Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

I prefer to vote third party if my beliefs are not upheld by the "viable" candidates. It serves to send a message if enough people jump off the bandwagon and vote differently than they are expected to.
 
Onceler said:
I love the positions on that list, but tops was specifically talking about Hillary boosting Wall Street, and I'm not seeing that in what she's proposing.

I would love to hear a Democrat talk as Clinton & Gore did in the 90's about smaller, smarter government, and ways to reform healthcare, education & pursue a variety of beneficial programs in ways that do not expand the bureacracy & increase both the budget & tax burden on America.
Click to expand...

Nearly 70% of Americans believe that there should be universal healt care even if it means an increase in taxes

Americans pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world with the exception of Mexico and North Korea .. yet we constantly whine about taxes. It is good to see an evolution of Americans who now understand that we have a socio-ethical responsibility to our fellow Americans and to our country that supercedes our selfish concern about taxes first.

The very last thing we need is a return to Reaganism.
 
Nader was wrong. The 2 parties are alike in many ways, but a Gore Presidency would have been dramatically different from Bush.

Bush has set back the causes that Nader holds dear for decades, perhaps more than a generation. There was no "moral victory" for Nader in 2000; the Green Party became a blip in history, but no lasting movement was started, and if anything - with a possible billion dollar campaign coming up in '08 - the 3rd parties like the greens are even more marginalized & utopian.

Gore messed up, Democrats messed up, & 2000 was a fiasco on a variety of levels. But I'm tired of sanctimonious 3rd party voters deluding themselves into thinking they are doing more for democracy than they are. They may as well have stayed home in 2000 for all of the good their votes did, and the idea that oh, both parties suck, so what's the difference? is a complete sham. This past 7 years has been horrendous, just horrendous for our country. We went backward on so many issues, and the Iraq War - in addition to causing suffering for millions - had done us irreparable damage around the globe.

I always wonder how Nader feels now...if he still feels like Gore & Bush were basically the same....
 
blackascoal said:
Nearly 70% of Americans believe that there should be universal healt care even if it means an increase in taxes

Americans pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world with the exception of Mexico and North Korea .. yet we constantly whine about taxes. It is good to see an evolution of Americans who now understand that we have a socio-ethical responsibility to our fellow Americans and to our country that supercedes our selfish concern about taxes first.

The very last thing we need is a return to Reaganism.
Click to expand...


No one is talking about a return to Reaganism, and it's ridiculous to use the results of a poll to discuss the intracacies of what universal healthcare might mean for Americans on a purely economic level. With many Americans paying close to 50% of their income in taxes & fees, I don't think any concern over taxes could be deemed "selfish."

If the position is simplified to simply "universal healthcare, no matter what the cost" - which could also be justified by your paragraph above - count me out. Thinking like that could truly bankrupt America for generations. There are ways to improve the system without expanding the bureacracy, and ways of implementing programs while making government smaller & more efficient. I'm tired of the way many Democrats continue to think on these issues, like there is an endless supply of tax money there to do whatever we want, no matter how much it costs.
 
Unless we first fix the cost problems in healthcare all we will be doing is hiding the real cost and enriching people who really don't quite deserve it. I don't trust the politicians to fix that first, therefore I really don't support an accross the board change until we can find the proper resolution.

State by state changes working to find the best solution both in cost as well as coverage would be far more likely to gain my support.
 
Onceler said:
I could care less about his weight, or his drug addiction on its own; the latter only comes into play when one considers his strong statements about sending drug users "up the river" for lengthy sentences.

No, Rush's hypocrisy, casual disregard for facts, 3-hour spin machine & track record of being wrong on every major issue from global warming to Iraq are much more disturbing. Oh, and his constant namecalling & personal attacks that appeal to the lowest common denominator (i.e. Michael J. Fox).

It's amazing to me that there are people who still proudly call themselves "dittoheads."
Click to expand...

He's not particularly hard core about drug laws. Never was. He also doesn't lie and generally gets his facts straight. Libs just hate him because he's right more than they are. Since an actual discussion reveals their weakness, they turn to personal attacks against the man.
 
