Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Bye Bye Beagle
I Read This
September 26, 2018, 06:17:56 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Bye Bye Beagle  (Read 15469 times)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2009, 13:55:46 EST »

The idea that third parties are somehow parasitic is silly. Those who support third party candidates seldom would be interested in a candidate from a major party.

under the electoral college system AND not bothering for "local seats" (like the house) they they are. Not the second part is important
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2009, 17:03:55 EST »

The idea that third parties are somehow parasitic is silly. Those who support third party candidates seldom would be interested in a candidate from a major party.
Seldom?  When you say seldom, do you mean more than 1%?  Because that would be all that was needed.

Nader was an unusual case.  Most of the time, unless a third party person got over 10% of the vote, they are not likely to be spoilers.

It was only pure chance that Nader's actions would have such a degree of impact, but nevertheless, he knew that his actions might cause such, but did so anyway, and I will hold him accountable for the consequences.

While Nader can whine all he want about how "they're both the same", they were NOT the same.  We would have been MUCH better off with a center right in power than a far right, and after the public saw what the center right candidate was capable of, they may have become more amenable to a truly left wing candidate.   Now we have 8 years worth of mess to clean up, and we'll be lucky if we get back to square 1 in another 8.

100s of billions have been wasted.  100s of thousands of people are dead.  Nader apparently thought his ideals were more important than ensuring that the candidate who won was the best possible, even though securing a worse candidate could, and did, lead to those 100s being lost.  For that, I have permanently lost all respect for a man who once did good things, great things even.  All I see now is a man whose ego has overpowered his sense of decency.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 17:17:36 EST by wodan46 » Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2009, 17:17:43 EST »

Seldom?  When you say seldom, do you mean more than 1%?  Because that would be all that was needed.

Nader was an unusual case.  Most of the time, unless a third party person got over 10% of the vote, they are not likely to be spoilers.

It was only pure chance that Nader's actions would have such a degree of impact, but nevertheless, I dislike his divisive actions anyways.  By adding an influential candidate on the strong left, he weakened the center right candidate, who now had to compete with both a strong left and right.

While Nader can whine all he want about how "they're both the same", they were NOT the same.  We would have been MUCH better off with a center right in power than a far right, and after the public saw what the center right candidate was capable of, they may have become more amenable to a truly left wing candidate.

Except that, once again, there were much bigger things than Nader that are responsible for Bush becoming president, like a biased SCOTUS and vote blocking.  Saying that the election boiled down to Nader is, effectively, giving tactics like that some degree of acceptance.  Corruption and vote blocking cost Gore the election, and those are major issues that go to the very heart of the democratic system in the US and need to be addressed.  Why are you wasting your time and ours whining about Nader running?

Furthermore, the people voting for Nader and the Green Party were voting against the Democrats because of their record in the Oval Office and Congress.  NAFTA, Welfare Reform, DOMA... there were a lot of things that happened in the Clinton/Gore years that genuine leftist people strongly disagree with, whether they sponsored them or simply co-operated with the GOP.  Yes, there are differences in the two parties, but there are also a lot of similarities, too.  Some of us just choose to not be selectively blind to those.
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2009, 20:40:45 EST »

Though to be fair, Gore -is- crazy and believes in a lot of junk science, so maybe he would have had his grand self-destructive expirament that everyone would look back on with shame.

Gore, less likely to rampage around the world, but even more likely to ruin the economy!  Huzzah!
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2009, 03:46:07 EST »

Though to be fair, Gore -is- crazy and believes in a lot of junk science

The only thing this tells me is that you aren't a credible authority.

Never mind the claim, I don't care one way or the other about Gore's sanity. Use of the phrase "junk science" immediately paints the user as a hack, and possibly a paid one at that.

There is no junk science. There is only science, psuedoscience or not science.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2009, 09:09:13 EST »

Incorrect, there is such a thing as 'Junk Science'.

Junk is old stuff that at one point had a use but no longer does, and applications of it are no longer viable.

Someone who used Bohr's model of an atom, for example.  It is clearly scientific as a premise, but has later been discarded.  It cannot be nonscience or pseudoscience, but it is not modern science.

This is what is meant by Junk science.  Gore's model of ther enviroment is similar to David Suzuki's throwback theories, they did work, and were scientific, but have since been shown to be bad predictors.  It would not have been a sign of poor intellect to hold those views in the early 80's, but someone who referances them now is in the same mental category as someone who refers to the concept of ether.

Popper would use the term disproved theory for the theory itself, but that doesn't convey the concept of continuing to use something which is broken.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2009, 12:58:31 EST »

Why are you wasting your time and ours whining about Nader running?
Because the out of all the actions that caused Gore to lose, Nader running was the only one done by the left, who I thought were better than that, rather than the right, who I expect to act horribly.

