OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beyer160 said:
If the libertarian party can qualify for matching funds and get a place at the debates, it'll be a game-changer.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn’t. Libertarians are politically irrelevant because most people don’t want to privatize schools and roads and withdraw from America’s role as the only geopolitical superpower. Even Republicans who lean Libertarian like the Pauls get booed and laughed at in GOP primary debates. One general election debate appearance would be all the Libertarians will ever get because when people hear Libertarian positions on national TV the party would go right back to nowheresville in the polls. The only thing that could make Gary Johnson not the laughing stock of a debate would be putting Jill Stein on so she could talk about her anti-vaccination and anti-wifi nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Beyer160 said:
Barely 90 minutes ago-

And the MWGL forum is a microcosm- there are plenty of Hillary flacks out there touting her "liberal" agenda, often as a cleanup effort to get Sanders supporters on the train.
Click to expand...

As we used to say on the old site, Reading Is Fundamental. It is clear that my high-school level rhetorical obfuscation muddied your reading of my statement, because I meant the opposite of what you're claiming I said.
 
Beyer160 said:
It may be noted that FDR dealt with some of the greatest challenges any American president has ever faced, and did so in a way that defined liberal/progressivism for the next 50 years. He was not perfect (just ask George Takei) but when taken in total FDR's progressive legacy is unmatched.

Truman ultimately integrated the armed forces after the war, but even still it took a decade to enforce. Regardless of FDR's personal feelings on the matter, the military was barely functional in the 1930s due to budget cuts stemming from the Depression, and had much larger problems to contend with in the early 1940s.



Barely 90 minutes ago-


And the MWGL forum is a microcosm- there are plenty of Hillary flacks out there touting her "liberal" agenda, often as a cleanup effort to get Sanders supporters on the train.



Blaming Nader for Gore's defeat is a red herring- a partisan Supreme court ultimately installed GWB in spite of overwhelming evidence that Gore had actually won Florida. And, if a third party candidate like Nader could derail a VP coming from a hugely popular administration, maybe the real problem was Gore running a shitty campaign.

As for "inflexible," I would turn that around- it's been the "go-along-to-get-along" moral flexibility of the Democratic party as a whole abandoning their core principles in a vain attempt to win elections in the short term and attract corporate donations that has led to the party's slide into 1980s Republicanism. This is why I registered "UNA" during the Clinton administration (in my state I still get to vote in primaries as a UNA).

I am quite familiar with tactical voting, thank you- been doing it for 20 years. Sanders reminded us all how far the Democratic party has fallen- the question remains, what will we do about it? Just accept Clinton as the best we're ever going to get and turn our backs on FDR, or fight to reclaim liberalism? We do agree on one thing- state and local voting is critical, and often overlooked.
Click to expand...

If you give Nader's votes in Florida to Gore, no need for the Supreme Court at all. Gore easily wins Florida election over.

Saying Clinton is the most liberal major candidate in the election doesn't mean she is liberal. It's like saying I'm the tallest person in the room, at 5'6" I'm not tall. :grin:
 
Chad said:
If you give Nader's votes in Florida to Gore, no need for the Supreme Court at all. Gore easily wins Florida election over.

Saying Clinton is the most liberal major candidate in the election doesn't mean she is liberal. It's like saying I'm the tallest person in the room, at 5'6" I'm not tall. :grin:
Click to expand...

If you give Nader's votes in Florida to Bush, Gore still loses.
 
Chad said:
Yeah, but most Nader supporters were liberal. They wouldn't have voted for Bush.
Click to expand...

And they didn't vote for Gore because he sucked. The assumption by Democrats is that taking away choice would work in their favor. What would actually work in the Democrats' favor is running better candidates.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
And they didn't vote for Gore because he sucked. The assumption by Democrats is that taking away choice would work in their favor. What would actually work in the Democrats' favor is running better candidates.
Click to expand...

In that case, taking away Nader would have worked in their favor. I don't think they voted for Nader because Gore sucked, they thought Nader was better. I mean nobody sucked more than W and he "won"

I still can't get over the fact he won twice. I guess fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....we won't get fooled again.

But the same could be said for both parties. The last decent republican candidate was Dole and even he wasn't great.
 
