Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the what-do-you-have-against-orange dept.

Politics 919

Today you have the opportunity to ask questions of the Green Party's candidate for President of the United States, David Cobb. Standard interview rules apply: we'll select a dozen or so of the best questions and Mr. Cobb will give us his answers next week.

cancel ×

919 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (3, Interesting)

HackHackBoom (198866) | about 10 years ago | (#10331153)

How do you respond to accusations from Democrats that a vote for your party is a vote for George Bush?

In this world of political campaigning via direct attacks and dancing around the real issues, I am curious to know how you and your party have reacted to these attacks.

Additionally, what is your party and personal stance towards using the very methods I'm mentioning as return fodder for the 2 large parties?

Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331228)

I believe he's already on record as saying if you're in a swing state, vote Kerry. Because, even though he's not much better on some issues, Bush is a disaster. Heard this on NPR following Nader's failed bid to get on as the Green candidate

Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (0, Redundant)

HackHackBoom (198866) | about 10 years ago | (#10331302)

Wow, I'd love to hear his reasoning behind that. From my perspective, a statement like that is somewhat supportive of the Democrat's position. As a 'movement', I find that personally dissapointing.

Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331456)

Wow, I'd love to hear his reasoning behind that.

Perhaps he feels, like many of us, that Bush is the worst president in a very long time, and has to go. Kerry, for all of his flaws, can't help but do a better job.

Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (1)

FuzzzyLogik (592766) | about 10 years ago | (#10331259)

You'd get my mod point if it was for the limit being reached already.

Obvious: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331154)

Why do you even bother?

Re:Obvious: (1)

harumscarum (675595) | about 10 years ago | (#10331293)

It is a legitimate question. Why bother in an election that is geared to a 2 party system? How does this candidate keep his passion?

Obvious answer (5, Funny)

RickyRay (73033) | about 10 years ago | (#10331160)

Obviously with the current unpopularity of Bush and Kerry the final vote is down to either you or Ralph Nader. What decisive advantages do you feel you have over Nader that make you more likely to win the presidency? ;-)

Re:Obvious answer (2, Insightful)

jsrjsr (658966) | about 10 years ago | (#10331366)

Maybe for YOU...

Given that Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President, is on the ballot in more states than either Cobb or Nader, you're leaving out another obvious choice.

I wouldn't vote for either Cobb or Nader -- I disagree with them more often than I do with Bush or Kerry. I will likely vote for Badnarik.

The Nature of Grassroots (5, Interesting)

American AC in Paris (230456) | about 10 years ago | (#10331162)

Mr. Cobb,

Thank you for taking our questions.

The first of the ten key values of the Green Party is "Grssroots Democracy". Over the past few years, the American Green Party has made significant steps forward, but (as best I can tell) is still growing at a local level. While I understand the appeal of national coverage, is running a presidential campaign really in the spirit or the best interests of the party? Wouldn't those funds be more effective in campaigning for more local offices, or launching a statewide candidate in an area where the Greens have a solid foothold? Isn't that how grassroots is supposed to work--from the bottom up and not from the top down?

Re:The Nature of Grassroots (2, Insightful)

ThrasherTT (87841) | about 10 years ago | (#10331284)

What better way to "get the word out" on your political party and its stance on various issues than to run for President?

It seems to me like it'd be a pretty cost-effective way to reach the people that aren't too into politics... the people that tend to vote every four years, at best.

More ascii art plz! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331166)

Like the subject says.

.________ Honk honk!
| | \ \ <
|_|___/__/ <

(Note: The car is green.)

I love their protest slogan... (0, Flamebait)

bryanthompson (627923) | about 10 years ago | (#10331170)

"John Kerry voted for George Bush's War"

makes us right-wingers chuckle, and the lefties cringe.

Re:I love their protest slogan... (2, Insightful)

mudshark (19714) | about 10 years ago | (#10331395)

Voting to give W the authority to go to war != voting for W's war. Many Dem senators went along with this vote because they were repeatedly assured that the administration viewed war as a last resort, that the sanctions were still in place, the WMD inspectors were still on the ground, and the decision to commit troops would be made only on the firmest of evidentiary and moral grounds.

