I keep hearing Nader and his appologists whine about "ballot access issues."

The votenader.org web site seems to have deleted any detailed arguments on the subject -- these all seem to be dead links. (ok, all but one, but still no details). And google caches doesn't show up much except more whining.

As I understand it, Nader is still put out that a couple of states refused to accept "Mickey Mouse" as a legitimate signature back in 2004. I have no sympathy.

If you can't get twenty thousand (REAL) signatures in a large state, you don't belong on the ballot. It really is that simple.

Nader is pissed that he has so few supporters that he can't meet the minimum requirements. Well, boo-hoo.

Here's a news flash: If you don't have twenty thousand people willing to sign your petition, or one thousand people willing to show up for a convention, you aren't going to win. If nobody wants you to run, then you shouldn't run. Ok? Now go away.

Nader might have a valid point in that it is too easy for major party candidates to get on the ballot. Maybe. But even fixing that won't significantly change anything for third parties.

I fully agree.

The two major parties also agree. That's why it costs millions of dollars to get on the ballot in all states for a national campaign.

Ross Perot could do it. Can a new party without a truely wealthy supporter? Nope. The status quo remains intact. Repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" makes it even more difficult.

Without the access, who would know you exist? Without a "Fairness Doctrine", who would hear your message?

Money runs the U.S. political process. We should have learned by now that it isn't working very well.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

It doesn't take millions of dollars.

It takes supporters. Ralph nader had zero, that's why he didn't make the ballot. He needs to accept that NOBODY WANTS HIM.

When running for president, first, you must have a national orginization with a fully functioning infrastructure.

If tomorrow I decided I wanted to run for president in 2012, there is no law that prevents me from doing so. But to actually get on the ballot I would have to show all the various election committees around the country that I am credible. And to do that I have to have a national infrastructure, not some 62 Chev van with my name painted on the side, and then with that infractrusture I would then be able to bring in the millions required to actually run a credible campaign.

I can be a flat broke dirt farmer and run for pres, IF i have that infrastructure.

In Calif., it takes nearly 600,000 signatures to get on the ballot within a time-frame. Usually, any ballot initiative requires paid gatherers to meet the deadline...including presidential ones.

Now, if you want to gather a few supporters and start a new party, you can do that. If you have money for airtime, you can even perhaps get people to help put you on the ballot once they know you are running and your views are understood.

A ballot process in Calif. isn't measured in costs of thousands of dollars. 'Tis a bit more than that. Now multiply it by 50 states, some of whose requirements are even more stringent than California's.

The illusion of democracy is a marvelous thing. It works really well if you have an extra million or so lying around and can tap into a few corporate coffers. Maybe someday we'll even have the real thing!

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

It's not an illusion Poly. The framework is spelled out state to state, (some are easier than Calif too) and as long as you know the rules, then you can work within that frame work. And that's really all you gotta do.

Flat broke, your supporters number about 9, but you got a head full of good ideas?
Join one of the political parties, work for a candidate long enough to build up your name and respect, then branch out on your own. Run for local office, then state office, then national office, all the while you build your own national infrastructure. And you can use that to make a credible bid for the whitehouse. Can't do all that? Exactly! You're a no go.

Running for president, anybody can do that at any time. Being a credible candidate though, should not be an easy process. I for one do not want a hundred candidates on the ballot in November. Why? Expense is one. Running an election is not a cheap or easy enterprise. As a tax payer I don't want to fund waste, and paying to put 20 candidates on the ballot that will not win, is a waste of money. However, the main reason is that if you confuse the process, many people will walk away from the process. It will not attract people other than various wingers with their own angle. Regular, got lives to live and bills to pay Americans though, will walk away. Because it's just to confusing and time consuming.

Well, your point of getting involved in the local process is well-taken. Usually so few participate at this level that a half-dozen like-minded people in a precinct can pretty much re-shape a party at that level.

Generally, however, what you'll find is cronyism. The back-scratcher tends to get selected to run for office when the opportunity arises to select a new candidate.

The U.S. doesn't tend to select those most qualified to run...it tends to select those who have done the most back-scratching.

