Anyone look seriously at the third party candidates?

angryguy said:pooklobama

Thank you.

PS:

mtn wrote:

pete240z wrote: they end up being throw away votes.

Pete, you live in Illinois. Do you really think it matters who you vote for? NO. Barack is gonna take the state by a landslide. I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but people here are in love with the idiot.

I didn't mean to offend everyone, and I didn't imply that it is a wasted vote, because it is not. I have always voted and I get angry with those who do not vote.

You are right because Illinois will probably plow through with Senator Obama.

I just wish the system had a better way for the other candidates to really make a difference or have a real chance.

No offense was meant to be from my comment. With all due respect back; I am dissappointed that I was told "berkeley you" on the forum I have been part of for a long time.

walterj wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Politicians get addicted to the bribery and fawning and butt kissing and begin to feel they are above the laws they pass. We need look no further than the Congressional pension and health care plans to see that. Or to look at the likes of Ted Stevens to see what happens when you get too comfortable up there.

You forgot any lobbyist that attempts to give a gift of even a breath mint or single penny is subject to the "Log Chipper of Justice". They are only allowed to use their persuasive skills at the microphone.

Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

Salanis wrote:

walterj wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Politicians get addicted to the bribery and fawning and butt kissing and begin to feel they are above the laws they pass. We need look no further than the Congressional pension and health care plans to see that. Or to look at the likes of Ted Stevens to see what happens when you get too comfortable up there.

You forgot any lobbyist that attempts to give a gift of even a breath mint or single penny is subject to the "Log Chipper of Justice". They are only allowed to use their persuasive skills at the microphone.

Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

I understand perfectly how it works. My dad has a friend who is a state lobbyist for the soft drink distributors trade group here in the state and he had a big hand in the placing of soft drink machines in public schools around the state over the objections of various health groups, PTAs, etc. He's quite proud of his accomplishment, actually. He'll tell you how much money that makes for the soft drink distributors but is rather evasive as to how much that puts in his personal pocket or exactly how it was accomplished.

Jensenman wrote:

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

I understand perfectly how it works. My dad has a friend who is a state lobbyist for the soft drink distributors trade group here in the state and he had a big hand in the placing of soft drink machines in public schools around the state over the objections of various health groups, PTAs, etc. He's quite proud of his accomplishment, actually. He'll tell you how much money that makes for the soft drink distributors but is rather evasive as to how much that puts in his personal pocket or exactly how it was accomplished.

So, you have a family member who has a friend who has been involved in the process, but he hasn't actually shared with you what he did.

Plus, to the best of my knowledge, those soft drink distribution contracts are not made with the State. They are generally made with individual districts that need funds. Now it's possible that one was made with a state education board, but that still isn't dealing with legislators.

Salanis wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

I understand perfectly how it works. My dad has a friend who is a state lobbyist for the soft drink distributors trade group here in the state and he had a big hand in the placing of soft drink machines in public schools around the state over the objections of various health groups, PTAs, etc. He's quite proud of his accomplishment, actually. He'll tell you how much money that makes for the soft drink distributors but is rather evasive as to how much that puts in his personal pocket or exactly how it was accomplished.

So, you have a family member who has a friend who has been involved in the process, but he hasn't actually shared with you what he did. Plus, to the best of my knowledge, those soft drink distribution contracts are not made with the State. They are generally made with individual districts that need funds. Now it's possible that one was made with a state education board, but that still isn't dealing with legislators.

Regardless of which elected official it stands with, I think the point is valid. Of course, soft drink machines in schools is not necessarily an example of gross negligence depending how it got implemented. If the soda companies gave them to the schools (at no cost to the taxpayer) with the intent to make back the cost through profits and give the school some take as a reward for allowing it to be put there, I'm not sure the officials made a necessarily bad decision. However, if the lobbyist convinced the school board to spend thousands of dollars investing in soft drink machines without public input into the idea, then I think the lobbyist was trying to grease the tracks...and if the lobbyist got to deal with the same school board official for many years, buddying up to the official, removing any inkling of impartiality towards future decisions, I'd be very concerned. I wouldn't count on that school board official getting voted out for being too friendly with the lobbyist, so I'd rather remove the potential for the long term relationship in that position.

I typically vote Democrat, this year I will be voting for Ralph Nader. Obama will win my district by a landslide (no point in voting for him), I am fairly convinced that McCain is going to win Florida because of racism and religion. Both of them are just going to screw things up even more than they already are. If you are expecting the government to make your life better you are looking at the wrong person.