We all know no what a crock that was. Kerry has said as much. What's unfortunate is that this inaccurate right-wing trope has also become a soundbite for some on the left.

Dirty electricity (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331179)

How does it make you feel to be reading and responding to comments on the computar and thus feeding the demand for electricity that is making us burn fossil fuels?

Re:Dirty electricity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331356)

solar/wind/hydroelectric/alternate power sources... ?

think outside the box, man. for the love of god

Re:Dirty electricity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331441)

The response: "I have hired a few homeless guys to keep pedaling that power cycle that generates power for my computar".

Re:Dirty electricity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331459)

How do you know he isn't using a wind-up computar?

Why do you hate America? (-1, Troll)

daeviltwin (692894) | about 10 years ago | (#10331180)

We are at war. Our country needs to be unified behind our president. So why do you hate America?

Re:Why do you hate America? (1, Insightful)

Lethyos (408045) | about 10 years ago | (#10331239)

We are at war. Our country needs to be unified behind our president. So why do you hate America?

You know what? I agree entirely. Let's put Bush out on the front lines of his war and we'll stand behind him!

(By the way, do the moderators not like free speech? This guy has a perfectly valid viewpoint. He's not a troll or flamebait just because you disagree with him.)

Re:Why do you hate America? (1)

MikeMacK (788889) | about 10 years ago | (#10331274)

Telling someone that they "hate America" because they don't agree with your point of view is Flamebait.

Re:Why do you hate America? (0, Offtopic)

daeviltwin (692894) | about 10 years ago | (#10331316)

It is not flamebait, it is sarcasm.

Re:Why do you hate America? (1)

MikeMacK (788889) | about 10 years ago | (#10331379)

Well, gee aren't you just mister know it all.

Re:Why do you hate America? (1)

DesScorp (410532) | about 10 years ago | (#10331281)

"By the way, do the moderators not like free speech?"

Sure they do. As long as it's Slashdot APPROVED free speech.

Re:Why do you hate America? (1)

MrHyd3 (19709) | about 10 years ago | (#10331328)


I love it when people claim that they have free speech when someone who doesn't share the same viewpoint yells/screams/blocks their right to speak.

Also remember, censorship can only be done by ONE entity...the Government, not business, not a single person or group, GOVERNMENT. Learn it, understand it.

Re:Why do you hate America? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 10 years ago | (#10331437)

(By the way, do the moderators not like free speech? This guy has a perfectly valid viewpoint. He's not a troll or flamebait just because you disagree with him.)

In case you haven't noticed, you can still browse at -1 and read his comment.

The people who run Slashdot are not in any way obligated to provide anyone with a forum to speak their mind. The government doesn't have a right to jail you for speaking an unpopular opinion; on the other hand, people who own private property certainly do have the right to kick you off it if they don't like what you're saying. That's not censorship. They're not depriving you of a right to say it anywhere; they're just depriving you of a right to say it there.

Anyway, all that being said, the moderation system of Slashdot doesn't even deprive you of a chance to speak your mind, no matter how offtopic or inane. It just lets people choose to read only comments that the community agrees are of a higher level of quality, if they choose.

Next one... (4, Funny)

telstar (236404) | about 10 years ago | (#10331186)

Is it easy being Green?

Q? (0, Flamebait)

KJzTMC (568816) | about 10 years ago | (#10331191)

If elected, will you invade multiple countries in an attempt to stay in and/or lower the oil prices presidency?

Re:Q? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331283)

Thank God that happened because I can't ever remember oil prices being so LOW. It's great. I'm getting a gallon of gas for 2.50 and a barrel of crude for $48.65. Thanks to the Iraq war. In case you can't tell, I'm being SARCASTIC! MORON! The war was never about low oil prices you fucking TARD!

RE: wow... That was wierd. (-1, Troll)

fshalor (133678) | about 10 years ago | (#10331197)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. ... Ask him what the purpose of allowing snowmobiles in national parks is.

Then ask him what the point is behind conflict of interest stanzas in employment contracts.

Then ask him why we have a national oil reserve.

