... are giving people "0"s for mild gripping about their favorite, their message. If they are so confident that they are ahead, what's the point? Are they afraid that someone will vote for Mitt Romney? I doubt it.
But the Hillary promoter can come into this entry, and scream bloody murder about Edwards without getting "0"ed? Who is on the defensive here?
Well, there is simply not enough gold physically around to go back to that. I have even proposed an "aluminum standard," but no one seems to consider it. That aluminum beer can it pure energy! Aluminum powder provides the energy for the Space Shuttle's booster engines. Paul is dead wrong about 100 things. Still, it's what's in the heart that counts in the end. I don't agree with him. I do respect him, though.
.... to that point of view. I think a lot of people just see the Green Party as a hindrance to the Democratic Party. In fact, the Greens tend to be very well-intended people who are dealing with a very flawed system. (I hope the Greens give up on the IRV idea, it really get tricky if more than 3 candidates are in play, and as I point out in a link below, it doesn't even remove the spoiler effect.)
That "sense of Congress" resolutions are "nonbinding" and the courts have backed that up (so far). We were also told we had a right of habeas corpus. Of course this is post-9/11, so it's all different now.
What kind of Congress passes laws in the middle of the night, is threatened by "nuclear options," and now is voting on things like this while candidates are out campaigning? They act like a gang of con artists. Even a gang of con artists would be far better organized, actually. What shoddy practices and "workmanship." Throw them all out!
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; [...] ________
That's what it says. The notion that presidents can veto any of these things looks very questionable to me. I have always wondered about this, actually. The authors could have said "Laws passed by the Congress (and president) shall have Power to..." But that is not how it is phrased at all. Of course, a fancy lawyer could make a different case. However, if you just go by the text itself, this question looms large. Don't believe too much of what people tell you, especially lawyers!
It does no good to assume that a "sense of the Senate" resolution carries no weight. If you look at the Constitution, you will notice that there is nothing in it that says a "sense of Congress" resolution carries no weight. Quite the contrary.
But there is a vastly larger picture. We are not, cannot be, at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, or potentially Iran. Those are simply the places where the oil is. Russia China and India want that oil, and the U.S., U.K., and E.U. want it too. A proxy war is occurring here. It is not just a matter of fighting these helpless desert dwellers. We are really up against their backers.
Four outcomes are possible. The fourth one is by far the most likely: (1) The U.S., U.K., and E.U. get all the oil. (2) Russia China and India get all the oil. (3) Someone decides to halt the war against Russia China and India, a deal is struck, and the oil is shared. (4) Global thermonuclear war.
Massachusetts has a "line item veto." What it really does is take power away from the Congress, and place that power into the hands of presidents. The "power of the purse" has always been one of the few really significant powers of the Congress.
Really, it is only the Senate that prevents the U.S. government from giving every cent of federal money to, say, Texas.
I have been following this on other levels. What people are blissfully unaware of is that Bushco had launched a nationwide Katrina. This is important: During the Bush maladministration, all of the protections that were placed in the laws to prevent another 1929-style catastrophic depression have been quietly removed from the law books. And in fact, people who are aware of this are insisting that we are more than at risk of a major financial meltdown.
I am not sure Edwards, or any of the candidates are actually fully aware of this. The duct tape folks, like Alex Jones (a Ron Paul supporter) seem to be aware of this. And you will find plenty of information about it at the progressive Truthdig, Truthout, or Buzzflash. But the progressives in general (not even the Indymedia crowd) seem to be unaware of this coming economic tsunami. It's damn scary.
No one really knows if Nader brought Bush. Maybe, Maybe not. Objectively speaking, Nader didn't help. But The Bushites used many scams. I am very strategic and I know the system. It was rigged from many different angles. Strategy is not illegal, just necessary. The Nader Card could be played strategically. Hell, anything can!
I didn't say anything about how I would vote, or who I would even support. Maybe the Green Party should take every Republican dime they can get, and then have the candidate pull out at the last minute.
The point is, by registering as a Green now, it would get someone's notice. Suppose we all just do that Monday? Then we keep on doing what we're doing, except we collect money from Republicans.
By the way, I was personally the first political blogger to dredge up an actual photo of a College Republican at a Nader display table, which published in a student newspaper. In 2004, I also was first to call attention to a PDF of an official notice, complete with official Republican letterhead, sent by a local Republican committee asking people to donate to Nader. And they did do that. And Nader finally even acknowledged it. I posted it all at the now-gone repentantnadervoter.org, which some here will even remember, perhaps. Strange days.
There is one, and only one, reasonable way to circumvent the spoiler effect (I invented that term and promoted it heavily after '04), and I explained that
Unfortunately, so few people voted that a multiple tie occurred, so I gave up going to the final runoff. (Thanks everyone who voted!!! And every one that did included Dennis Kucinich!)
Some people are fanatical about IRV or Condorcet voting. But in any race involving four or more candidates, these require complex, and more to the point, insecure, counting procedures. And trust me, it always happens; people will still give one first rank vote to the strongest "compromise" candidate. So the spoiler effect does not go away at all.