don't undersatnd and participate in the electoral process | *is* the issue. Then you agree with me - the popular presidential election is a meaningless exercise, intended to keep the masses pacified. It seems that you're happier with that than you would be with a presidential election in which the people actually *did* elect their leader. Pity. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ You make this easier than I'd ever hoped. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MIDNIGHT WRITER To: Specter Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Mon Dec 02 16:01:12 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: unavailable MW > I don't believe that any popular vote still matters at all, unless > the voter in question gets lucky - and luck doesn't cut it with me. > More on this later, if you're curious about why. S | I can see where you're coming from and I have in the past been | tempted to agree with you. I'll still place my chances on luck | though. Might as well keep on telling me why. It's been mentioned in a post between that one and this one, but the short form is that even if you elect a representative because of their stance on an issue, there's no guarantee that they'll represent you or that stance once they're in office. Lots of people voted for George Bush because he promised "no new taxes" - but he didn't keep that promise, and knew when he made it that he wouldn't be able to keep it. Those people's votes for "no new taxes" were meaningless - uneducated, but meaningless. MW > I do agree that a voice matters more - all we *have* now is our > voices. But while the struggle may be glorious, it's wasted effort > unless it achieves the end result it's tried for. Try telling a > Chech in 1983 that the struggle matters more than the result, and > they'd have likely strung you up. S | It might be wasted effort. I'd say that if the fight was fought and | lost, the effort was lost, I'd disagree that it was a waste. A | fight even a fight that loses, can inspire others to fight later. I | still think a valiant effort even in losing is not wasted because if | the attempt was never made the outcome would always remain | uncertain. You know anybody who is itching to try the Boxer Rebellion again? Hell, it's not even taught in most HS history books. Looks like a wasted effort from here, though they couldn't know before they started that it would be such a waste. Myself, I'll keep my eye on the goal, and let the glorious struggle take care of itself. I'm not as much a romantic as I once was, I guess. MW > I hope so - it's a large part of what I'm trying to do here. I've > been working on this for damn near a decade now, and I think I've > found a sling - not a great sling, but a possible sling. S | Good. I'm glad. I'm still looking for a sling I can use, but I | haven't worked as long as you have. Once you've identified what you want to do, and how it can be done, your sling will present itself. -==- --- þ JABBER v1.2 þ I'm heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Midnight Writer Subject: Re: AAArrrrggghhh-1 Date: Mon Dec 02 16:18:25 CST 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 45 MW> It's been mentioned in a post between that one and this one, but the MW> short form is that even if you elect a representative because of their MW> stance on an issue, there's no guarantee that they'll represent you or MW> that stance once they're in office. Lots of people voted for George MW> Bush because he promised "no new taxes" - but he didn't keep that MW> promise, and knew when he made it that he wouldn't be able to keep it. MW> Those people's votes for "no new taxes" were meaningless - uneducated, MW> but meaningless. Quite true. still, I'll hope for luck. There is of course radically changing the system, but until then I'll keep hoping I'll get lucky. MW> You know anybody who is itching to try the Boxer Rebellion again? Hell, MW> it's not even taught in most HS history books. Looks like a wasted MW> effort from here, though they couldn't know before they started that it MW> would be such a waste. No I don't. Of course I also don't think it was a waste. As I said, because they didn't know the outcome, they had to try, and the trial I think was justification for considering it not a waste. I'm really getting into semantics here. I'm surprised the Boxer Rebellion isn't taught in HS history books, mine had it last year, and that book was written at a 7th grade level. ( I was in 11th grade then) MW> Once you've identified what you want to do, and how it can be done, your MW> sling will present itself. Maybe, I'll just wait and decide what and how. Specter- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: MIDNIGHT WRITER Subject: Re: the disenfranchised Date: Mon Dec 02 17:20:07 CST 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Midnight Writer : MW> DR | I'll have to disagree with you strongly on this one. After MW> | volunteering for several campaigns and the local DFL this past MW> | year, several of the lawmakers know me by name. MW> I'll stand by what I said above, without disagreeing with you MW> otherwise. It appears that one of is *is* extraordinary. I don't have MW> that kind of access to the lawmakers, and couldn't get it the way you MW> have. (I'd have serious ethical/moral issues about working for either MW> the DFL or GOP.) Getting access to the lawmakers is easy - find out which Senator and Represenative covers your district and let 'em know what's on your mind. You're a constituent, they'll listen to you. They may not change their mind, but they'll listen. MW> DR | The lawmakers are human. They're not autocratic machines, they MW> can | and do bend to the opinion of their constituents (particularly MW> on | well-publicized bills; the lobbyists earn their keep on the MW> small | bills which no one ever hears about). MW> As one who worked hard on the Mpls city council to get them to change MW> their minds about Calhoun Square (the local businesses didn't want to MW> move, the residents didn't want a mall), my experience has been quite MW> different from yours. What I've seen has been more like "they'll MW> promise whatever they have to to get elected, and then pretty much do MW> as they please". I can understand how your experience, as a party