Nader is the candidate that most closely represents my personal beliefs of how our country should be run. Voting your conscience rather than candidate A1 or A2 is the patriotic thing to do in my opinion.

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

Now lets say you are the defendant in a murder trial and you have reason to believe that the prosecutor has just paid for the remodelling of several juror's homes...

Salanis wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

I understand perfectly how it works. My dad has a friend who is a state lobbyist for the soft drink distributors trade group here in the state and he had a big hand in the placing of soft drink machines in public schools around the state over the objections of various health groups, PTAs, etc. He's quite proud of his accomplishment, actually. He'll tell you how much money that makes for the soft drink distributors but is rather evasive as to how much that puts in his personal pocket or exactly how it was accomplished.

So, you have a family member who has a friend who has been involved in the process, but he hasn't actually shared with you what he did. Plus, to the best of my knowledge, those soft drink distribution contracts are not made with the State. They are generally made with individual districts that need funds. Now it's possible that one was made with a state education board, but that still isn't dealing with legislators.

And there you'd be wrong. It was necessary for him to go to the Legislature to override the Board of Education's protests. The way it worked: the Board of Education and the individual school boards wanted the machines out and for them to be replaced with vending machines that had more healthy snacks and drinks. The manufacturers association hired this guy to get that stopped. Since the Board of Education has to do what the Legislature says, guess where he went. This happened maybe 10-12 years ago; in 2006 the Board of Education reached an agreement with the association to restrict the sales of certain high sugar soft drinks to after school hours. So it looks like this guy's efforts did not lead to a permanent agreement.

Link to the announcement of the 2006 change:

http://www.sc.gov/NewsCenter/DOE/Soft+drink+announcement-SDE+reax.htm

GregTivo wrote: Regardless of which elected official it stands with, I think the point is valid. Of course, soft drink machines in schools is not necessarily an example of gross negligence depending how it got implemented. If the soda companies gave them to the schools (at no cost to the taxpayer) with the intent to make back the cost through profits and give the school some take as a reward for allowing it to be put there, I'm not sure the officials made a necessarily bad decision. However, if the lobbyist convinced the school board to spend thousands of dollars investing in soft drink machines without public input into the idea, then I think the lobbyist was trying to grease the tracks...and if the lobbyist got to deal with the same school board official for many years, buddying up to the official, removing any inkling of impartiality towards future decisions, I'd be very concerned. I wouldn't count on that school board official getting voted out for being too friendly with the lobbyist, so I'd rather remove the potential for the long term relationship in that position.

Firstly, the soft drink companies generally pay school districts for exclusive distribution rights. The school districts themselves make money, which is generally spent on materials.

Secondly, just because these people are government employees, doesn't mean they were elected. Most of these people who administrate and run school districts were hirees, not electeds.

The entire point of lobbying is to have a relationship with a politician. In fact, most of what a legislator does is lobbying their own agendas to other legislators. Anyone who goes to a politician and says, "I think you should do this" is lobbying them.

Every time you write to a politician telling them to do something, or thanking/admonishing them for doing something, you are lobbying them. Those letters also semi-bribe legislators too. Along with the request to take a certain action is the understanding that the person writing the letter is a voting constituent who is paying attention to what the legislator is doing, and that there are probably another 100 votes that will go the same way as this person, but who didn't take the time to write a letter expressing their opinion.

walterj wrote:

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

Now lets say you are the defendant in a murder trial and you have reason to believe that the prosecutor has just paid for the remodelling of several juror's homes...

Bribes =/= Lobbying. There are distinct limits on what can be given to or done for a legislator.

Your analogy is also generally poor. Legislators do not have to be impartial. Also, what the gifts and shmoozing get you is time. The prosecutor of a court case gets time to pitch their side of the argument to the jury no matter what. If you can't do anything to get yourself noticed by a legislator, you will never have the opportunity to pitch an idea to them.

Any chance of getting on topic?

I'll be voting tomorrow AM. I thought all of you might like to have some input.

I've heard your rants. Anyone have anything constructive to offer??