Onceler said:
Nader was wrong. The 2 parties are alike in many ways, but a Gore Presidency would have been dramatically different from Bush.

Bush has set back the causes that Nader holds dear for decades, perhaps more than a generation. There was no "moral victory" for Nader in 2000; the Green Party became a blip in history, but no lasting movement was started, and if anything - with a possible billion dollar campaign coming up in '08 - the 3rd parties like the greens are even more marginalized & utopian.

Gore messed up, Democrats messed up, & 2000 was a fiasco on a variety of levels. But I'm tired of sanctimonious 3rd party voters deluding themselves into thinking they are doing more for democracy than they are. They may as well have stayed home in 2000 for all of the good their votes did, and the idea that oh, both parties suck, so what's the difference? is a complete sham. This past 7 years has been horrendous, just horrendous for our country. We went backward on so many issues, and the Iraq War - in addition to causing suffering for millions - had done us irreparable damage around the globe.

I always wonder how Nader feels now...if he still feels like Gore & Bush were basically the same....
Click to expand...

What is delusionally "feel good" is the belief that democrats played no part in the chaos that we are suffering through today. THAT, my friend, is amazingly delusional. To your dismay, Americans are leaving both political parties at an accelerated rate and looking for a way to restore the "will of the people" to our democracy .. in fact, just bring back a democracy period and get us out of the plutocracy we now exist in.

Less and less Americans identify themselves with either party including the democrats. Democrats have FAR more blood on their hands for the suffering and war than Nader does and that does not go without recognition, thus the loss of confidence in the Democratic Party. Thay are the lesser of two evils and that is your major selling point.

I repeat, if you wish to stay tethered to the lesser evil, be my guest. But I understand that it takes work, sacrifice, and commitment to correct the course America is on. I understand what it takes o build 3rd parties.

I'm not asking you to join, there are plenty of us who understand this.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal is correct. Staying with one of the two parties simply because you think voting for a third party is a "waste of a vote" is exactly the type of attitude the two parties want you to possess. For if enough people think as you do, then the two parties maintain control and can continue to bankrupt this country. 1960... the last fiscal year either party lowered this nations debt. THAT is what your two parties are giving you. But by all means continue to act as though your support of one over the other makes any bit of difference. Because both are going to continue screwing us.
 
"What is delusionally "feel good" is the belief that democrats played no part in the chaos that we are suffering through today. THAT, my friend, is amazingly delusional. To your dismay, Americans are leaving both political parties at an accelerated rate and looking for a way to restore the "will of the people" to our democracy .. in fact, just bring back a democracy period and get us out of the plutocracy we now exist in."

It's hardly "to my dismay." I describe myself as an independent. What you are talking about is the way people describe themselves. You are not talking about voting patterns. That is an important distinction. When it comes to the Presidential race, 3rd parties are losing ground. The only serious runs that 3rd parties will make in our lifetime will come about from individual candidates who happen to be billionaires, not from any lasting movement or utopian ideal about how things should be in America. The day that a 3rd party has enough money to actually compete with the 2 main parties will be the day that they embody everything we hate about those parties, anyway. It's the money that is needed to compete, and it is also the money that turns the parties into corporate slaves instead of servants of the people.

You wanna change things? Voting 3rd party isn't going to do it. The way we nominate & elect our leaders is where you need to start...
 
Onceler said:
No one is talking about a return to Reaganism, and it's ridiculous to use the results of a poll to discuss the intracacies of what universal healthcare might mean for Americans on a purely economic level. With many Americans paying close to 50% of their income in taxes & fees, I don't think any concern over taxes could be deemed "selfish."

If the position is simplified to simply "universal healthcare, no matter what the cost" - which could also be justified by your paragraph above - count me out. Thinking like that could truly bankrupt America for generations. There are ways to improve the system without expanding the bureacracy, and ways of implementing programs while making government smaller & more efficient. I'm tired of the way many Democrats continue to think on these issues, like there is an endless supply of tax money there to do whatever we want, no matter how much it costs.
Click to expand...

