|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
swa
|
|
response 183 of 406:
| 
Oct 5 02:21 UTC 2000 |
Re 163-165: Hmm. Maybe "politics" has a different connotation to me
than to most people. I'm referring to what Steve K. and Rane allude to
-- the games of money and ego that have become routine. These seem to
me to be quite the opposite of meaningful leadership, governing, policy-
making, etc.
Re 161: Oh, I wasn't entirely suggesting the nonvoters-mobilizing-for-a-
third-party idea seriously. But the point that the people who don't
vote outnumber those voting for either party still can spark all kinds
of interesting speculation and brainstorming, in me at least. But I'm
not claiming that my speculation is sound political theory. ;)
|
jerryr
|
|
response 184 of 406:
|
Oct 5 12:44 UTC 2000 |
hey, c'mon, both of them had their lips moving and you know what that means.
my pal al is 10 points over the shrub in the latest nbc/zogby poll. i guess
it's a matter of -i don't care what you say as long as you spell my name
correctly-
|
brighn
|
|
response 185 of 406:
|
Oct 5 14:12 UTC 2000 |
Yeah. Barring anything scandalous (like, I dunno, a mole in the Bush camp
siphoning debate tapes to him), Gore's got this tied up. Time to go on to the
local elections.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 186 of 406:
|
Oct 5 19:41 UTC 2000 |
How many people would actually be scandalized if Gore did, in fact, have
an informant in the Bush camp? After Nixon I think it'd take an actual
felony burglary to scandalize voters when it came to spying on the
competition..
|
brighn
|
|
response 187 of 406:
|
Oct 5 20:08 UTC 2000 |
Coming after Clinton, though... would Americans really want to go through two
impeachment hearings in a row. I think certain Republicans demonstrated the
lengths they were willing to go to in order to get rid of a Democrat. =P
|
mcnally
|
|
response 188 of 406:
|
Oct 5 21:04 UTC 2000 |
I don't think having a mole in your opponent's campaign would be grounds
for impeachment. If you obstructed justice in an attempt to conceal your
"dirty tricks" that'd be another matter..
Note that I'm not arguing that it's OK to win a political race by spying
on your opponent. What I'm saying is that at this point, much of the
electorate are so cynical about the candidates (justifiably or not) that
revelations that either campaign had infiltrated their opponent's campaign
would not be sufficiently shocking to scandalize the public.
|
brighn
|
|
response 189 of 406:
|
Oct 5 21:25 UTC 2000 |
You're probably correct.
|
gull
|
|
response 190 of 406:
|
Oct 6 20:46 UTC 2000 |
> Look at _Unsafe at any Speed_, its a auto design that is the same as the VW
> and had been used for 40 or so years after WW-II - the VW is in fact far
> more 'deadly'.
--> It's been a while since I read "Unsafe at Any Speed," but as I recall it
was about more than the Corvair.
It's also true that the basic suspension design was very similar to the
VW's, and the VW's has a somewhat similar tendancy to result in a smaller
contact patch under heavy cornering. The VW wasn't pitched as a sports car
or driven hard, however. It also had a less dramatically skewed weight
distribution, so it didn't have as serious a tendancy to swap ends.
The Corvair supposedly was pretty safe if you followed the recommended tire
pressures. What a lot of people failed to notice was that GM had specified
*different* pressures in the rear tires than the front ones. This was an
attempt to make the rear end "stick" better and mollify the oversteering
tendancy somewhat. If you mistakenly put the same pressure in all four
tires it got much more treacherous. Modern rear-engine sports cars (the
Porsche 911) generally accomplish this by putting wider, grippier tires on
the rear. Early 911's also had a serious tendancy to try to swap ends if
you lifted suddenly off the throttle in a corner, incidentally.
The Corvair had other problems as well, such as a non-collapsable steering
column attached to a steering box that sat in an essentially unprotected
location, thus ensuring you'd get skewered in any major front-end collision.
It's these kinds of design problems that Nader really attacked in his book
-- solid steering columns, sharp-edged metal dashes, and protruding knobs
that caused unnecessary deaths. There was a big 'style over safety'
tendancy in the cars of the day.
|
polygon
|
|
response 191 of 406:
|
Oct 7 01:45 UTC 2000 |
I'm not voting for Nader, mind you, but I attended a speech of his many
years ago in which he applauded VW's decision to abandon the "Beetle"
design. He called the VW Beetles "Japanese lanterns," referring I assume
to their lack of crashworthiness among other faults.
|
mdw
|
|
response 192 of 406:
|
Oct 7 06:31 UTC 2000 |
The beetle was a great design in many ways, but definitely not for crash
protection. 'Course, when the beetle was designed, seat belts were
quite uncommon and bumpers were mainly there for decoration. Also, dash
boards were still flat panels with knobs and dials on them - the whole
idea of a shelf above the dash, or producing knobs and sharp metal edges
for styling was still in the future. More importantly in terms of
"Unsafe at any speed", the original beetle was *way* underpowered by
contemporary standards, so it wouldn't have been *possible* to drive it
anywhere near as hard as a sports car. Later beetles got better
engines, but it was certainly never in the league of the corvair or 911.
|
gull
|
|
response 193 of 406:
|
Oct 8 19:53 UTC 2000 |
VW was also ahead of most car companies in installing seat belts and
collapsible steering columns in their cars.
|
scg
|
|
response 194 of 406:
|
Oct 13 07:42 UTC 2000 |
http://www.examiner.com/001012/1012morse.html
|
jep
|
|
response 195 of 406:
|
Oct 16 13:48 UTC 2000 |
The latest USA Today poll shows Bush ahead of Gore, 48-43%.
