Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,524 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, will the dopes on the far left fall for his spoiler candidacy again? The "Dems are the same as Repubs" sound bite hasn't played too well for the past 3 years... Rape and pillage the environment, kneecapping education, run-away deficits, giga-dollar corporate welfare, etc.

And what, other than possibly setting the stage for the Supreme Court to appoint 43 AGAIN, does Ralph mean to do with this nonsense?
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,239 Posts
the two most common interpretations I have read are:

1) It's ego. He is not trying to build a third party, since he is not running on the Green ticket. So it is all about him. I doubt he can even get on the ballot in all 50 states.

2) He is doing it to be an attack dog on Bush, willing and able to say things that the democrats cannot say. This morning on Meet the Press he threw out the "impeachment" idea, and his rhetoric was dripping vitriol, most of it aimed at the white house. He will then drop out before November.

I've seen whackier ideas, like he has been bought by Bush, or something along those lines, but since I am not very into insane conspiracy theories I don't give them much weight.

I have no idea what's coming down the pipe on this one, but at the very least it should be interesting.

Now, off to play some volleyball. Bump, set, spike!
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,421 Posts
No, he's the "Old Nader."

He'll have less effect than in the last election. He has the right to run, so I won't say that he shouldn't. I don't think that this election will be anywhere near as close as the last one. In Illinois, bush is already down 10 points to Kerry. The American public can be a little dumb at times, but they're not idiots.

"I think that I'll run out and buy me a Corvair."
 

·
Censored by *********
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
MR_GRUMPY said:
"I think that I'll run out and buy me a Corvair."

LOL.

Good one.
 

·
Ti me up
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Kneecapping education?

I usually ignore the political discussions on the board, because I usually don't see much that passes for actual discussion, instead of just shouting at each other. Probably should just leave it alone, but here's a question for you. It's easy to complain about how Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court, even though from what I've read, every news organization that has done a full recount of the ballots under almost any scenario has come to the conclusion that a recount would've still given Bush Florida and the election. But the one that strikes me as really not making sense is "kneecapping education." How do you come to that conclusion? In what way?

Bush just promoted and passed the biggest federal education budget in history, despite the historical conservative position that elementary and secondary education are local, not federal, matters. As best I understand it, Kerry is hollering that, even though inflation-adjusted spending per pupil has more than doubled in the last 35 years, we should spend even more on it. And Bush seems to generally agree, because he's proposing even more for the current budget.

Now, I'd also argue that the whole discussion misses the point and that the reason education is in abysmal shape in the U.S. today has nothing to do with spending. But since the political definition of concern seems to involve throwing huge amount of your and my money at it, how can you honestly make the statement that the current humongous federal education budget is kneecapping education?
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,239 Posts
Are you really going to defend "no child left behind?"

I'd like to see some statistics on that program. What was the educational budget? What are the costs on states for NCLB in unfunded mandated spending? What do the budget numbers look like for the past 30 years for education? I bet you can find a chart on that.


"I usually ignore the political discussions on the board, because I usually don't see much that passes for actual discussion, instead of just shouting at each other. "

Pay better attention.



"Now, I'd also argue that the whole discussion misses the point and that the reason education is in abysmal shape in the U.S. today has nothing to do with spending."

Education is not abysmal EVERYWHERE. It works fine for the people where I live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
It's unfunded

I second Dr. Hoo's response. The problem isn't so much the No Child Left Behind Act (which was supported by Sen Kennedy, of all people), but that Bush promised to support it with funding, but failed to do so.

One might think that Bush might be politically savvy enough to at least properly follow through with ONE program that could at least be arguable geared toward the common folk.....but I guess tax cuts must take precedence!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
781 Posts
Nader's analysis is correct, but

his tactics leave much to be desired. I'm not even sure what he's hoping to accomplish with his version of what the Black Panthers so felicitously used to call "Custerism."
 

·
Arrogant roadie.....
Joined
·
4,232 Posts
Not quite...

I'm sure that Ralph means well, but I doubt that Lyndon does. Don't forget, L LaR is a convicted felon, and no matter how weird Ralph is, he's light-years away from whackos like LaRouche.

FWIW, Mr. LaRouche somehow got onto the Democratic primary ballot in NY.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
No Child Left Behind will be a disaster--ask a teacher

Bush's "increase" in education funding is bogus. Every penny was canceled, and then some, by decreases in education somewhere else. One study I read said it's actually a net LOSS to the schools. And a lot of it, like the $23 million for drug testing, doesn't really do anything for kids anyway, it's just window dressing for his base constituency (we can't afford new science books, but by God we'll test their urine!).
No need to detail the social changes and other pressures that have affected education (one of them: How many mothers were home in the afternoons 30 years ago to nudge their kids in the right direction, and how many are home today?). Leaving all that out, though, in 10 years we're going to look at No Child Left Behind as a disaster, a national tragedy. Bush got a lot of mileage out of changes in Texas schools, but they weren't his to begin with (he opposed many of them, then claimed credit when they passed), and they haven't been successful over even the medium term--test scores rose a couple of percent, then sagged again. He's doing the same thing nationally now. Watch and see--if he's re-elected, people will be laughing out loud at NCLB before his second term is over.
As for the argument that teachers are slackers who are in it for the money, a favorite conservative point: Yeah. Take your Master's degree and 10 years experience down to the school district and you, too, can make a $39,000 a year, if you're willing to put in 15 hours a week unpaid overtime and 15 hours a month chaperoning dances and ball games for free. Don't believe the Republicans about this charade--ask ANY teacher or administrator what he or she thinks of it and see what response you get.
 

·
Seeking shades of grey
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
633 said:
Now, I'd also argue that the whole discussion misses the point and that the reason education is in abysmal shape in the U.S. today has nothing to do with spending.
I'm starting to feel the same way. Education has always depended on good willed persons. I believe the major problem with the state of education (k-12) in the united states is a matter of discipline. Teachers are expected to maintain order in classrooms, but they have no authority to back up their words. The stories I hear about the "back talk" and disrespectful behavior in public schools makes me shudder. I wonder when they will learn civility and manners that are expected in the "real world."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,302 Posts
I think people are so focussed on taking out Bush that they won't let a third party candidate derail that goal no matter how strongly they agree with Nader. The 2000 election story where Nader cost Gore the election (whether true or not) has pretty much reached consensus status from all observers.

Bush is such a hated figure I don't think anyone so inclined will be "wasting" their votes on non-starter candidates just to promote their personal ideology. It's all about getting Bush out of office. It almost doesn't matter who replaces him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Sintesi said:
I think people are so focussed on taking out Bush that they won't let a third party candidate derail that goal no matter how strongly they agree with Nader. The 2000 election story where Nader cost Gore the election (whether true or not) has pretty much reached consensus status from all observers.

Bush is such a hated figure I don't think anyone so inclined will be "wasting" their votes on non-starter candidates just to promote their personal ideology. It's all about getting Bush out of office. It almost doesn't matter who replaces him.
You'd be surprised. Remember how close Florida was and how many votes nader got there. It CAN make a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,524 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
In Florida, Nader got 97,000 votes and, in the final(?) tally the Bush/Gore difference was 500. 25 electoral votes

In New Hampshire, Nader got 22,000 votes and the Bush Gore difference was 7500. 4 electoral votes

Bush ended up with 271 electoral votes, Gore had 266. Either Florida or New Hampshire would swung the election.

Nader tightened races that Gore won in Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon.

In a few states that Bush won, Nader's votes did not swing the balance, but did increase Bush's very small margins, as in Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee.

http://www.multied.com/elections/2000certified.html
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top