Three questions which bush can't quite manage to answer. And which Kerry will probably be able to comprehend.

So I'm not wasting my vote on the green party. We can't afford to have another '00.

Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)

Re: wow... That was wierd. (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#10331301)

Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)

Bush was elected. Only one of fifty vote-sections was decided de-facto judicially

And the Constition doesn't care HOW a president was elected for terms of eligibility. If Bush & Cheney had been killed on 9/11, Collen Powell would only be able to be elected once more, not twice. (You can't run if you would wind up serving over a total of 10 years.)

Re: wow... That was wierd. (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 10 years ago | (#10331307)

No, technically he was elected.

The Florida Supreme Court tried to apply alternate vote-counting rules not allowed under Florida law to ballots in specific counties. This was overturned on a 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court. The FSC also tried to extend the date of certification when the certification date also was clearly stated under Florida law. This is the vote that was overturned on a 5-4 decision. The USSC basically said that the election results as then-currently counted under Florida law had to stay put, because the FSC was trying to rewrite election law on its own, which is not its role in the system.

And to correct your other point, the limit is ten years in office, which usually translates to two elected terms as president with some overlap in case the VP is moved up a notch. So no, even if you were right, he wouldn't be able to run twice more.

Re: wow... That was wierd. (2, Informative)

ValourX (677178) | about 10 years ago | (#10331309)

No, he was elected. I'm so sick of people saying that "Bush stole the election" and a bunch of other leftist bullshit. You should read this before you go on FUDing the president:

Recount analysis by NYT [nytimes.com] (no reg required)

I don't like Bush either, but you don't see me resorting to FUD to try to sway people's opinions.

-Jem

Re: wow... That was wierd. (1)

Mekabyte (678689) | about 10 years ago | (#10331343)

Not really. The court decided that he was elected. While that means that he was effectively appointed, from the legal standpoint it wouldn't be appointment, it would be election.

Re: wow... That was wierd. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331388)

Where do you get this (the "appointed not elected" stuff)? Seriously. IANAL, but my understanding was that the US Supremes disallowed a recount, so the representatives to the Electoral College voted based on the original counts. So technically wasn't Bush in fact elected, not appointed?

Can you provide a link that specifies that Bush was technically appointed? Or are you just using the term technically in a non-rigorous way?

I know people are awfully bitter about what happened in Florida, but are we doing anyone any favors by making false assertions?

Re: wow... That was wierd. (3, Insightful)

ethanms (319039) | about 10 years ago | (#10331396)

what the purpose of allowing snowmobiles in national parks is

I think it's acceptable in some parks not in all. You can't ride in all areas... ask a better question. A park isn't museum, it's also a recreational area.

what the point is behind conflict of interest stanzas in employment contracts

what do you think the point is?

ask him why we have a national oil reserve

We have a national oil reserve so that if the production of oil stops and there is a dire need for oil, we will have some. dire need does not include assholes w/ SUVs who are sick of paying $2/gal at the pump. It's dry friendly wells and a world war where real American's need to put their lives on the line in tanks, planes and boats to save your sorry ass while you sip a mochachino and debate which broadway play you liked better you noodle armed nancy pants.

Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically

According to the laws of this country Bush was elected. Get over it.

Meanwhile MTV has their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american youths to vote a certain way...

I'd love to know (not with some bullshit poll, but with some cosmic brain that knows all or by asking god or something) what percentage of voting americans (or anyone) actually knows anything about the candidate they are voting for, except for what they've seen on TV commercials or other biased media?

How many go out and actually look at the record of this person's voting in the senate? Or the bills that this person vetoed/approved while in his last term? Or this persons personal actions in life? Bush has made some fuck-ups and so has Kerry... almost every politician has, because they're generally power hungry and assholes to boot.

What the hell... ? (1, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | about 10 years ago | (#10331399)

"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)"

What?

He can't be elected for two more terms. Only one. Despite the "appointed" crack, he was in fact elected by THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, which is the vote that really counts in presidential elections. The Supreme Court merely ruled that the endless vote counting should stop in Florida. And, as others have repeatedly pointed out here before, every single credible attempt to count those so-called lost votes STILL ended up with Bush winning. Every-Single-Time.