On Thursday, their polls showed Bush had won the 2nd debate big time. I
thought he did; Gore seemed like he was lecturing, while Bush seemed
like he was comfortable and in control.
Did anyone here watch the 2nd debate? Are you going to watch the 3rd
debate, which is tomorrow?
Interesting thing about this election year. I don't think the
candidates are saying substantially different things in the debates. I
haven't seen many ads (I haven't watched much TV, except the baseball
playoffs). It seems more like a sports season than like politics to me.
The polls are what's important; the teams are maneuvering around each
other whenever they meet; I've picked my side and hope it wins; I don't
expect the outcome to affect my life a lot.
Carter-Reagan seemed like a substantial difference. Bush-Dukakis seemed
that way. It seemed like we were picking a direction for the country in
those elections. In this election, it seems like the direction is
pre-determined for the most part. The candidates agree on so much
during the debates... both of them seem to be hoping they don't have to
say much about their policy intentions. Gore wants to win because he
has more experience and is smarter. Bush wants to be president because
he's nicer and not associated with Clinton. It seems like a weird
election.
|
scott
|
|
response 196 of 406:
|
Oct 16 14:16 UTC 2000 |
It's not a weird election, it's a pathetic election.
Yeah, the 2nd debate was rather strange. Bush certainly got the most laughts
from the crowd, which usually gets associated with "winning". Gore needs to
get his act together for the 3rd, since he should be much better on the facts
than Bush.
|
gull
|
|
response 197 of 406:
|
Oct 16 14:42 UTC 2000 |
I thought Gore did better on the facts, but you're right that Bush got more
laughs. Gore seemed more Presidential to me. It amazed me as well how much
they seemed to agree on.
|
brighn
|
|
response 198 of 406:
|
Oct 16 16:20 UTC 2000 |
It shouldn't be about who gets more laughs.
It seems like the Republicans have chosen to attack Gore on the issue of
truth: Because Gore is actually willing to answer questions, rather than
evading them (I'm not saying I *did* coke, and I'm not saying I *didn't,* all
I'm saying is that I would pass an FBI inquiry on drug use; I won't respond
to accusations that Texas is 49th in education and 50th in the environment,
I'll just call you a liar liar pants on fire.), and because he's been in
politics for some 25 years (rather than, oh, five or so), there are lots of
sound bites where he can be made to look like a liar and a hypocrite.
Hence we're in the situation we're in: Elect somebody who evades issues and
has an inadequate political record (that applies to Nader, too), or elect
somebody with so much history in politics that he's forgotten what truth is.
Pathetic choices. I'm still voting for Gore because I think that Bush will
be a heinous error, but as the days wither on, I'm not sure that Gore won't
be one, too.
And this is why the mudslinging that both candidates are doing is ultimately
bad for the entire system. Rather than treating each other with respect, and
playing up voter confidence should EITHER man win, they're creating a climate
in which both men look like total fuck-ups. I'm really not sure the choices
are any worse than they were 50 or 100 years ago, and I'm really not sure that
in the long run either one will really do that bad (or good) a job. But the
way they've painted each other is just abhominable (or, in Bush's case,
abbominabable).
|
gull
|
|
response 199 of 406:
|
Oct 16 16:43 UTC 2000 |
Bush's responses are interesting in that he doesn't try to refute Gore's
actual points:
Gore: Texas ranks 49th out of 50 in health care.
Bush: But we're getting better!
Gore: Texas ranks as the most polluted state in the nation.
Bush: But we're getting better!
He doesn't even try to refute Gore's statistics, even though that shouldn't
be hard. (How do you judge "most polluted," for example.)
|
tod
|
|
response 200 of 406:
|
Oct 16 16:52 UTC 2000 |
How about the fact that the folks in Texas government meet only 4 times a
year?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 201 of 406:
|
Oct 16 16:55 UTC 2000 |
Would it be an "abuse of [computing] power" to use the grex "vote" program
to take a grex vote for the presidency?
|
tod
|
|
response 202 of 406:
|
Oct 16 17:00 UTC 2000 |
It would be a waste of resources as everyone knows that the bulk
of virtual users are commie socialists and would vote for Gore
regardless of how bad his past eight years have shown.
|
brighn
|
|
response 203 of 406:
|
Oct 16 17:01 UTC 2000 |
#199> Why should Bush refute Gore's numbers? Gore's using "fuzzy math," you
know, where 1 + 1 = 2. Too tough for Bush.
|
ric
|
|
response 204 of 406:
|
Oct 16 17:19 UTC 2000 |
Texas is the only state in the country with air pollution worse than North
Carolina.
|
senna
|
|
response 205 of 406:
|
Oct 16 17:27 UTC 2000 |
By volume or percentage?
You know what would impress me? At a debate, when a question about the state
of political maneuvering and mudslinging is brought up, I'd be impressed just
to hear one candidate speak well of the other. Perhaps say "I oppose you,
but I think you're a well-meaning person." Maybe walk over and shake their
hand, a purely fluffy and symbolic display that they're willing to work with
people they disagree with. I think that would sweep the American people off
their feet, even if it's a bit artificial. And I would vote for it. The
Republicrats are a group of children who intensely dislike each other due
mostly to... well... tesosterone, I guess. Because they don't have stars upon
thars.
|
tod
|
|
response 206 of 406:
|
Oct 16 17:35 UTC 2000 |
I'm sure Gore would swallow if he came out to the public.
|
polygon
|
|
response 207 of 406:
|
Oct 16 20:47 UTC 2000 |
Re 205. But they both did this already. Each spoke well of the other
at various times in the two debates, and they shook hands both before
and afterwards.
|