From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #317 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, November 8 2000 Volume 09 : Number 317 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Aurghhhhhh!!!!! [Terrence Marks ] Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT [Eb ] can we blame Terrence???/de Camp [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT [Jeff Dwarf ] Another key to understanding LJ [The Great Quail ] Re: Another key to understanding LJ [Christopher Gross ] Re: Another key to understanding mass migration [Eleanore Adams ] bayard is back, and there's gonna be some trouble... [Bayard ] what a country [Viv Lyon ] Re: Election [Terrence Marks ] Re: what a country [The Great Quail ] Nadir [Eb ] Re: what a country [Terrence Marks ] Re: Nadir ["Jason R. Thornton" ] interesting [Eb ] Re: what a country [lj lindhurst ] Re: Nadir [Tom Clark ] and Rhode Island ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: what a country [Capuchin ] Re: what a country [dmw ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:22:46 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: Aurghhhhhh!!!!! On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Eleanore Adams wrote: > Those of us in the US (who really care about the gov't) are just jumping > right now! As a liberal democrate I have been glued to the TV for the > past 6 hours, crying, then smiling and then crying again. My god, a > conservative congress, prez, and then supreme court after Scalia and > Rehnquist retire...... Hmm...as one of the token conservatives, I find the situation tolerable. Of course, I figure the sun's bound to keep shining no matter who wins, and that neither side has the capacity to hurt America _too_ much. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:33:13 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT Eb wrote: > 1200 VOTES????? number of recounts that will be demanded in FL: 4. at least. ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:40:05 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT Eb wrote: > 1200 VOTES????? and now down to 600 & Gore has rescinded his concession...we aren't going to know who won this for probably a week. it's gonna be the worst week of Jeb Bush's life. :) ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:44:49 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT >> 1200 VOTES????? > >number of recounts that will be demanded in FL: 4. According to the CNN website (updated at 4:35 am EST), Bush's lead in Florida is now... TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR VOTES! WOW. Meanwhile, it looks like Gore may have the national *popular vote* locked up? Unbelievable. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:18:34 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: can we blame Terrence???/de Camp I'm sitting here watching the TV coverage and I'm wondering if Terry's vote will be the one to have tipped the balance... 2,907,600 to 2,906,700??? It's nearly dawn on the Atlantic coast, and you still don't know who's won. I say start again from the beginning of the campaign and try to get a winner this time. interesting political item on the TV news - they were talking with a political scientist here about what good points Gore and Bushbaby have. The guy talked about Gore for a couple of minutes then said (I paraphrase): "in many ways Bush is similar, except he doesn't think as much and has a better smile. He'll probably win." More LS de Camp info at http://www.scifi.com, I've been told, but I'm still having a little trouble with Netscape, so I haven't checked it out. >A possibly interesting thread occured to me today, which isn't so volatile. > >What is/was the most hotly debated proposition in *your* state? > >Out here in California, it's Proposition 38, regarding school vouchers. the legalisation of prostitution bill. Oh, you meant the states of the US... sorry... James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:25:50 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: HOLY FUCKING SHIT Eb wrote: > >> 1200 VOTES????? > > > >number of recounts that will be demanded in FL: 4. > > According to the CNN website (updated at 4:35 am EST), Bush's lead in > Florida is now... > > TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR VOTES! > > WOW. > > Meanwhile, it looks like Gore may have the national *popular vote* > locked up? Unbelievable. and with the democrats gaining seats in both the HR & senate (including a dead guy & Hillary), even if Bush ends up winning, the republicans will probably (try to) move rather gingerly, knowing that if they piss people off, they could VERY easily be wiped out in those races in 2002. ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:52:11 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Another key to understanding LJ I would just like to point out that LJ's home state just elected a dead guy to the Senate. - --The Great "Ever notice that Nader rhymes with Nadir, Raider, Traitor *and* Darth Vader?" Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:18:55 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Another key to understanding LJ On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > I would just like to point out that LJ's home state just elected a > dead guy to the Senate. Hey, Missourans just remembered that wise old saying, "Better dead than Republican!" (And that's the only comment I'll make until I've had at least a liter of coffee....) - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:05:11 -0600 From: leahyc@tsainc.com Subject: Re: Election >What is/was the most hotly debated proposition in *your* state? here in nebraska, proposed amendment 416 (the so called "defense of marriage") seemed to be the talk of the state. some of the debating got rather vicious. not surprisingly, it wasn't even close and the amendment passed. chad Eb Sent by: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org 11/07/00 06:05 PM Please respond to Eb To: Fgz cc: Subject: Re: Election A possibly interesting thread occured to me today, which isn't so volatile. What is/was the most hotly debated proposition in *your* state? Out here in California, it's Proposition 38, regarding school vouchers. Eb np: James Taylor and Godsmack ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:20:46 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: Another key to understanding mass migration > Hey, Missourans just remembered that wise old saying, "Better dead than > Republican!" I thought it was, 'Better to have have a big stick up your ass than a socialist.' Ooh well, must have misread. Anyone who thinks we will be better or worse off than before if either dip or dippy gets elected, must not get out much. gss, who still thinks 'shaking through' is a pro-life song np - the kinks, the complete collection (wrong) 'On this point we want to be perfectly clear: socialism has nothing to do with equalizing. Socialism cannot ensure conditions of life and consumption in accordance with the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This will be under communism. Socialism has a different criterion for distributing social benefits: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."' - -- Mikhail Gorbachev, _Perestroika_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:58:09 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: Another key to understanding LJ when we last left our heroes, Christopher Gross exclaimed: >Hey, Missourans just remembered that wise old saying, "Better dead than >Republican!" everybody notice that the states bush won were colored red? hmmm.... the only ballot initiative in connecticut was whether or not to eliminate the county sheriffs (the only vestige of county governments left in the state; the rest of it was abolished in the 80s, i believe.) if anyone cares. woj ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:31:50 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Another key to understanding mass migration Eleanore resonds: Well, in many ways, life just goes on for the masses, true. Many won't notice the difference. BUT....for those single mothers who need financial help (my mom is a single mother of 7, and she is not lazy, just unlucky), women who NEED an abortion, and those who (including that f*cker J. Clarance Thomas) got a little boost with affirmative action to see their FULL potential, and members of labor who work the lines, may see that their struggles are a bit tougher, because some of the laws that are hanging by a thread will be squashed. Ok, this may not affect the majority of white protestants out there, whos tax breaks will make live just a tiny bit sweeter.....But I know that it will affect mine. Strict constructionism in the Supreme Court......... GSS wrote: > Anyone who thinks we will be better or worse off than before if > either dip or dippy gets elected, must not get out much. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:41:21 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: No comment (well, some) Eleanore responds, And this is why I tell my friends that affirmative action is still needed to correct the wrongs of the past. many argue that AA is not needed anymore becasue of the civil rights legislation that has gone through, that we are all legally equal. Well, fuck, even in states that don't have crap on the books, or don't inforce their crap, there is still a subconsciously a second class in this country. I got a story....Last week I was waiting at the CalTrans station for a bus, and there was this family of 4, african american, and they were trying to hail a cab. nada. Never got one. And many empty cabs drove by and skipped them, and went a few yards further to pick up anyone else. the father was cursing, and the mother told him that is just the way it is. They finally gave up and took the same bus I was taking. Affirmative action wont change their situation there, but there is a subconscious ceiling that equalizing laws alone cant break. Now that the SCt will be gutted.......forget it. This election is pissing me off....... steve wrote: > Andrew Quinn, Reuters, Wednesday November 8 1:34 AM ET: > > In Alabama, meanwhile, voters looked likely to put to rest one of the > lingering legacies of America's segregated past as television projections > estimated a 58-to-42 percent vote in favor of scrapping a long-standing > -- but currently not enforced -- ban on interracial marriage. > ---------- > > Over 40 percent? Shit. > > - Steve > > __________ > Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut > And Buddah, he's no fool > Cathedral bells don't ring in hell > 'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:26:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: bayard is back, and there's gonna be some trouble... Did anyone post anything about the two shows at the Middle East (Boston)? that was about when i left for Panama... spiffing country by the way! Travelogue and pics to come, via web page.... =b ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:25:59 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Election on 11/7/00 8:07 PM, Terrence Marks