Some time back, I was in Denver on vacation. A State Rep. had resigned to take a new office within City government (it paid more). A handful of people selected the replacement to hold his office until the next general election. Naturally, the next in-line crony was appointed. A total dunce. I was there as an observer of the process.

I had a dear aunt who had been politically involved within the Dem Party for most of her life. So much so, that she was Robert Kennedy's hostess when he was campaigning in Denver for the Presidential nomination. I'm pretty familiar with how the process functions.

Toe the line, scratch the backs. That's how its done. This sort of thing really doesn't hold a whole lot of promise for someone different enough to require a Third Party.

An automatic change of a vote to a 2nd alterntive if the candidate doesn't win would be a boon to the possibilities of additional parties...the fear of "wasting a vote' would be eliminated. Of course, it will never happen. Cronyism, I'm afraid, will hold sway in the U.S. political process for years to come. Dunces rather than statesmen. The best back-scratcher gets on the ballot.

We had a retired State Representtive on local PBS several weeks ago. They were asked what they would do to get a rebound of the economy. The reply, "I know nothing about economics. I'd have to seek out an advisor". Now, if you know nothing about economics, just how would you know whether or not your selected advisor did? It seems to me, that at least a minimal amount of knowledge would be a wee bit beneficial in order to determine that. Another dunce.

The whole system is greatly flawed. The blocking of Third Parties just seems to encourage its continuance. Dunces rather than statesmen. Dunces rather than knowledgeable people to determine the direction of a state, of a nation. New ideas, new information, is effectively blocked, whether by intent or just the design of the system itself.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Ah, yes, the faint whiff of elitism.

It must just drive you crazy that people who are so patently inferior to you hold public office, doesn't it, Polycrap? Why, I'll bet some of them scored lower than 98-99th percentile in "every area of human endeavor but one." Maybe we should make aptitutde tests a prerequisite for public office.

It does drive me crazy when we elect someone like Bush as Pres. If you think his nonsense has brought the country to a Golden Age, go for it. Find someone to duplicate him.

We don't have to elect geniuses. We should elect people who have basic, well-rounded knowledge about how things function other than the limited knowledge of back-scratching.

If you think it works well to have someone direct the economic policy of a nation who knows nothing about economics, support it.

If you prefer someone who has no knowledge of education to be in charge of the nation's educational policies, go for it.

Appoint Mickey Mouse as Secretary of State, Pluto as the ambassador to the U.N., Pinoccio as Head of the Justice Dept. and Donald Duck as Secretary of Labor.

If you think a Pres. shouldn't have enough wisdom not to appoint a Horse Stable Manager as director of FEMA, keep voting for dunces. Don't, however, expect beneficial results.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

are saying we didn't?

Donald Duck? Oh wait, that was Donald Rumsfailed!

You poor soul. I'm not sure exactly how stupid the average poster on your old board was, but I guarantee you that anybody who's been around here for a spell will not fall for your attempt to use false dichotomies to ascribe to me positions which I do not hold. In other words, your shit ain't working.

Oops, I also have to point out another of your myriad factual errors. Michael Brown was commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, not a stable manager. Feel free to try to spin this as me "supporting" Michael Brown. It'll just make you look even dumber.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9325977/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown





Stable manager of Elite horse handler, sure sounds like one hell of a guy!

And in what way does a Commissioner of a Horse Association give qualifications to be Director of FEMA that a stable manager wouldn't have? A stable manager would probably have slightly better qualifications. He might even recognize when a horse had a broken leg and call a vet if he was a good one. I was being "nice" and giving him the benefit of the doubt. He couldn't recognize a broken leg called Katrina and call the vet called national assistance.

If you don't hold positions that most Americans hold, you're a human miracle. Holding them isn't the same as acting on them. Actually, you should hold as many differing positions as possibe. Then it gives you the opportunity to select the one most appropriate to a situation.

Hold the views that rain at the beach is good, and no rain at the beach is good. Select the one appropriate to enjoyment of the weather when you go to the beach. You'll enjoy the day no matter the weather.