Jensenman wrote: And there you'd be wrong. It was necessary for him to go to the Legislature to override the Board of Education's protests. The way it worked: the Board of Education and the individual school boards wanted the machines out and for them to be replaced with vending machines that had more healthy snacks and drinks. The manufacturers association hired this guy to get that stopped. Since the Board of Education has to do what the Legislature says, guess where he went. This happened maybe 10-12 years ago; in 2006 the Board of Education reached an agreement with the association to restrict the sales of certain high sugar soft drinks to after school hours. So it looks like this guy's efforts did not lead to a permanent agreement. Link to the announcement of the 2006 change: http://www.sc.gov/NewsCenter/DOE/Soft+drink+announcement-SDE+reax.htm

That makes no mention of what happened however long ago you're claiming. Could you provide me a link to the legislation passed to require a local contract with a soda distributor?

Umm... and by your own admission it sounds like there was never a permanent legislative agreement.

Your scenario doesn't make sense because you're claiming that a state legislature mandated particular soda machines at locally operated fixtures that they have no jurisdiction over the operation of.

SVreX wrote: I've heard your rants. Anyone have anything constructive to offer??

Vote how you feel is best. But be sure to vote.

Your vote may do nothing to decide which of two candidates gets elected, but it counts towards the number of people who people who are attentive voters.

Salanis wrote: Firstly, the soft drink companies generally pay school districts for exclusive distribution rights. The school districts themselves make money, which is generally spent on materials.

I understand that. I was taking the example at hand and expounding upon it. What happens "usually" is not what I was debating

Secondly, just because these people are government employees, doesn't mean they were elected. Most of these people who administrate and run school districts were hirees, not electeds.

most people that make the biggest financial decisions are elected (ie: school boards). The people that administrate and run schools are held accountable by their bosses.

The entire point of lobbying is to have a relationship with a politician. In fact, most of what a legislator does *is* lobbying their own agendas to other legislators. Anyone who goes to a politician and says, "I think you should do this" is lobbying them. Every time you write to a politician telling them to do something, or thanking/admonishing them for doing something, you are lobbying them. Those letters also semi-bribe legislators too. Along with the request to take a certain action is the understanding that the person writing the letter is a voting constituent who is paying attention to what the legislator is doing, and that there are probably another 100 votes that will go the same way as this person, but who didn't take the time to write a letter expressing their opinion.

I know the point of lobbying and don't have any problem with lobbyists, as they're only following the paths laid out before them to get what they want. My desire is to mitigate the damage aggressive lobbying can do to the school, city, state, country by limiting the power they can appeal to. A congressperson with 8 years to work in that position is alot less powerful than a congressperson with 20 years to work in that position.

I don't believe in "professional politicians", therefore I don't believe there needs to be a permanent position for them to reside in.

SVreX wrote: Any chance of getting on topic? I'll be voting tomorrow AM. I thought all of you might like to have some input. I've heard your rants. Anyone have anything constructive to offer??

Here, read this

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

GregTivo wrote: I don't believe in "professional politicians", therefore I don't believe there needs to be a permanent position for them to reside in.

Politics: the only field where experience in the job you're trying to do is considered a negative.

Salanis wrote:

walterj wrote:

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

Now lets say you are the defendant in a murder trial and you have reason to believe that the prosecutor has just paid for the remodelling of several juror's homes...

Bribes =/= Lobbying. There are distinct limits on what can be given to or done for a legislator. Your analogy is also generally poor. Legislators do not have to be impartial. Also, what the gifts and shmoozing get you is time. The prosecutor of a court case gets time to pitch their side of the argument to the jury no matter what. If you can't do anything to get yourself noticed by a legislator, you will never have the opportunity to pitch an idea to them.

Yes, and keeping lobbyist constantly working hard to get and keep the attention of new congresspeople is a good thing, because they have to constantly justify their lobbying to new and uniformed people. Yes, it makes their job harder, but it keeps them more honest. As you know any any relationship, familiarity can breed contempt and lobbyists will take any opportunity to build a personal relationship with politicians to get political favors. Its the natural laziness of human nature to make professional judgments based on personal relationships rather than fact based analysis. I want to keep the ability for lobbyist to develop personal relationships to an absolute minimum by rotating new faces in front of them regularly.

Salanis wrote:

GregTivo wrote: I don't believe in "professional politicians", therefore I don't believe there needs to be a permanent position for them to reside in.

Politics: the only field where experience in the job you're trying to do is considered a negative.

I should modify that. I don't believe in professional job squatters.