Don't get it twisted .. I have no interest in telling you how to think. I'm expressing what I believe and polls are what polls are, a reflection of the sentiment on an issue. It hardly matters if you agree or not.

I repeat again, Americans pay the lowest taxes in rhe industrial world, with two exceptions.

In California, Schwarzenegger has proposed a shared health care plan that 72% of Californians support, only 22% oppose it. Now you may not like polls, but it is a reflection that Californians want a change in health care and they agree with this plan.

He's not a democrat and I don't believe that he or ANY democrat believe there is an endless supply of money. They believe that health care can be made more affordable for all.
 
blackascoal said:
What is delusionally "feel good" is the belief that democrats played no part in the chaos that we are suffering through today. THAT, my friend, is amazingly delusional. To your dismay, Americans are leaving both political parties at an accelerated rate and looking for a way to restore the "will of the people" to our democracy .. in fact, just bring back a democracy period and get us out of the plutocracy we now exist in.

Less and less Americans identify themselves with either party including the democrats. Democrats have FAR more blood on their hands for the suffering and war than Nader does and that does not go without recognition, thus the loss of confidence in the Democratic Party. Thay are the lesser of two evils and that is your major selling point.

I repeat, if you wish to stay tethered to the lesser evil, be my guest. But I understand that it takes work, sacrifice, and commitment to correct the course America is on. I understand what it takes o build 3rd parties.

I'm not asking you to join, there are plenty of us who understand this.
Click to expand...

Let's say we got one party control in 08, and that party was the Democrats. Do you think that if the activist base worked hard to move them to the left, much like the R base spent decades moving the republicans to the right, that could work at all?

That is basically what I am hoping for. I know that the money involved in this process, makes it very difficult to attain. How far "left" can you move any party that is taking their marching orders from the insurance industry for one? I put left in quotation marks because I do not believe that health care is a "left" opinion. I think that most Americans want it, but they're being ignored, and if you listen to the corporate owned media, you'd never know that as you stated, the majority of Americans want Universal health care, even if it means raising taxes. Of course, Top is right about one thing. If we cut the defense budget, which should be cut, we could have health care.
 
As for Gore... I think Ornot is correct. I doubt he wants to jump back into the cesspool for the reasons Ornot mentioned. IF Gore did come in, he already has the same hurdle hillary has... very little margin of error. Too many people are automatically against him.
 
Onceler said:
"What is delusionally "feel good" is the belief that democrats played no part in the chaos that we are suffering through today. THAT, my friend, is amazingly delusional. To your dismay, Americans are leaving both political parties at an accelerated rate and looking for a way to restore the "will of the people" to our democracy .. in fact, just bring back a democracy period and get us out of the plutocracy we now exist in."

It's hardly "to my dismay." I describe myself as an independent. What you are talking about is the way people describe themselves. You are not talking about voting patterns. That is an important distinction. When it comes to the Presidential race, 3rd parties are losing ground. The only serious runs that 3rd parties will make in our lifetime will come about from individual candidates who happen to be billionaires, not from any lasting movement or utopian ideal about how things should be in America. The day that a 3rd party has enough money to actually compete with the 2 main parties will be the day that they embody everything we hate about those parties, anyway. It's the money that is needed to compete, and it is also the money that turns the parties into corporate slaves instead of servants of the people.

You wanna change things? Voting 3rd party isn't going to do it. The way we nominate & elect our leaders is where you need to start...
Click to expand...

Well, of course, real campaign finance reform would go a long way. If we had only publically funded elections, then we wouldn't have politicians who are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations. But I don't think we're going to get that either.
 
Onceler said:
"What is delusionally "feel good" is the belief that democrats played no part in the chaos that we are suffering through today. THAT, my friend, is amazingly delusional. To your dismay, Americans are leaving both political parties at an accelerated rate and looking for a way to restore the "will of the people" to our democracy .. in fact, just bring back a democracy period and get us out of the plutocracy we now exist in."