So, rest your paranoid little head. Dubya can only win this upcoming election.

Then you get to look forward to Rudy Guliani beating the piss out of Hillary Clinton in 2008 :)

What kind of tree... (-1, Troll)

rainman_bc (735332) | about 10 years ago | (#10331203)

What kind of tree is your favourite one to hug?

Dear David (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331206)

Dear David,

Are you kidding?

Are you really answering or is your staff? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331211)

How do we know it's really you and not some underpaid, overworked staff member?

What's your strategy (4, Interesting)

Progman3K (515744) | about 10 years ago | (#10331212)

In a two-party system like the U.S. has, what is your strategy to draw voters and most importantly have them take you seriously?

Mainstream Perception (5, Interesting)

Locky (608008) | about 10 years ago | (#10331216)

The Green Party is best known for its progressive policies on the environment, however its other policies are often shrouded by this, most people not knowing where the Green Party stands on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

What do you think might be the best approach to educate the masses about the rest of Green Party polices?

Switching (4, Interesting)

MikeMacK (788889) | about 10 years ago | (#10331217)

If I was a Repubican or Democrat, what would you say to me to make me switch to the Green Party?

Re:Switching (2, Funny)

Linuxthess (529239) | about 10 years ago | (#10331461)

Ellen Feiss might do the trick....oh wait.

A "true" third party (5, Interesting)

charleste (537078) | about 10 years ago | (#10331223)

Mr Cobb, As a registered member of the Green Party for the past several elections, I am concerned about the verbage in party information I've received concerning the November 2004 election. It seems I am being encouraged (strongly) to vote for the Democratic ticket. Is the Green Party no longer holding to it's grass-roots past and is it abandoning the philosophy of presenting a viable third-party point of view and candidate? Thank you.

Question for Mr. Cobb (-1, Offtopic)

necro2607 (771790) | about 10 years ago | (#10331227)

Do you use Linux? Why/why not?

Re:Question for Mr. Cobb (1)

necro2607 (771790) | about 10 years ago | (#10331452)

man, you guys have no sense of humour... it's supposed to be funny!

Nader (0)

k4_pacific (736911) | about 10 years ago | (#10331229)

What's your opinion of Ralph Nader?

Woo! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331231)

/ ___|| | | |_ _|_ _|
\___ \| |_| || | | |
.___) | _ || | | |
|____/|_| |_|___| |_|

Value 5 (2, Interesting)

pete-classic (75983) | about 10 years ago | (#10331233)

Decentralization.

Does that include divesting the Union government of the powers it has accrued after its formation?

Specifically, would you support decentralizing all environmental law, by leaving it to the states and private citizens?

-Peter

Why is the Green Party a bunch of Whacko's? (0, Troll)

MrHyd3 (19709) | about 10 years ago | (#10331237)


Subject says it all.

What's your ultimate goal? (4, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | about 10 years ago | (#10331240)

One thing I've wondered about third party candidates is their motivation; do you really think you can win races? Do you think that if you run long enough, eventually you can break through the two party system? Or is it just a "protest candidacy" because you don't agree with the Democratic Party's platform? Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party (for lack of a better way to put it, but you know what I mean; if they had policies more in line with the Green Party). Or do you really and truly believe in your party, and want get them elected and into the political system?

Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?

Affirmative Action (5, Interesting)

Brown Eggs (650559) | about 10 years ago | (#10331243)

How does the Green Party's view on affirmative action (from what I could gather from your website) coincide with key value #2 (social justice and equal opportunity)? It seems that someone who is pushing for monetary reparations for past injustices as well as affirmative action programs cannot say they also confront things that "deny fair treatment" (also from key value #2).

Nader (4, Interesting)

DrWho520 (655973) | about 10 years ago | (#10331246)

What is your opinion of Ralf Nader's actions after not gaining the Green Party Nomination for president? Do you think the Reform Party and the Green Party share any ideological common ground? If the first major Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot, is at all representative of the Reform Party platform, I would think there would be a clash of believes between the two parties. Is Nader selling out for another bid at the presidency?