Chad said:
In that case, taking away Nader would have worked in their favor. I don't think they voted for Nader because Gore sucked, they thought Nader was better. I mean nobody sucked more than W and he "won"

I still can't get over the fact he won twice. I guess fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....we won't get fooled again.

But the same could be said for both parties. The last decent republican candidate was Dole and even he wasn't great.
Click to expand...


ahhhhemmmm.....the last decent republican candidate was dwight eisenower
 
Chad said:
In that case, taking away Nader would have worked in their favor. I don't think they voted for Nader because Gore sucked, they thought Nader was better. I mean nobody sucked more than W and he "won"

I still can't get over the fact he won twice. I guess fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....we won't get fooled again.

But the same could be said for both parties. The last decent republican candidate was Dole and even he wasn't great.
Click to expand...

I absolutely voted for Nader because Gore/Bush sucked. Just like I'll vote for either Stein or Johnson because Clinton/Trump sucks. Come earn my vote. Bush was a bad president, but Kerry was an awful candidate. That's why Bush won a second term. So again, we have a problem of candidates. Just because one party's candidate sucks doesn't mean the other one has to put up candidates who are shitty in entirely different ways. Run better candidates, get better outcomes.
 
Chicken Man said:
As we used to say on the old site, Reading Is Fundamental. It is clear that my high-school level rhetorical obfuscation muddied your reading of my statement, because I meant the opposite of what you're claiming I said.
Click to expand...

He knew that. He was just being willfully disingenuous to try and prove a point...poorly.

Posts on the last couple of pages that sneer down at mainstream Dems and the ideological compromises they often make really illustrate an important point...an important rule in general life, really. Fuck the far-left. There is no choice that need be made, no agreement brokered, no compromise offered. There is no room for them in any constructive political movement and they will bring destruction to your party just as capitulating to the far-right has brought misery to the GOP. Undermine them, marginalize them and ignore them like the witless anarchist-communists that they are.
 
Do you guys remember the 2000 election?

NBC and a few other stations called Florida for Gore. They went to a live feed at the Bush headquarters and you saw W's reaction. Within 30 seconds he was on the phone and within the next 10 or so minutes (maybe it was more, but it was relatively fast) the count in Florida was questioned. There was even talk that he called Jeb to ask what was going on...at one point a couple of networks confirmed that he had called Florida/Jeb.

Nader wasn't the real issue and it never should have gotten to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush could have questioned it and complained about endlessly after the fact, but instead they put the call in the Florida right away and got the ball rolling SUPER fast on working an angle that the voting was off in Florida. The recounters/chad examiners were all dog and pony show. This would not have happened in any other state.

Gore wasn't fabulous, but he should have been President from at least 2001-2005. This isn't based on what the liberal among us would have wanted, but based on the bullshit that turned traditionally solid projections into a complete flip in the one state that would have locked Gore as POTUS...the one state that happened to be have the other candidate's brother in it's highest executive office.

Nader was the first liberal viable third party option...like Perot seemed to conservatives in '92. I don't blame folks for voting for him.
 
Last edited:
VoidTerraFirma said:
He knew that. He was just being willfully disingenuous to try and prove a point...poorly.

Posts on the last couple of pages that sneer down at mainstream Dems and the ideological compromises they often make really illustrate an important point...an important rule in general life, really. Fuck the far-left. There is no choice that need be made, no agreement brokered, no compromise offered. There is no room for them in any constructive political movement and they will bring destruction to your party just as capitulating to the far-right has brought misery to the GOP. Undermine them, marginalize them and ignore them like the witless anarchist-communists that they are.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^^ this.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
I absolutely voted for Nader because Gore/Bush sucked. Just like I'll vote for either Stein or Johnson because Clinton/Trump sucks. Come earn my vote. Bush was a bad president, but Kerry was an awful candidate. That's why Bush won a second term. So again, we have a problem of candidates. Just because one party's candidate sucks doesn't mean the other one has to put up candidates who are shitty in entirely different ways. Run better candidates, get better outcomes.
Click to expand...

Stein and Johnson suck just as bad. An anti Vaxer doctor and a libertarian.

But back to the point, taking Nader off the ticket, would you have written in or not voted or W or Gore? It's tough to answer that honestly now that we know the outcome of W's presidency. It would be tough to admit voting for the worst president of our lifetime :grin:

But your vote or mine wouldn't have mattered anyways, we didn't live in Florida.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top