If you hold the view that "primitive" is a bad thing, you'll have a knee-jerk reaction to it when used as a scientific description. You did. It can be either good or bad. When used to describe a society, it's pretty neutral. When used to describe medicine, it can be bad. Primitive medicine of bleeding is" bad "compared to modern medicine of antibiotics. Words have shadings depending on the context of their useage.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

It wouldn't. I didn't say anything about Michael Brown's qualifications to be director of FEMA. I said your statement that he was a horse stable manager was incorrect. I guess you missed that.


Ohhhhhh-kay.


Correct (for once). And when the context is a statement that such societies have nothing to contribute to your discussion of economics, the shading is about as negative, ignorant, and racist as can be.

In fact, he was nit picking.
That's what lawyers do!

The fact that Poly intended the comment in the most general terms,
Jube made the choice to see it in legal terms.

In fact, Brown was not a stable manager.
Also a fact, his title doesn't matter!

JABAL QUOTE: Correct (for once). And when the context is a statement that such societies have nothing to contribute to your discussion of economics, the shading is about as negative, ignorant, and racist as can be.
--------------------------------------

Actually, Jabal, I went through that showing the basic fundamentals of capitalism in operation in "primitive" societies and how that understanding can be extended to modern, technological ones. Re-read my postings on subsistence farming. It's in the Economics Section.

Sorry you didn't get it.

If you continually take references from one thread, and refer to them non-contextually in another, you really won't get much of an understanding about anything. Confusing one topic (Economics) with another (Third Parties) is self-defeating.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Why? I already know from your postings that you know bugger-all about subsistence farming.


Aww, the superior, condescending thing. How cute!


We'll get an understanding that you habitually post unsourced "facts" that are incorrect.

Especially considering that you thought you owned that field.

Sky, we all know that attorneys live mainly by subsistance farming, and monks never do. Jubal is evidently the expert on the topic and undoubtably has his 40-50 acres well planted with a variety of crops and orchards for his own use and that of his extended family.

I suppose the monks at the monastery had best get to the supermarket before they realize they know nothing and all starve-to-death. Or maybe Jubal could deliver a few things from his garden. We grow a lot of trees and shrubs from seed that we could utilize in barter.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Let's do a fuckwit analysis on this statement, OK?

You've made it clear that you consider your knowledge of law to be equal or superior to mine, despite the fact that you've never been to law school or practiced law. Yet you deny that my knowledge of farming can be equal to yours because you presume I've never farmed. Would you care to reconcile these statements? How is it that my legal experience and education is meaningless, but your farming experience is dispositive?

Your little pout also apparently assumes that lawyers never farm, and that I've been a lawyer from birth, apparently. So it's based on "facts" that you couldn't possibly know. Must be them prejudices coming out again.

How do you know I didn't score in the 99th percentile on the Farming Aptitude Test?

As a friendly hint, I'd suggest you look up what the terms "subsistence farming" and "self sufficiency" actually mean. It doesn't seem like you really know.

Fuckwit analysis are generally long on the Anal, with not much ysis.
It's all about perspective, and why both Jubal and Polycarp are valuable to this forum.

When an individual relies only on what they grow as a means of livelihood, and purchases nothing, they are generally considered subsistence farmers. And that subsistence is pretty precarious. One of the things monks do, is attempt to raise people above that level of existence. And some monks do participate in subsistence farming in the process of assisting others to rise above that.

Now, if you presume that I know nothing of subsistence farming, than the assumption must be that you have more experience in that sort of thing. That you have engaged in subsistence farming or have had direct contact with someone who does. Engaging in that sort of thing without the use of roto-tillers, etc., prepares one to work "in the field" on a subsistence level vs. self-sufficiency level if you want to nit pick. However, if a subsistence farmer isn't self-sufficient, he will starve.

I'd gladly compare my agricultural skills and knowledge with most "experts". The father of genetics, after all, was a monk. While I don't compare myself to Mendel, agriculture is very much a part of the monastic tradition....probably more so than within the legal tradition.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease".

How many new species did he genetically engineer?

How many species would be genetically engineered if he hadn't discovered genetics at work? That's like asking how many electrical appliances did Franklin invent. Typical lawyer stuff. Debate a point over and over ad nauseum

Winning an argument with nonsense may work in a courtroom. In the world-at-large, you can win the argument and lose the war, or the economy, or the planet. It's a much different playing field. The way things function will be the way things function. Winning/losing has no effect on it whatsoever.