Re:Nader (1)

bofkentucky (555107) | about 10 years ago | (#10331392)

The US Reform party is a mess right now, Perot, Perot, Buchannon, and Nader, basically the party ripped itself apart after the 96 election and its leadership has no connection to the Perot '92 voters.

Question (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 10 years ago | (#10331254)

While I value the thoughts and insight of some of the non-major party candidates in this forum, how about approaching the candidates that actually have a fundamentally real chance of winning the election in November?

(Not that either of them would necessarily do it, and they may even have been approached, but either way it's worth a try.)

Presidential versus other elections (5, Interesting)

frostman (302143) | about 10 years ago | (#10331255)

Since the Green party (as other minor parties) has no chance of winning the Presidency, how does the party evaluate and justify spending resources on this contest instead of on Congressional and state-level contests?

Is it a PR thing? If you look at the Greens in Germany (granted, very different system) you see that they rose slowly over time from the smallest contests to eventually having Cabinet positions.

What is the American Green Party's overall strategy to increase their representation, and how does an unwinnable Presidential election fit into it?

Taxes (4, Interesting)

AstroDrabb (534369) | about 10 years ago | (#10331262)

I recently watched your very good and very friendly debate between Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. One issue you brought up was universal health care that taxpayer would pay for. If you are elected president, what do you think is a fair tax percentage for the average American, 10%, 20%, 30%? If you say it depends on how much you make, then for the sake of this question, say I make $75,000 a year. What percentage would a Green party president expect an average American making $75,000 a year pay to support all these social plans?

Re:Taxes (1)

ornil (33732) | about 10 years ago | (#10331380)

While I think this is a reasonable question, I think it misses the point. I think the average American makes more like $30,000 a year. So what you are asking, while perhaps relevant for the Slashdot audience, is slightly biased.

Voting Rights for Noncitizens? (5, Interesting)

anzha (138288) | about 10 years ago | (#10331265)

Thank you for your time. Recently in San Francisco, Matt Gonzalez, a popular local Green Party politico, has been pushing for the ability for noncitizens to vote in some of the local elections. While there are other places that offer this long before SF, it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not. Rather than expanding the franchise this way, why not work to streamline the process for getting citizenship and encourage people to seek it?

Can you expound and explain a bit on your stance on this?

Meta-game strategy (5, Interesting)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 10 years ago | (#10331269)

Hello, Given that the current system of voting tends to reinforce the positions of the two major parties (e.g. you must vote for a candidate or for their closest challenger), have you given any though to supporting election reform as a method of making inroads for your party? It would seem that if all the 'second class' political parties supported election reform you would be able to make larger strides than trying to play the republicrat's game.

question (-1, Redundant)

HBI (604924) | about 10 years ago | (#10331272)

Considering the unlikely nature of your party polling even 3% of the popular vote nationwide, what are the ultimate goals of your candidacy? In addition, would it not be more productive to work on building a legislative bloc in locations where the Green party polls reasonably well, say in state legislatures, or even the US Congress over time?

Is it an act.. (-1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | about 10 years ago | (#10331276)

...or are you really batshit crazy?

Why Green? (1)

k3v0 (592611) | about 10 years ago | (#10331277)

What aspects of the Green party platform differentiate it from the other parties? Aside from an open primary, what other interesting new things would the party promote?

Re:Why Green? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331410)

More laws.

More regulation.

More laws (this time based on enviro-nutball pseudo science).

Free money for being a nigger.

That's pretty much the Green's platform.

what is a President's role with the environment? (4, Interesting)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 10 years ago | (#10331282)

As President, you would at best be able to veto bills and direct some agency policies (within the confines of legislation).

Why are you seeking the presidency, particularly? Why is it the best strategy for achieving your goals?

We're all smart people here... (1)

FurryFeet (562847) | about 10 years ago | (#10331294)

Let's start by stating, as we are all smart people here, that you will not win this election.
Given your party's platform (and name), people who'll vote for you would have voted for Kerry, and not Bush. So, you are effectively helping Bush, who has a dismal record when it comes to protecting the environment.
So, why run at all? Won't you feel guilty if Bush wins to continue his polluting and predatoru policies?

