Hillary won't get the nomination

[Onceler]

He showed the Democrats that they have to offer more than not being Republicans to win an election these days.

If that's not progress to you then we don't have anything further to discuss.

Yeah - they really learned that for '04.

I love Nader - he's great to hear speak. I am very familiar with his principles and agree with many of them.

His principles have taken a total beat-down over the past 8 years. Seriously: it will be decades - particularly on the environmental front, but elsewhere, as well - before anything he holds dear will be able to recover enough to be viable again.

 

[Epicurus]

Yes because that's obviously Nader's fault and not GW Bush's or the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who authorized the war.

This is ridiculous.

 

[Onceler]

Yes because that's obviously Nader's fault and not GW Bush's or the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who authorized the war.

This is ridiculous.

You're ignoring the reality. If Nader voters vote PRACTICALLY, instead of in some fantasy world that you live in, we're not in Iraq.

What about that don't you comprehend?

 

[Cancel7]

Lol and you'd clearly rather have a Democrat. I'd rather have a system in which we have 4 or 5 significant parties and no single one ever achieve majority on its own.

I don't pretend otherwise and show faux "concern" for the viability of third parties.

I'd rather have something closer to the British parliamentary system. But it doesn't matter what I'd rather have or what you'd rather have.

And 4 or 5 significant parties, in a winner take all system like ours, is a good way to get yourself into a very dangerous sitation. We could elect a Hitler here, if that were the case.

 

[Epicurus]

Yeah - they really learned that for '04.
.

I didn't say they learned from experience.

Judging from their wardrum beating about Iran lately, that's clearly a little much to expect from Democrats.

 

[Cypress]

Give me a link to me saying she is a lefty.

Please.

I would say she is more left than her hubby.

You've never referred to hillary's healthcare polcies and social policies as "socialism"?

 

[Epicurus]

I don't pretend otherwise and show faux "concern" for the viability of third parties.
.

You think I'm showing false concern eh?

Yes because no one can ever be genuinely outraged about something. The two party system pisses me off more than any other single aspect of our democracy.

 

[Cancel7]

You think I'm showing false concern eh?

Yes because no one can ever be genuinely outraged about something. The two party system pisses me off more than any other single aspect of our democracy.

No, I think Damo is, he was the one I made that comment to Warren.

 

[Cypress]

Lol and you'd clearly rather have a Democrat. I'd rather have a system in which we have 4 or 5 significant parties and no single one ever achieve majority on its own.

We don't live in a parliamentary system. You need to understand that. We have a winner take all system, and there's only going to ever be two competing coalitions: a left-center coalition, and a right-center coaltion. Everything else is irrelevant fluff.

 

[Battleborne]

I don't pretend otherwise and show faux "concern" for the viability of third parties.

I'd rather have something closer to the British parliamentary system. But it doesn't matter what I'd rather have or what you'd rather have.

And 4 or 5 significant parties, in a winner take all system like ours, is a good way to get yourself into a very dangerous sitation. We could elect a Hitler here, if that were the case.

Hey move/immigrate to England...it's a free country also...take 'Code Pink' with you...we are sick of you! 25thAviation et al!

 

[Epicurus]

A multiparty system would serve to separate and isolate both the theocratic element in the Republican coalition and the socialistic element in the Democratic coalition.

Maybe you enjoy defending the socialists of your party, but I'm sure many Republicans would happily shed their evangelicals.

 

[Damocles]

Well, yeah that's the thing.

I wouldn't do it if I lived in Florida.

And Damo, you are just hounding people here to vote third party, because when push comes to shove you'd rather have ANY Republican than any Democrat, and the only way the R's win is if the D party splits, and you know it and I know it, and probably everyone here knows it, so give me a break ok?

Now you are projecting. You think I would vote as you would. "Any D in a storm."

You would be wrong.

 

[Cancel7]

A multiparty system would serve to separate and isolate both the theocratic element in the Republican coalition and the socialistic element in the Democratic coalition.

