Tina's comments about the Second Meeting email

This is an email from Tina who responded to my email about some of the points we raised in our second meeting. (Vincent)

HI. THANK FOR SENDING THIS. I THOUGTH I MIGHT TAKE A SLIGHTLY ACTIVE ROLE AND MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. IF THEY INTEREST YOU. COOL. IF NOT, THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DISREGARD. I STAND QUITE LEFT POLITICALLY, SO THINK OF SOME OF MY QUESTIONS AS DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. LOVE, T HOPE YOU HAD A HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

We love our Republic and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are prepared to fight for the rights of the people we disagree with as well as the people we agree with.

HERE I WOULD PARE THIS THIS BACK TO: [We love our Republic and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are prepared to fight for the rights of the ALL people]. ADDING THE AGREE/DISAGREE STUFF IS POLARZING AND COULD BE ALIENATING.

We want an America where everybody has a seat at the table: Liberals, Conservatives, religious, atheist, wealthy, middle class, poor, every race, age, sexual orientation, pro life, pro choice, mainstream, extremist. In this we affirm the principal of a political environment where no one ideology can possibly provide all solutions, not even ours, no matter how much we might wish it did.

HERE I SIMPLY SAY: {We want an America where everybody has a seat at the table. In this we affirm the principal of a political environment where no one ideology can possibly provide all solutions.}LEAVING OFF THE LIST OF WHOM THAT INCLUDES, SINCE THOSE KINDS OF LISTS ALWAYS OMIT SOME AND THEY ARE BOUND TO FEEL EXCLUDED. BY SAYING "EVERYBODY" YOU ARE INCLUDING EVERYONE.

We believe that the problems we see go way beyond partisan politics, economic class, race, or creed.

IF YOU OFFER THIS KIND OF STATEMENT YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THE NEXT QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS AS YOU SEE THEM?

We see evidence that the slow erosion of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights that has been going on for many years has been greatly accelerated by people in both the government and the private sector using the attacks on 9/11. If certain parts of the Moslem world can be our enemies, well then certain parts of our own political and economic system can be too.

HERE YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU SEE OF THE SLOW EROSION TO WHICH YOU REFER.

We understand that the concentration of media in this country into the hands of five corporations, with the exception of certain sectors of the internet is deadly to the free and open discussion that is the lifeblood of a Republic.

HERE YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO LIST THE 5 CORPORATIONS AND GIVE SPECIFIC CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF HOW THE SITUATION IS DEADLY TO FREE AND OPEN DISCUSSION.

We see ample evidence that the 2000 presidential election turned out the way it did because of voter fraud. In the face of this we are unable to trust the results of the 2004 presidential election. We want no one elected by fraudulent means no matter what party they are affiliated with. It is irrelevant to us that this was done by a Republican administration. We understand that this could not have happened the way it did if certain elements in the Democratic party had not been in collusion with it.

HERE YOU WILL NEED TO OFFER UP SOME OF THE "AMPLE EVIDENCE" TO WHICH YOU REFER RE: THE 2000 ELECTION AND YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY IT FOLLOWS THAT 2004 WAS ALSO FRAUDULENT. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH HOW THE "REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION" DEFRAUDED THE ELECTION AND HOW THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN COLLUSION.

We are working for anti trust action against the corporations who have centralized control of our Fourth Estate. (Fourth Estate = media)

AGAIN, YOU WILL NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHO HAD THIS CENTRALIZED CONTROL OVER THE MEDIA.

We are working for the political equivalent of anti trust action against the Democratic and Republican parties. This will result in a truly multi party system.

YOU NEED TO CLARIFY THIS POLITICAL EQUIVALENT AND EXPLAIN YOUR VISION OF THE RESULTING MULT-PARTY SYSTEM

We want a run off ballot system more suitable to a multi party system rather than the simple majority voting under the current system.

YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO EXPLAIN WHY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTING ISN'T BEST.

We are ready to invest time and money into the electoral infrastructure of this country with an emphasis on making elections transparent and with active auditing from citizens from all different political beliefs.

GREAT. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT STARTING POINT. BUT HOW?

PLEASE KEEP ME POSTED. THIS IS VERY INTERESTING.

LOVE,

Tina