Furthermore, the people voting for Nader and the Green Party were voting against the Democrats because of their record in the Oval Office and Congress.  NAFTA, Welfare Reform, DOMA... there were a lot of things that happened in the Clinton/Gore years that genuine leftist people strongly disagree with, whether they sponsored them or simply co-operated with the GOP.  Yes, there are differences in the two parties, but there are also a lot of similarities, too.  Some of us just choose to not be selectively blind to those.
That doesn't matter.  What comes down to it is that Gore was a better candidate than Bush, that no other candidate could possibly win, and that as such the only logical action is to support Gore.  Supporting a third party will simply mean that the party that is closer in view to the third party is more likely to lose, meaning that the country as a whole will shift AWAY from the third party.  If the third party had supported the main party they are similar to instead, the country would have shifted towards them, and perhaps, they could cause the main party itself to shift towards them.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2009, 14:04:36 EST »

Why are you wasting your time and ours whining about Nader running?
Because the out of all the actions that caused Gore to lose, Nader running was the only one done by the left, who I thought were better than that, rather than the right, who I expect to act horribly.
Wait... are you honestly saying you think that a left wing candidate running is worse than electoral fraud?  I can't think of another way to interpret that statement.

Furthermore, the people voting for Nader and the Green Party were voting against the Democrats because of their record in the Oval Office and Congress.  NAFTA, Welfare Reform, DOMA... there were a lot of things that happened in the Clinton/Gore years that genuine leftist people strongly disagree with, whether they sponsored them or simply co-operated with the GOP.  Yes, there are differences in the two parties, but there are also a lot of similarities, too.  Some of us just choose to not be selectively blind to those.
That doesn't matter.  What comes down to it is that Gore was a better candidate than Bush, that no other candidate could possibly win, and that as such the only logical action is to support Gore.  Supporting a third party will simply mean that the party that is closer in view to the third party is more likely to lose, meaning that the country as a whole will shift AWAY from the third party.  If the third party had supported the main party they are similar to instead, the country would have shifted towards them, and perhaps, they could cause the main party itself to shift towards them.
In other words, as long as Democrats are to the left of Republicans the entire left should fall into lockstep behind them no matter what they do?
You're really going to have to explain this to me... I honestly can't understand why you'd rather silence the left than have legitimate elections.  It just seems... well... kind of undemocratic to me.
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2009, 17:40:10 EST »

In other words, as long as Democrats are to the left of Republicans the entire left should fall into lockstep behind them no matter what they do?
You're really going to have to explain this to me... I honestly can't understand why you'd rather silence the left than have legitimate elections.  It just seems... well... kind of undemocratic to me.

Hell no, it means you run for the House and the Senate, and for the State Government. and pull the left their way. Like the Sentor from Vermont
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 17:42:18 EST by rogue-kun » Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2009, 21:58:15 EST »

Because the out of all the actions that caused Gore to lose, Nader running was the only one done by the left, who I thought were better than that, rather than the right, who I expect to act horribly.
Wait... are you honestly saying you think that a left wing candidate running is worse than electoral fraud?  I can't think of another way to interpret that statement.
How about I dislike traitors more than ordinary enemies.

That doesn't matter.  What comes down to it is that Gore was a better candidate than Bush, that no other candidate could possibly win, and that as such the only logical action is to support Gore.  Supporting a third party will simply mean that the party that is closer in view to the third party is more likely to lose, meaning that the country as a whole will shift AWAY from the third party.  If the third party had supported the main party they are similar to instead, the country would have shifted towards them, and perhaps, they could cause the main party itself to shift towards them.
In other words, as long as Democrats are to the left of Republicans the entire left should fall into lockstep behind them no matter what they do?
It is the optimal choice currently.  Unless the politically active elements of the american public shift significantly to the left, it will remain impossible to get anything better than a center right candidate.

You're really going to have to explain this to me... I honestly can't understand why you'd rather silence the left than have legitimate elections.  It just seems... well... kind of undemocratic to me.
How is letting a third party that controls a mere percentage point or two of the votes over-ride the choice by nearly half the electorate more democratic?  Since when, frankly, was the electoral process anything resembling democratic?  Do the votes of a republican in California or a democrat in Texas count?

I don't care about what the system should be.  I care about what the system is, and how to work it in our favor.  Nader helped cause those controlling the government to shift from center right to far right.  For that, I am quite upset.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Icedragon
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


IDT colorist


« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2009, 22:17:25 EST »

Did Al Gore run a spotless campaign?  Did Kerry?  Did Clinton in 2008? 

