As the Secretary of State, she’s not supposed to support the overthrow of a leader with an international warrant for crimes against humanity, a despot whose “democratic election” was a sham, whom NATO was working to depose? Okay. Seems like that’s kind of her… job?
2 Likes
all the NATO-approved wars opened an ugly can of worms and legitimate warfare outside of the international law. I am not happy with the development, that the UN is not really working is known for a long time but not one of the big players tried to reform the system of international treaties and organisations
3 Likes
At first I liked your comment, then I thought: ‘Pfft. You could say that even about Drumpf.’
NATO is a military alliance originally intended to intimidate the Soviets. It’s not an international diplomatic forum. If you want to talk about whether NATO acts in the bests interests of the US and other NATO members, that’s one thing, but let’s not pretend it’s some moral force rather than a method by which we project power.
10 Likes
Only when supporting said despot is no longer deemed useful for corporate US global hegemony.
4 Likes
Your POV is a different one. Here it’s a highly political issue as the law was changed so that resolutions of the North Atlantic Council (the highest political body of the NATO) are equal to the ones of the United Nations Security Council. Many more chances for the Bundeswehr to play war.
1 Like
I’ve been pushing for ranked choice for a while, but the single transferable system seems pretty nice as well. I just want something more fair than what we have now. Our governor (the blowhard in Maine) has been elected twice due to an independent party in the race.
The further away it feels we are to alternative voting, the more I want to campaign against allowing 3rd parties, and that’s not the way it should be.
1 Like
She gets his money, right?
Hope so, anyway.
It had proven ineffective at winning elections for them, in spite of the extremely low concentration of Green Party voters in the electorate.
6 Likes
It’s actually the Ralph Nader Myth Myth. That article is ridiculously biased.
2 Likes
And yet, the article you cited is neither the final interpretation nor the only answer, it simply supports the conclusion you prefer to accept. Here is one which indicates otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/us/2004-campaign-independent-relax-nader-advises-alarmed-democrats-but-2000-math.html?_r=0
Here is the crucial statistic: "But based on who voted for him four years ago, his analysis looks shaky. Voters leaving polling places in 2000 were asked by Voter News Service, a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press, how they would have voted if George W. Bush and Al Gore had been the only candidates on the ballot.
Among Nader voters, 45 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted."
My opinion is that Nader attracted the voters who sought the ideological purity which Nader purported to provide, just as does Jill Stein or any other minor party candidate. No one likes the nasty reality and disappointing compromises of politics, and some view that reality as failure. It is simply reality, and a vote for a candidate who cannot win may satisfy that need for purity, but it can often help to elect a worse choice (Bush Jr), by encouraging voters to accept that both major candidates are equally corrupted. That is exactly the message that Nader ran with. No one can possibly still maintain that Gore would have been the disaster that Bush/Cheney turned out to be.
2 Likes
Hillary 2016 …She’s Not Prosecutable!!
3 Likes
And no one can possibly maintain that Gore would have lost as many votes as he did to Nader if he’d run with less corporate-friendly policies and more of the formerly Democratic policies that Nader ran with.
9 Likes
A reminder to everyone that we don’t have to have the South Park “Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich” and there is a simple solution.
The hard part is getting it into legislation. We should spend the next 4-8 years actively working on this so a candidate like Sanders actually has a snowball’s chance next time.
7 Likes
Indeed. You have to convince people just elected via FPTP that FPTP is not a good system.
And, as was demonstrated in the other recent awful referendum result in the UK, you may have to convince the general public as well (and if they’d got the first one right, we wouldn’t have had the second one).
1 Like
You are blaming the victim. I’m not maintaining that Gore was a fantastic campaigner, or that the Democratic platform was flawless. The point is that Bush/Cheney was far worse for the country, and Nader helped put them in office. Here is another detailed analysis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
1 Like
Once again, that didn’t actually happen:
[ETA] Also, sorry for the repeat, but it seems like no one actually reads the reality.
8 Likes
Doesn’t matter. It’s the perfect soundbite for people who want to make snide comments about “getting in line”.
4 Likes