Maybe you enjoy defending the socialists of your party, but I'm sure many Republicans would happily shed their evangelicals.

Warren, and either one of them could easily win in that fractured of a vote in a winner take all system.

And even worse.

Not that I know of much of a "socialistic" element in the Democratic party these days, I could only wish.

 

[Epicurus]

Not that I know of much of a "socialistic" element in the Democratic party these days, I could only wish.

Yeah it's not like nationalizing the healthcare industry is in the forefront of policy debate these days or anything.

You're probably right...

 

[Cypress]

A multiparty system would serve to separate and isolate both the theocratic element in the Republican coalition and the socialistic element in the Democratic coalition.

Maybe you enjoy defending the socialists of your party, but I'm sure many Republicans would happily shed their evangelicals.

I've never met a socialist in the Democratic party.

Having five parties, means the party that gets 20% of the vote is the winner. They win it ALL. The parties that got 15, 12, 10, and 7% of the vote would have no representation.

As Darla pointed out, that's a recipe for a disaster. If you want proportional representation, you need a parliamentary system.

 

[Cancel7]

Now you are projecting. You think I would vote as you would. "Any D in a storm."

You would be wrong.

Here is what I think, ok?

I think that you are a good example of what Onceler described in his cocktail party post earlier in the thread; I think you might vote 3rd party, but just so you can say that you didn't vote for either of those two losers, rendering yourself above everyone else.

I also think that you know full well that a third party isn't going to win, and that since it's going to be either a r or a d, you'd much rather the D vote was more splintered, and awarded the white house to an R, while, simultaneously sending your message to your party.

But, I don't hold it against you.

 

[Cancel7]

Yeah it's not like nationalizing the healthcare industry is in the forefront of policy debate these days or anything.

You're probably right...

No, it's not. None of the front runners have any plan that does anything more than extend private coverage.

 

[Epicurus]

I've never met a socialist in the Democratic party.
.

You must not get out much. I know at least a dozen self identified socialists who regularly vote Democrat. We can haggle about the definition of socialist and you can reach for your Manifesto to grab the most extreme definition, but it doesn't change the facts of the situation.

 

[Damocles]

Here is what I think, ok?

I think that you are a good example of what Onceler described in his cocktail party post earlier in the thread; I think you might vote 3rd party, but just so you can say that you didn't vote for either of those two losers, rendering yourself above everyone else.

I also think that you know full well that a third party isn't going to win, and that since it's going to be either a r or a d, you'd much rather the D vote was more splintered, and awarded the white house to an R, while, simultaneously sending your message to your party.

But, I don't hold it against you.

Here is what I think. I think you are again projecting. You see this as the only reason to vote third party.

I think that a vote for a third party, when you normally would vote for your own party, sends a message. Especially if that third party makes a better than expected showing. People will actually work to get the votes back that they lost to that third party, especially when the votes are so close nowadays.

I think that I don't tell people how I vote at cocktail parties and could care less if they think I am "better" than they are.

I won't vote for somebody who suggests even larger and huger spending while we pile on more and more debt regardless of "rolling back" that 2% of taxes that is supposed to make the difference. I won't vote Democrat, none of them suggest curtailing spending. Only making up for it with more taxation.

I won't vote for another solely religious conservative. Even if they are the only R choice on the ballot and my vote will make another Democrat win...

 

[Cypress]

Yeah it's not like nationalizing the healthcare industry is in the forefront of policy debate these days or anything.

You're probably right...

There's not a single Democrat who's ever said we should nationalize the healthcare system.

Healthcare will always be delivered by doctors, hopsitals, and nurses who work for private entities. Insurance companies don't provide healthcare. They are a middleman that simply pays healthcare providers.

We're talking about how healthcare providers get paid. That's not socialism, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and pound the table trying to proclaim it so. The conservative parties in New Zealand, UK, Canada, France, Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, all support universal health insurance. They hardly consider themselves socialists.