at normal@grove.ufl.edu wrote: > There's a monorail amendment, too. I'm all for monorails, but think that > putting it in the state constitution isn't necessarily a good idea. It's more of a *Shelbyville* idea. But it sure put North Haverbrook on the map! - -tom "Lyle Langley" the tomster ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:37:37 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: what a country Election hangover thoughts: I can't believe the Greens didn't get the 5%. I am heartbroken, heart-sick, sick to my stomach, broken down, and all the rest of it. I know how this will be spun, and that makes me even more likely to get an ulcer. If Gore eventually wins, the Democrats will say, "Good! We didn't need those radical lefties anyway!" If Gore eventually loses, the Democrats will say "Fuck those degenerate selfish radicals! We can't trust 'em, don't want to work with them, they can go to hell." We're hamstrung either way. I don't know what to say. In a country where half the voting public considers the most feeble-brained, corrupt, ill-prepared bumblefuck I've ever seen a viable candidate for president, what can we do? I'll eat my shorts even if Bush loses, I'm so destroyed by this. I want to say, though, that I don't regret casting my vote for Nader. All I'm concerned with now is how this is going to play out in the national consciousness. Considering how very many people think Bush is A-OK, I don't have much hope that the Greens will end up being perceived as anything more than a bunch of shiftless losers. I know differently, but I'm only one person. I'm going to keep working with the Green party. I think if we can have an impact on local politics here (and it seems that we may already have had- the Measure 6 campaign [public financing of elections] was run by Greens, and it looks like it might pass), we can show the country that we're not the unwashed, disorganized, pot-smoking eco-terrorists they think we are. I didn't really realize how far we have to go. But we still have to go, no matter how long the road. Sorry to think out loud on the list. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:20:07 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: Election On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Tom Clark wrote: > on 11/7/00 8:07 PM, Terrence Marks at normal@grove.ufl.edu wrote: > > > There's a monorail amendment, too. I'm all for monorails, but think that > > putting it in the state constitution isn't necessarily a good idea. > > It's more of a *Shelbyville* idea. But it sure put North Haverbrook on the > map! It's supposed to connect five major metropolitan areas, but nobody's sure *which* areas or how. I think a "The state congress has the authority to build such a monorail on such terms" would've been a lot more sensible than "The state congrass shall build a monorail", because now (it passed), not building a monorail in Florida by Nov 1, 2003, is _unconstitutional_. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:19:29 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: what a country Vivien writes, >If Gore eventually wins, the Democrats will say, "Good! We didn't >need those radical lefties anyway!" If Gore eventually loses, the >Democrats will say "Fuck those degenerate selfish radicals! We can't >trust 'em, don't want to work with them, they can go to hell." No, you are mistaken. If -- and I doubt this seriously -- Gore does somehow manage to win, Democrats will *still* pretty much say "Fuck those degenerate selfish radicals! We can't trust 'em, don't want to work with them, they can go to hell." You want to talk post-election hangover? I think the Greens are going to be *very* surprised at the intense bitterness that one-half the voting population is going to feel towards their party, and especially the hypocritical spoiled brat millionaire they selected to lead them. I look at it like this -- and I want to clarify, I am far more left leaning than Gore, and I have serious problems with the Democrats. So I speak from a position of Realpolitik, which I feel gets continually validated by, well, reality. You have 100 people, and 49 of them pretty much say "Yeah!" top right-wing Christianity, pro-life, racism, rich-friendly taxes, and raping the environment. The other 51 say "Yeah!" to policies more supportive of pro-choice, religious & racial tolerance, environmental concern, and fairer taxes. But because 3 of them -- yes, that's right, THREE of these people -- are lost in some smug, self-absorbed utopian fog, wandering in the Land of La La Lollipops believing that the US population will suddenly "wake up" to their agenda, they *deliberately* fuck over the other 48 and hand control over to the other side, all so they can sit back and feel good about their infantile desire to forsake the mature reality of compromise. And Ralph Nader thinks this will "wake up" the Democrats? Thank you, Mr. Nader, for a new Republican regime. All the good you have ever done has been pretty much swept away. I will say no more on this subject; so flame away -- this will be my last overtly political post for at least four years. I know a LOT of you voted for Nader, and I personally never let politics or religion interfere with a friendship. Hell, I have Buchanan supporters and Born-Again Christians as friends, and it certainly makes for some fun arguments. So if you feel umbrage at my above words, don't take it too personally. In fact, I feel no anger at all towards someone like Eddie, who is an admitted Anarchist and has irreparable problems with the United States itself. I wouldn't expect him to compromise; but he is in the minority of Nader voters, most of which would have voted for Gore. But this is a bitter, bitter time. I keep thinking of the line from the Bowie/Belew song, "Pretty Pink Rose" -- "The left wing's broken, the right's insane." But at least the Right didn't throw away their vote on Buchanan. - --The Great "Bring me the head of Ralph Nader and a couple of Cokes" Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:26:48 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Nadir Were there any *individual* states where Nader got the 5%? