If the Greens are really serious they should be focusing on election reforms.

not a good argument against the Green, that

they just don't have a political project
I would say

it's not an argument against the Green, ideologically. It's an argument against voting for the Green this time around. They don't have their act together--so why vote for them?

gio wrote:

not a good argument against the Green, that

they just don't have a political project
I would say

it's not an argument against the Green, ideologically. It's an argument against voting for the Green this time around. They don't have their act together--so why vote for them?

My point is an argument against voting for ANY third party in a major US election... Shit together or not! Don't do it. It CANNOT WORK. Do your homework. This is not how our election process works. DUH!

Has anybody learned anything since 2000? The Green Party had HUGE support, probably bigger than any past 3rd party support... and Nader still got less than 3% of the popular vote.

I do however believe in voting for 3rd party candidates in smaller local elections. This is the only hope we have right now for adding any new parties to the system. But for now, keep those boring Democrats in the White House. At least they don't completely stifle progress, send us to war and shit on our constitution...

Good Day,

TheMilford wrote:Has anybody learned anything since 2000? The Green Party had HUGE support, probably bigger than any past 3rd party support... and Nader still got less than 3% of the popular vote.

you should qualify that with some kinda "modern era" statement or something. cause if you look back at the beginning of american history, there was a time where the Whig party was winning elections. the WHIGS.

Ok sorry... the first in recent history... and of a significant party...

Perot had to sort of make up his own party in '92, founding the 'Reform Party'. We all remember him right?

and Roosevelt got like 28% in 1912 running as a 'Progressive'.... AND THIS is a good example of what I was trying to say about an already established politician changing affiliation.

that's about all I have right now.

sorry, lemme fix this. Perot ran as an idependant and founded the Reform party later on... I forget the details.

yup, here's the 1912 results

http://www.search.eb.com/elections/etable2.html

and in the bush v clinton v perot battle, perot actually got about half as many popular votes as the big bush did. blauw!

gio wrote:sorry guys, but Nader is a crackpot.

Man, I had forgotten how much defeatist bullshit propaganda was going on here back in 2004. Thank God neither of those pro-war elitist skull and bones cousins were threatened by the crackpot Nader and his mad theories on globalism.

AP 5-4-07 wrote:US software giant Microsoft and web portal Yahoo have revived talks to explore a merger or alliance, a newspaper reported Friday.

Citing people familiar with the situation, The Wall Street Journal said that executives at Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. appeared to be in early-stage discussions to take "a fresh look at a merger of the two companies or some kind of match-up that would pair their companies' respective strengths."

What I like about the kind of capitalism we have now is that it is so efficient at ridding itself of competition.

CRAP with a giant, "Capital" (hahaha) S.