Nader has some interesting ideas, and he should be more active in helping his party get to be more assertive in local state and then national politics, but he did not cost Gore the election.  People who say that are some of the same people who I feel have kept the Democrats from doing soul searching since 1994.  They have since just rebranded themselves, the same way the GOP will do.  The one difference?  This forum will only bitch about the GOP doing it.
Logged

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Teddy Roosevelt

"The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes!" -Sen. Ted Stevens
Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2009, 08:21:09 EST »

If you want to say Nader overstepped his ability to win by running for president in 2000, you won't get an argument from me.  There's no doubt that he did.
But calling him and other leftists who don't support the Democrats traitors?  That's out of line.

Nader and the Green Party presented a genuine left-wing alternative to the faux-left of Gore and the Democrats.  If anyone is the group of traitors, it's the Democrats espousing left-wing ideas during an election only to sell them out the minute the media or Republicans point out that they aren't being ideologically correct.


But honestly... I'm done.  There's no hope for this discussion going anywhere.  If you need to blame Nader... go ahead and condemn him.  It's not like I'm going to counter-act the accepted narrative of what happened on my own anyways.
Just remember, though, that every time the Democrats sell out, it's because they know that there are a lot of voters who think the way you do.  They don't have to follow the principles they preach at election time because not enough people try and hold them responsible.
Enjoy your status quo.
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2009, 10:21:41 EST »

Wodan.  Have you compared what you are saying here to Manufacturing Dissent to what you are saying to me in the "I love Blago" thread?
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2009, 11:47:26 EST »

Nader and the Green Party presented a genuine left-wing alternative to the faux-left of Gore and the Democrats.
They represent a choice which as of now is not supported by a large enough portion of the politically active public to matter.  If you want to change that go ahead.  I'd happily support a left wing party if it could win.  Until then, I will support the leftmost party that can win.

If anyone is the group of traitors, it's the Democrats espousing left-wing ideas during an election only to sell them out the minute the media or Republicans point out that they aren't being ideologically correct.
I think that you confuse the term "sell out" with the term "attempt to win elections".  Perhaps you would prefer the Democrats to forever be the party that holds the moral high ground but never wins elections, but I'd rather it not.

If you want a left wing party to win, then help the center party win now, and maybe over time, as people become acclimated to it, the left party might have a real chance.  But what Nader did was simply undermine the center party in favor of the far right party.  That was counter-productively caused the public to become even more acclimated to the right as being the given.

Just remember, though, that every time the Democrats sell out, it's because they know that there are a lot of voters who think the way you do.  They don't have to follow the principles they preach at election time because not enough people try and hold them responsible.
Enjoy your status quo.
We have to take this one step at a time.  I have every intention of holding the center party accountable, but the first thing we needed to do was get the government into their hands and out of the far right party's hands.

Wodan.  Have you compared what you are saying here to Manufacturing Dissent to what you are saying to me in the "I love Blago" thread?
Yes, however, I do not see the contradiction.  I believe that if the public were to be politically active and hold government accountable and the like, we can fix things, but that won't happen overnight.  It will be a slow and painful process.  I'm not some flowery idealist who expects the work to magically get itself done.  Step by step, step by step.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2009, 11:49:43 EST by wodan46 » Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2009, 22:12:03 EST »

Incorrect, there is such a thing as 'Junk Science'.

Junk is old stuff that at one point had a use but no longer does, and applications of it are no longer viable.

Someone who used Bohr's model of an atom, for example.  It is clearly scientific as a premise, but has later been discarded.  It cannot be nonscience or pseudoscience, but it is not modern science.

This is what is meant by Junk science.  Gore's model of ther enviroment is similar to David Suzuki's throwback theories, they did work, and were scientific, but have since been shown to be bad predictors.  It would not have been a sign of poor intellect to hold those views in the early 80's, but someone who referances them now is in the same mental category as someone who refers to the concept of ether.

Popper would use the term disproved theory for the theory itself, but that doesn't convey the concept of continuing to use something which is broken.

This would be one of the following: pseudoscience, uninformed speaker, lies to children. This is because it ignores new research for the older stuff that actually supports the speaker. Or because the speaker isn't a scientist, thereby meaning they have to get the science interpreted for them, which takes time to do properly. Or because the audience aren't scientists, and the older science is easier to understand and nearly as useful (see: Newtonian physics, your own example of the Rutherford-Bohr atom).

"Junk science" is a phrase used to discredit a speaker. It's basically "that's junk, you don't matter, sit down and shut up." It's used by PR people, typically by biotech or chemical companies, in order to discredit studies done saying their products are carcinogenic, or toxic. PR people who think that they can actually tell people to sit down and shut up.

The scary thing is that they sometimes can. Unless they use phrases like "junk science" which immediately casts them next to looney nutcases.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!