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:27:36 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: what a country On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > I can't believe the Greens didn't get the 5%. I am heartbroken, > heart-sick, sick to my stomach, broken down, and all the rest of it. I > know how this will be spun, and that makes me even more likely to get an > ulcer. It does look like he cost Gore several states. They wanted a spoiler, and that's what we got. Of course, this was the closest election in 100 years, and Buchanan was nearly a spoiler in some states. > If Gore eventually wins, the Democrats will say, "Good! We didn't > need those radical lefties anyway!" If Gore eventually loses, the > Democrats will say "Fuck those degenerate selfish radicals! We can't > trust 'em, don't want to work with them, they can go to hell." We're > hamstrung either way. Or, more likely, they'll run some studies to see if pandering to the Greens would gain them votes or not. If it does, prepare to be pandered to. Otherwise, well, that's the breaks of being a radical minority sometimes. (Heck, the religious right radical minority and they seem to be doing ok. Thing is, they're a larger, more powerful, and better-organized radical minority.) Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:43:45 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Nadir At 11:26 AM 11/8/00 -0700, Eb wrote: >Were there any *individual* states where Nader got the 5%? It looks like Oregon is at 5% Nader right now. He got 10% in Alaska; 5% in Colorado, Minnesota, DC and Utah(!); 6% in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana and Maine; and 7% in Vermont. I got these numbers from CNN. If they change in 30 minutes, don't blame me. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:50:04 -0700 From: Eb Subject: interesting http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/ballotbox.found/ Not that I'm at all optimistic about the outcome being changed, but.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:49:11 -0500 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: what a country Terence: >Or, more likely, they'll run some studies to see if pandering to the >Greens would gain them votes or not. If it does, prepare to be pandered >to. Otherwise, well, that's the breaks of being a radical minority >sometimes. (Heck, the religious right radical minority and they seem to >be doing ok. Thing is, they're a larger, more powerful, and >better-organized radical minority.) Is it true that the Bush people were actually paying for and running Nader ads in some states? Just curious... lj, who tried to vote yesterday without moving that big-assed lever and had to have the election lady come help her! - -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design NYC ljl@w-rabbit.com http://www.w-rabbit.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I have made good judgements in the Past. I have made good judgements in the Future." --Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:51:26 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Nadir on 11/8/00 10:26 AM, Eb at ElBroome@earthlink.net wrote: > Were there any *individual* states where Nader got the 5%? I believe he got 6% in Massachusetts. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:52:54 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: and Rhode Island At 11:43 AM 11/8/00 -0800, Jason R. Thornton wrote: >It looks like Oregon is at 5% Nader right now. He got 10% in Alaska; 5% >in Colorado, Minnesota, DC and Utah(!); 6% in Hawaii, Massachusetts, >Montana and Maine; and 7% in Vermont. Whoops... and 6% in Rhode Island. Which I missed, because he was listed as an "Independent" rather than a "Green." - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:57:40 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: what a country On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > You want to talk post-election hangover? I think the Greens are going > to be *very* surprised at the intense bitterness that one-half the > voting population is going to feel towards their party, and especially > the hypocritical spoiled brat millionaire they selected to lead them. You think the Dems are going to be upset at Gore? I think so, too. Well, at least they should be. > I look at it like this -- and I want to clarify, I am far more left > leaning than Gore, and I have serious problems with the Democrats. So > I speak from a position of Realpolitik, which I feel gets continually > validated by, well, reality. [defense of moral compromise snipped] I, for one, could not vote for Gore. He supports war and corporate control. Colombia, Kosovo, Iraq, WTO, IMF, & WIPO. Those are the only important issues. Roe v. Wade and affirmative action are band-aids for a society with no respect for individuals. Gore does not represent the opposite of this. I'd vote for Buchanan over Bush or Gore for exactly these reasons. At least he