You'd do better to leave lawyerese in the courtroom.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

And when did he do his ground-breaking work?

You've never heard of Mendel? Every hybrid plant is based upon his work done in the 1860's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Retired Monk
"Ideology aa disease"

Yes, I've heard of Mendel, thanks. There is one thing I was wondering, though. Did one of his brother monks provide him with the time machine, or did he get it from outside the monastery?

Not gonna happen.

I'll leave him alone on his massive ignorance of the law, but I will not let that racist son of a bitch spew his ignorant bigotry all over POAC's nice, clean board without challenge.

Karen, there's a reason 60% of the food plant species on the planet are indigenous to the Americas. The most startling example is that Indian scientists created maize, a completely new species, several thousand years ago. Indian scientists also hybridized and improved many, many other plant species over the millenia.

Polycrap claims that all plant hybrids came from Gregor Mendel's work. He is a liar. And a bigot. And I take that from nobody. The only choice here is whether I hammer him with amusing little comments like Gregor Mendel's time machine, or just give it to him direct.

An essential part of genocide is wiping out records and memories of the victims' cultures and achievements. Polycrap is a foot soldier in the genocide, bent on perpetuating the "ignorant savage" slander. Not while I'm around.

And just in case he tries to edit out his attack, here it is:

I was afraid of that....


...but I fully respect our reasons.

Hmmm. "All hybrid plants" would imply that his time machine is responsible for the plant breeding in the old world too.

Considering that the thread topic is about third party candidates and the ballot process, and that the thread has traveled quite a bit down several tangents, it's taken quite a lot of effort to get to the point in which, speaking of Polycarp, someone could rightfully say, AH HA!

I suppose the cultures of the Fertile Crescent thousands of years ago also utilized their scientists to domesticate wheat rather than utilizing natural selection of those plants most suitable to reproduce for human use..

There is a vast difference between cross-selection of plants with foreshadowed results and gathering and reproducing those of an existing species that are more abundant in food production.

There is yet to be any proof that maize was nothing other than a natural process of cross pollination...the original plant being teosinte. A plant with no advantage whatsover for being cultivated or considered for human reproduction, let alone being selected for hybridization for human use...

The maize story exists throughout primitive culture mythology with differing myths with differing peoples. None of these myths refer to any human intervention in the development of maize.

Get a grip and recognize the difference between engineered selection and natural selection. The same principles are utilized in animal husbandry.

Hybridization of plants occurs with a selective knowledge that foretells the form the hybridization will take through a knowledge of recessive/dominant genetic qualities....not a hit and miss cross-pollination as occurs in nature, and then a choice to re-plant those with the qualities most desired for human use. We do the same at the monastery when we select plants to save seed from for replanting. A lot of gardners do. It isn't hybridization.

If you want to dispute the formation of genetic science, do it. Quote your references. Maybe a course in the development of agriculture would help.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Then tell me, Polycrap, why Nina Federoff calls the creation of maize "arguably man's first, and perhaps his greatest, feat of genetic engineering."

If you care to dispute Dr. Federoff's expertise, compared to... say, yours, you might want to read her article in Science. "Prehistoric GM Corn." Science 302:1148-59.

Maybe pulling your bigoted head out of your gaping asshole would help.

If you read Dr. Federoff's writings on the topic, you'll find she referred to "selective breeding", not hybridization. Reproducing those plants deemed most suitable for human use. Same way wheat was domesticated.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Jubal on another thread you were talking about Americans and Apple Pies. Cant find the quote now, but i was thinking "people of the corn" is closest to the truth. Of course: King Corn

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bb/index...90&start=90

Answer the question

Right, modern agrostology proves that 9000 years of apparently sustainable maize cultivation were just a fluke.

Actually, I agree with every word. If you insist on cultivating maize without interspersing it with nitrogen-fixing plants like beans, milpa fashion, you get soil depletion and eventually Dust Bowls. Or you have to pour corrosive nitrogen compounds on the soil.