What was once 'Red' is now 'Green'? (1)

Banner (17158) | about 10 years ago | (#10331295)

Why are so many of the people in your party, and so many of the party officials, former members of the socialist and communist parties of America? Isn't the 'Green party' in fact just the old 'Red party' with a new name and all the same old faces?

This is not a troll, this is a serious question based on what I've seen of the Green Party in my state.

National debt? (2, Interesting)

isotope23 (210590) | about 10 years ago | (#10331296)

Mr Cobb,

What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?

Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?

DOH! (5, Interesting)

isotope23 (210590) | about 10 years ago | (#10331362)

My Bad got sidetracked there and cut the first question out....

Mr Cobb,

What is your view of our national debt versus
current entitlement programs? How would you
balance the federal budget and would you support
paying off the national debt?

What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?

Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?

Voting Machines (2, Interesting)

jabex (320163) | about 10 years ago | (#10331298)

There's much talk about the security and reliability of current electronic voting machines. What do you think needs to be done about it (if anything), and can it be done without being elected by them in the first place?

Reparations (5, Interesting)

christopherfinke (608750) | about 10 years ago | (#10331310)

On the Green Party website, it states that you support "reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation."

Where would this money come from, if this plan was enacted and how would the recipients be determined? If the money would come from tax dollars, what do you say to people, such as myself, whose ancestors had no part in slavery or major racial discrimination and don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these reparations?

Re:Reparations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331367)

That's so fucking retarded.

My ancestors were slaves too. It was called indentured servitude. Your master owned you for 5, 10, 20 years. My great, great, great grandfather was sold into slavery at the age of 12. I may have missed a couple greats, it was a long time ago that I researched it.

Not all slaves were black. Why do only "people of color" deserve compensation?

How about Britain compensating me for the treatment of feudal era serfs?

The past is the past. Slavery is over, segragation is over (as a matter of law). It's down to the hearts and minds of people. Time to move forward, rather than enabling all this nigger whining.

Green White House vs. Capitol Hill (2, Interesting)

Y2 (733949) | about 10 years ago | (#10331311)

Supposing the usual 2-party congress, what would be the most realistically achievable yet significant accomplishment a Green president could hope to make in the first hundred days ... or the first year?

Copyright and Digital Law (5, Interesting)

Nick Fury (624480) | about 10 years ago | (#10331314)

Obviously we here at slashdot are a bit on the techie side. I know that I have personally watched my rights being taken away from me over the past few years. Mainly my right to fair use. Under current law it is illegal to watch CSS encoded DVDs under Linux or any other Open Source operating system. What are you and your party's feelings on loosening certain restrictions to make the act of fair use a right again.

Also, on the concept of intellectual property and copyright laws. What are your party's and your feelings on the current trend of extending the length of copyright terms? Do you have any plans to reverse the current trend or perhaps to set the lengths back to their original terms?

Thanks.
---Nick Fury

Yay! (0, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | about 10 years ago | (#10331322)

The Green Party has real solutions to our society's complex problems. The Greens will create jobs, address racism, protect the environment, improve education, repair our healthcare system and protect public resources.

The only solution to big government is bigger government! Woooooohoooo

"Address racism"? What does that mean? "Hi Racism, My name is Jim! Nice to meet you", or more ridiculous "hate crime" laws?

Favorite Holiday (1)

ellem (147712) | about 10 years ago | (#10331327)

Is St patrick's Day your favorite, or least favorite holiday

Drug Reform (5, Interesting)

L3on (610722) | about 10 years ago | (#10331338)

What is your stance on the use of medical-marijana? What do you think can be done to change the way in which the war on drugs in America is being fought, either legalizing/decriminalizing and taxing or otherwise?

Furthermore, How will you deal with our budget deficit and reform the GOP's relentless tax cuts and the Democratic Party's exorbanent spending?

DMCA and surrounding issues? (5, Interesting)

hoborocks (775911) | about 10 years ago | (#10331339)

What is your stance on the DMCA and surrounding issues (upcoming acts like the INDUCE act)? Should legislation like this be curbed, watered down, or tightened?