Its one of the few highly specialized jobs where you have the same role for decades, which breeds complacency. In every other industry, a person that held on to the same role for that long would be viewed on as too narrow in his discipline to be very effective. I have no problem with a politician that moves from the state house to the state senate to the house to the senate for a whole career. He has to learn new roles and develop new understandings for the tasks his constiuents have delegated to him, but he knows if he's complacent and doesn't accomplish what his consituents want, he has nothing to pitch to the new group of constituents he's applying for the next job for.

Salanis wrote:

walterj wrote:

Salanis wrote: Spoken like two people who have never actually observed the lobbying/political system in this country and who do not understand how it works.

Now lets say you are the defendant in a murder trial and you have reason to believe that the prosecutor has just paid for the remodelling of several juror's homes...

Bribes =/= Lobbying. There are distinct limits on what can be given to or done for a legislator. Your analogy is also generally poor. Legislators do not have to be impartial. Also, what the gifts and shmoozing get you is time. The prosecutor of a court case gets time to pitch their side of the argument to the jury no matter what. If you can't do anything to get yourself noticed by a legislator, you will never have the opportunity to pitch an idea to them.

My analogy is spot on. The prosecutor is free to use his bias and his wit to endear himself to the jury... he is not allowed to use his wallet. A lobbyist is very much like an an attorney acting on behalf of a parties interests. I did not say that lobbying should be banned - I said that money to effect its ends should. It is a system that lends itself to corruption.

There is a fellow from Alaska who got a very stiff whack for accepting the money... where is the log chipper for the guy who bribed him?

GregTivo wrote: Yes, and keeping lobbyist constantly working hard to get and keep the attention of new congresspeople is a good thing, because they have to constantly justify their lobbying to new and uniformed people. Yes, it makes their job harder, but it keeps them more honest. As you know any any relationship, familiarity can breed contempt and lobbyists will take any opportunity to build a personal relationship with politicians to get political favors. Its the natural laziness of human nature to make professional judgments based on personal relationships rather than fact based analysis. I want to keep the ability for lobbyist to develop personal relationships to an absolute minimum by rotating new faces in front of them regularly.

The #1 motivating factor for a politician is reelection. That means that personal favors and relationships and what not matter less than being able to go to your constituents and point to what you've done for them.

Legislators also have so many things run past them, that they rely on people who have the time to dedicate themselves to a single issue to help inform them if a piece of legislation is good and if their constituents will like it.

Term limits also mean that a politician will have a final term where they are not accountable to their constituents for any of their actions.

A politician who's been around longer will be better able to identify who is full of E36 M3 and who is on the level. A politician that will see a longer term also has to develop policy that won't come back to bite them in the ass 10-20 years later. If you're going to be out in 6 years, you can write all kinds of E36 M3 and not have to concern yourself with how feasible it will eventually be.

GregTivo wrote: I should modify that. I don't believe in professional job squatters. Its one of the few highly specialized jobs where you have the same role for decades, which breeds complacency. In every other industry, a person that held on to the same role for that long would be viewed on as too narrow in his discipline to be very effective. I have no problem with a politician that moves from the state house to the state senate to the house to the senate for a whole career. He has to learn new roles and develop new understandings for the tasks his constiuents have delegated to him, but he knows if he's complacent and doesn't accomplish what his consituents want, he has nothing to pitch to the new group of constituents he's applying for the next job for.

See, that's where you're not understanding the nature of politics again. Most politicians start with local offices. They then work up to a state or federal office.

Now let's say you get someone who ends up in the House or Senate, that will end up staying there for an extended period. They do not maintain the same role that entire time.

The houses of congress have a bunch of committees that handle issues and there are people of varying rank on those committees. As their careers progress, they move up to more prestigious positions in more influential committees. They get to act as gatekeepers for more complicated and delicate issues.

Now, that is not to say that I don't think politicians should get turned over at a higher rate than they do. I'm just saying that term limits are the wrong way to do it.

Think of it as free-market politics. Rather than having big brother decide how long you get to have which representative for, you get to vote with your wallet (which is a literal vote) to decide how long you want to have them for.

If you really want to see politicians get turned over, take congressional districting out of their hands. Assign congressional mapping to the judiciary or to independent panels. That will draw far more balanced districts that won't keep electing the same person over and over and over, because the alternative is a member of the other party.

Ted Stevens Robert Byrd Strom Thurmond Don Young Teddy Kennedy Robert Murtha Harry Reid

...nuff said

All this, and no mention of the Electoral College.
Tsk tsk tsk.

the electoral college sucks, there's only one test and they fail it every time.