MW> worker, has been quite different. ... which speaks directly to the need for campaign finance reform. Why else would a city council member support a pro-business plan which the voters oppose if not to fatten their coffers come election day? MW> DR | Half the people in this country don't vote. Half of those don't MW> | vote in anything but the "big" elections. Half of those don't MW> vote | in the primary. Few of those go to the local caucases. I see MW> a hell | of a lot of room for improvement, a hell of a lot of votes MW> out | there that are not beholden to any party. MW> It's being tried, with lots of effort - and you've seen how far the MW> third parties have gotten. It's a long, uphill struggle that won't be MW> won in this decade, and probably not in the next. There's got to be a MW> better way for the citizens of the USA to regain some control over MW> their country. We've done it before, we'll do it again. The DFL was born from such a process, and will be changed the same way. Even if it takes a decade, even if it takes two or three. MW> DR | How is your vote meaningless? What, specifically, is stopping you MW> | from getting a bunch of friends together and challenging Goliath? MW> How is my vote meaningless? During the recent prez election, I had a MW> choice between Clinton, Dole, and Perot if you stretch probablities a MW> bit - the candidate I wanted to see in the White House had less chance MW> than a bottle of single malt at Minicon. My vote had no effect MW> whatsoever, and if I wanted it to have an effect, my only two choices MW> were choices I didn't want. MW> Looks meaningless to me. If you continue to believe that, it will be. If we all keep voting for the lesser of two (or three) evils, it will remain the same. But what if we all decided to ignore the pundits, and voted for the person we thought could do the best job? MW> DR | I don't mean this as a rude question, because it's not intended MW> | that way ... have you spent any time out on the street, talking MW> to | people and trying to get them to vote your way - hell, even to MW> get | out and vote period? MW> It's not taken as rude at all - it's a good question. Not exactly out MW> on the street, but I've been working toward my view of the solution MW> for some years now - at first in coffeehouses and pubs, then MW> electronically - and I'm almost ready to move the venue to Usenet. MW> To be a bit blunter, at the risk of being rude myself: What do you MW> think I'm doing *here*? It's been my observation that many people come through here and talk a lot, but don't translate that into action. In my opinion, Usenet is talk - getting off the couch and doing something is action. Not as if I'm some role model or anything, I was as full of hot air as anyone else `till I went to the caucases this Spring. ... Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: MIDNIGHT WRITER Subject: Re: disenfranchised voter Date: Mon Dec 02 17:20:08 CST 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Midnight Writer : MW> DR | At most local caucases, if you being 6 friends along you'll own MW> the | place. At the Senate district convention, bring 60 and name MW> your | cantidate. Is that an immovable power bloc? MW> That's not available unless I join the DFL or the GOP - options which MW> I don't find palatable. Then find a cantidate you like, and work for him or her. The progressives in Minneapolis did that this year for State Rep cantidate Cam Gordon, and got about 20% of the vote. The RPM did the same, and Perot and Barkley got a good chunk of the vote. Even though these cantidates did not win, they changed the tone of the debate. Perot moved Clinton and Dole/Bush to the right, and even though he lost he got his agenda in the spotlight. There'a also fusion, which the courts are haggling over ... that's a story in itself, though. If you like, I'll try to track down a post I made on it months ago which may help to explain it to you if you're not familiar with it. ... Clinton supporters know how the American Indians felt. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: MIDNIGHT WRITER Subject: Re: Harry'z da bomb Date: Mon Dec 02 17:20:09 CST 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Midnight Writer : MW> Do any of the politically active folks here know anything about Harry MW> Browne besides his name and party affiliation? How 'bout the Grass MW> Roots candidate? Do you consider yourselves well-informed about even MW> 5% of the possible choices for president in the recent election? Let's see, he's an author who ran under the Libertarian party banner ... but seems to think the party itself is a bit silly (they seem to be using each other, in a way). His agenda was typical right-wing fodder, which revolved around abolishing the IRS and returning the Federal government to some sort of rigid constitutionalism. On a positive note, he doesn't seem to have many skeletons in his closet. But maybe he's just too low on the radar screen to merit much investigation ... ... Fuck! ... damn, there goes another $250,000. Thanks, Senator Exon! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: disenfranchised voter Date: Tue Dec 03 05:55:15 CST 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: 48 DR> Then find a cantidate you like, and work for him or her. The progressives DR> in Minneapolis did that this year for State Rep cantidate Cam Gordon, and DR> got about 20% of the vote. The RPM did the same, and Perot and Barkley DR> got a good chunk of the vote. Even though these cantidates did not win, DR> they changed the tone of the debate. Perot moved Clinton and Dole/Bush DR> to the right, and even though he lost he got his agenda in the spotlight. DR> Tey have also greatly increased their numbers since I began attending Progressive Party meetings about 2 years ago. Good change often comes slowly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: the disenfranchised Date: Wed Dec 04 16:07:32 CST 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: 47 DR> But what if we all decided to ignore the pundits, and voted for the DR> person we thought could do the best job? Elections would be more interesting. People would have a greater use of democracy. Elect officials from many different parties, and pundits would talk less. Sounds good to me.