What happened to (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331357)

Kermit ?

Simple question (4, Interesting)

greg_barton (5551) | about 10 years ago | (#10331368)

Why doesn't the Green Party support nuclear power?

In the event you win, what about congress? (3, Insightful)

vg30e (779871) | about 10 years ago | (#10331371)

Not trying to be an overall pessimist, but one of the most difficult parts of being the president is that having a very partisan congress makes any proposed "good idea" from anyone a big target. I would really like to see legislation for Industrial Hemp, Biodiesel, and many other non-fossil fuels take root as an energy policy, but special interest lobbying groups would make passing any major changes through the legislative branch almost impossible.

Conservative forces helping liberal campaigns (2, Interesting)

perlglob (800781) | about 10 years ago | (#10331375)

Are you against the green party accepting help from conservative organizations hoping to detract from the democratic party by drawing votes to a third party? This has been happening with another third-party campaign and I would like to know your take on it. Thank you.

Viable Third-parties (4, Interesting)

thewiz (24994) | about 10 years ago | (#10331383)

Mr. Cobb,
What do you believe is necessary for your party or any other to become a viable third party in American elections? Even though George Washington warned against having a partisan political system in his farewell speech, America seems to have developed a two-party system that forces third-parties out of the political process.

Also, what do you think of the Democratic and Republican parties shift away from what's good for America toward what is good for their respective parties and the businesses / people that support them while leaving the majority of Americans out?

Re:Viable Third-parties $$$ is necessary (1)

adzoox (615327) | about 10 years ago | (#10331433)

I think Perot proved this. Perot was a very viable 3rd party candidate until people really got to know him. He seemed like a great candidate for President from many aspects, but then he whipped out all the charts and cliches.

Perot proved that $$$ is what wins political campaigns nowadays - that combined with a good head on your shoulders. It has little to do with party affiliation or constituency in this era.

Corporate News (5, Interesting)

stupkid (16083) | about 10 years ago | (#10331384)

What do you see as the greatest problem with US News media? What do you think is the best way of restoring more objective news outlets? How would you change current media regulations and how would you encourage independant non-profit news outlets?

Thanks!

All politics is local (5, Insightful)

Quixote (154172) | about 10 years ago | (#10331390)

In the words of Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local".

What is this desire to aim directly for the Whitehouse? Why not pool resources and fight the local battles? By aiming for the presidency (and ignoring the local politics), you are setting yourselves up for a fall. We all know that in a 2-party system, rigged the way it is, your chances of winning the Whitehouse are somewhere between 0.00 and 0.000. Then why waste the resources on this race?

How many members of Congress do you have? How many locally elected officials does the Green Party have? How many judicial appointees do you have? See the pattern here?

Maybe this isn't a question as much as a rant, but if you feel like, please answer why you are wasting the time and effort on a run for the Whitehouse, when the same resources, applied at local levels, would yield immensely more benefit.

The Constitution & The Green Party (5, Insightful)

phaln (579585) | about 10 years ago | (#10331400)

Thanks for your time, Mr. Cobb. How do you reconcile your more socialist-leaning positions with the letter of the U.S. Constitution? Meaning, how are they a valid function of the Federal government, as opposed to, say, state and local jurisdictions? Also, I understand that "social programs" are a large part of what comprises the GP platform, but how do you plan to actually create these new programs, remain fiscally responsible, and at the same time quell the [very] valid arguments against large increases in taxation? Please define what compells your candidacy to further a notion of "greater good" while perhaps others do not share your definition thereof.

You're a watermellon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331405)

How do you respond to people who would call you a watermellon? You know, Green on the outside, but red on the inside?

What is the best way to move America leftwards? (5, Interesting)

Cryofan (194126) | about 10 years ago | (#10331408)

I think it is now becoming conventional wisdom among the American Left that America politics as a whole has moved rightwards (more conservative) in the last 30 years. Among the most cogent analyses of the move to the right are those that trace the flow of money (over $2B) from the ultra rich and the large multinational corporations to conservative rightwing foundations and thinktanks (see for example the essays at www.tcfranks.com, and google "tentacles of rage").