It's hardly "to my dismay." I describe myself as an independent. What you are talking about is the way people describe themselves. You are not talking about voting patterns. That is an important distinction. When it comes to the Presidential race, 3rd parties are losing ground. The only serious runs that 3rd parties will make in our lifetime will come about from individual candidates who happen to be billionaires, not from any lasting movement or utopian ideal about how things should be in America. The day that a 3rd party has enough money to actually compete with the 2 main parties will be the day that they embody everything we hate about those parties, anyway. It's the money that is needed to compete, and it is also the money that turns the parties into corporate slaves instead of servants of the people.

You wanna change things? Voting 3rd party isn't going to do it. The way we nominate & elect our leaders is where you need to start...
Click to expand...

Let me cut to the chase in this conversation.

My vote belongs to me and I vote as I see fit. Your vote is yours and whether you're an independent, republican, or martian, I do not presume that I have the authority OR WISDOM to tell YOU what to do with your vote given that I do not share YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

I hope that clears this up.
 
I'm not trying to co-opt your vote. I'm telling you what I think about how effective your use of your vote is if you decide to vote 3rd party. It's my opinion, and in America, we try to espouse our opinions, get others to agree with us and hopefully affect change by doing so.

And I agree, Darla - campaign finance is where it starts & ends. As long as people cling to the notion that "money is speech," we're screwed...
 
Darla said:
Let's say we got one party control in 08, and that party was the Democrats. Do you think that if the activist base worked hard to move them to the left, much like the R base spent decades moving the republicans to the right, that could work at all?

That is basically what I am hoping for. I know that the money involved in this process, makes it very difficult to attain. How far "left" can you move any party that is taking their marching orders from the insurance industry for one? I put left in quotation marks because I do not believe that health care is a "left" opinion. I think that most Americans want it, but they're being ignored, and if you listen to the corporate owned media, you'd never know that as you stated, the majority of Americans want Universal health care, even if it means raising taxes. Of course, Top is right about one thing. If we cut the defense budget, which should be cut, we could have health care.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and Top on cutting the defense budget. The problem isn't that there isn't enough money to make a better America, the problem is with our priorities.

As long as democrats and even republicans are wholly owned and operated by corporations, nothing will change. The Democratic Party is not a party of, or for, liberals, so there is only a small degree of moving left that is acheiveable.

I'm a liberal. I want a party that represents my perspectives and what I believe to be best for this country. A party owned by corporations cannot be that party.

Thomas Jefferson believed that freedom from corporations was a basic human right .. and he was correct even 300 years ago.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not trying to co-opt your vote. I'm telling you what I think about how effective your use of your vote is if you decide to vote 3rd party. It's my opinion, and in America, we try to espouse our opinions, get others to agree with us and hopefully affect change by doing so.

And I agree, Darla - campaign finance is where it starts & ends. As long as people cling to the notion that "money is speech," we're screwed...
Click to expand...

I appreciate your perspective .. but in my opinion, it is exactly why we remain trapped in a two-party system
 
blackascoal said:
I agree with you and Top on cutting the defense budget. The problem isn't that there isn't enough money to make a better America, the problem is with our priorities.

As long as democrats and even republicans are wholly owned and operated by corporations, nothing will change. The Democratic Party is not a party of, or for, liberals, so there is only a small degree of moving left that is acheiveable.

I'm a liberal. I want a party that represents my perspectives and what I believe to be best for this country. A party owned by corporations cannot be that party.

Thomas Jefferson believed that freedom from corporations was a basic human right .. and he was correct even 300 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, it's hard to argue with any of this, so I won't try to. It just seems hopeless to get an effective and competitive third party going. If we had a Parliamentary system, it would be easier to gain a voice in our legislature.

But, everything you wrote in this post, I do agree with.
 
"And I agree, Darla - campaign finance is where it starts & ends. As long as people cling to the notion that "money is speech," we're screwed..."

Exactly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top