work toward resolution of the global problems. We could fix the domestic problems he created later. You said that we don't see right wing Christians voting for Buchanan at the expense of Bush's candidacy. That says to me that you don't understand the situation. Buchanan runs as the Christian Right's "plausible alternative". It's how they keep control of the Republican Party regardless of where MOST Republicans stand. There's a small percentage (let's say 20%) of the Republican Party that votes as a block that is the Christian Right. They tell the Republican Party to keep its platform in line with theirs. If, at any time, the Republicans fail to meet the demands of the Christian Right, they say they will just vote for Buchanan, ensuring a Republican loss. So they keep control of the party even though they're in a minority position. The Democrats are merely a party of opposition to the Christian Right at this point. All they do is talk about how bad it would be if they get into power and how these few social issues are all that matter. The Democrats DO need to "wake up". But not to the idea that the world is more left than they are, but that they have to have platforms beside "protect this" and "maintain that" in order to succeed. Sustainability is a red herring. We need fecundity. There is no DIRECTION for the Democratic party. They only serve to anchor us to the now and prevent "backsliding" by the Christian Right. > And Ralph Nader thinks this will "wake up" the Democrats? Thank you, > Mr. Nader, for a new Republican regime. All the good you have ever > done has been pretty much swept away. That's extraordinarily harsh and untenable. Bush isn't going to disband OSHA, PIRG, or auto safety. And those things will have done more good in the long run than any damage you imagine Bush capable of incurring. And I still say Gore and Bush would have enacted the exact same policies and just lied about which parts were intended and which parts are compromise. They are men of compromise, just like you. And that makes their morals impossible to pin down and their values impossible to measure. > I know a LOT of you voted for Nader, and I personally never let > politics or religion interfere with a friendship. Actually, I was a bit worried about this, so I'm glad to see it in print (even if you have to make a realistic compromise about it later). > I wouldn't expect him to compromise; but he is in the minority of > Nader voters, most of which would have voted for Gore. Last I saw, about 30-40% of Nader supporters would have voted for Gore. From the looks of the actual returns, they probably did exactly that. I think that (if the returns are accurate, which I have serious cause to doubt) the few points that Nader did get were people who wouldn't vote for Gore no matter what else was at stake... like me. > --The Great "Bring me the head of Ralph Nader and a couple of Cokes" Quail I really think you should reconsider that. It's a rather shallow assessment of the situation. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:04:18 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: what a country On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > You have 100 people, and 49 of them pretty much say "Yeah!" top > right-wing Christianity, pro-life, racism, rich-friendly taxes, and > raping the environment. The other 51 say "Yeah!" to policies more > supportive of pro-choice, religious & racial tolerance, environmental > concern, and fairer taxes. But because 3 of them -- yes, that's > right, THREE of these people -- are lost in some smug, self-absorbed > utopian fog, wandering in the Land of La La Lollipops believing that > the US population will suddenly "wake up" to their agenda, they > *deliberately* fuck over the other 48 and hand control over to the > other side, all so they can sit back and feel good about their > infantile desire to forsake the mature reality of compromise. i think it's a serious problem when out of a hundred people, the only solution is one that disenfranchises half of them. whichever way the majority winds up being counted, it is a majority by a *statistically insignificant* fraction. if the country continues to be so thoroughly polarized, it may be time to look at restructuring the executive branch to better serve ALL of the constituency....even the idiots i vehemently disagree with. > Mr. Nader, for a new Republican regime. All the good you have ever > done has been pretty much swept away. if we finally dismantle the electoral college as a result of this mess, i'd have to say it's about a wash. look, blame nader all you want, but at 3pm i show: buchanan: 438,655 brown: 376,248 hagelin: 87,915 phillips: 101,199 harris: 21,077 if any of them were on the ballot (or written-in in signficant numbers) in florida or any of the other closely contested states, votes for them could've changed the outcome as much as votes for nader. and believe it or not, there have been several 3rd party candidates in every presidential election i've voted in. in some cases i didn't hear of them til i saw their names on the ballot, but they were there, and i'll bet their percentages have been fairly flat over the past several elections. the problem is not that nader was in this election; the problem is that the country is *fundamentally undecided* on which of the proferred goons was the lesser of the available evils. whether *that* is indicative of other problems, well, it's up to you...the answer is intuitive enough to me. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #317 *******************************