The more visible component of this propaganda machine are the talk radio shows and the cable tv news shows. But they sprang from, and still largely depend on, fodder from the think tanks and foundations.

Many on the American Left now accept that unless this inexorable flood of rightwnig propaganda is somehow countered or neutralized, electoral politicking (e.g., fighting to elect Kerry, or voting 3rd party) is somewhat moot, because this decades-old flood of propaganda has also moved the Democratic party to the right much the same as the GOP. Also, the undemocratic structure of the electoral political machine in America (single member, winner take all districts, etc) would seem to disempower 3rd parties except for a spoiler role.

Given the situation outlined above, what good does it do to engage in 3rd party electoral politics?

And more to the point, what can American leftists do to move America to the left, given the power that 3 decades of rightwing propaganda has had on the American political mind?

Would it be more productive trying to land a talk radio gig somewhere?

Working with libertarians versus against us? (1)

ShatteredDream (636520) | about 10 years ago | (#10331409)

Do you think that it is in the longterm interest of your party to align itself with the Libertarian Party to help force a revitalized political system? Or do you believe that it would be better to focus on putting pressure on the Democrats to enact some of your politics by costing them elections? Basically, do you see a better future in working with other minor parties to create an essentially totally new political system or to act as a "powerful spoiler" capable of putting pressure on left-of-center democrats to listen to your supporters?

here goes again (4, Insightful)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | about 10 years ago | (#10331418)

I'll ask the same questions I posed to the Libertarian candidate:

Would you approve of, and what would you think would be the results of, the following election reforms:

1. Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.

2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.

3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.

Lastly a question: is the democratic system as instituted in the United States hopelessly mired in a two-party stranglehold, leaving corporate interest in defacto charge of the discussion? Is legal election reform necessary, or even possible?

First Question (1, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 10 years ago | (#10331419)


Who???

Fundamentalism (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 10 years ago | (#10331421)

We have a current sitting President that see's nothing in his instance of over ruling scientific findings on stem cell research and yet claiming that other Islamic fundamentalism is wrong..

How does your party stand on the issue of going forward into a secular modern USa society in the US or going into civil war between competing fundamentalism explotation of the world's resources??..

Why are you more relevant than other candidates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331434)

What makes you more qualified to be the president, and what do you have to offer to those that are most likely voting for Bush and are for the war on Terror?

Is it an advantage to you that most people who are voting for Kerry are doing so because they "hate" President Bush?

Your answers are much appreciated!

Greenhouse (1)

Mateito (746185) | about 10 years ago | (#10331436)

By how many degrees will the average global temperature rise by the greenhouse gases that will be emitted from the bullshit that comes out of the mouths of all the presidencial candidates? Wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly just to declare the US to be a loose conglomeration of anarcho-syndicalist communities, rather than waste all the money, time, effort on elections?

Max Wage? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10331438)

Does the green party platform still call for a Max wage that would tax at 100% any income over 10 times the min wage?

If it does not, do you support such a plan?

Why such broad reaching ideals? (2, Interesting)

stomv (80392) | about 10 years ago | (#10331439)

Firstly, thank you for responding to our questions.

The name "Green Party" conjures images of a party interested in environmental concerns. Of course, environmental legislation isn't the only issue to have environmental impacts; international trade and energy policy both have substantial environmental ramifications. However, it seems some Green issues aren't environmentally related. For example, while I too believe that gender equity and diversity are good values, why are they part of The Green Party's Ten Key Values [gp.org] , given they don't appear to be substantially related to environmental issues?

Why does it seem that the Green Party takes on issues that aren't related to "green-ness"? Is it essential for a modern US political party to have a stance on every issue, even those not seemingly related to core beliefs?

do7l (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331440)

and arms and dickm thing foR the

Social Security (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10331463)

I'm one of those under-fourty-year-olds who never expects to see a check from Social Security. Do you believe that Social Security is heading for insolvancy (due to radical demographic shifts in the US population), and if so how would you resolve the problem?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?