Hold on just one damn minute...

[LouieB]

Right.

 

Anywho - I've just never understood the concept of Democrats claiming votes for Nader as rightfully theirs.

Well okay. I suppose that is a supposition that none of us can make. The ultra left isn't going to support any candidate that is even left of center (which Obama clearly is) so you may be right. Those folks would simply like to vote for whomever and then continue to bitch indefinitely, rather than work within the system at all. Believe me I understand that. I have palled around with ultra leftists plenty (mostly in my youth) and I understand how they think. It goes like this....let's not vote for anyone who can win because that way we actually have to live with our decsion to support someone who won. It's a wonderful lose lose. Exacerbating class struggle implies that things have to keep getting worse and worse until a revolution breaks out (well facism could also break out as history has shown).

 

Reality has a way of getting away from people who live in their own worlds...

 

[quote name='Đ

[bjorn_skurj]

I have a certain amount of respect for Nader still, but calling Obama an Unc Tom is a douche move.

[Good Old Neon]

Well okay. I suppose that is a supposition that none of us can make. The ultra left isn't going to support any candidate that is even left of center (which Obama clearly is) so you may be right. Those folks would simply like to vote for whomever and then continue to bitch indefinitely, rather than work within the system at all. Believe me I understand that. I have palled around with ultra leftists plenty (mostly in my youth) and I understand how they think. It goes like this....let's not vote for anyone who can win because that way we actually have to live with our decsion to support someone who won. It's a wonderful lose lose. Exacerbating class struggle implies that things have to keep getting worse and worse until a revolution breaks out (well facism could also break out as history has shown).

 

LouieB

 

My far left perspective reads more like this (in a hyper-simplified nutshell)

[M. (hristine]

Gary?

[Good Old Neon]

Gary?

 

You really know how to make it hurt

[M. (hristine]

So I've been told.

[Lammycat]

Well okay. I suppose that is a supposition that none of us can make. The ultra left isn't going to support any candidate that is even left of center (which Obama clearly is) so you may be right. Those folks would simply like to vote for whomever and then continue to bitch indefinitely, rather than work within the system at all. Believe me I understand that. I have palled around with ultra leftists plenty (mostly in my youth) and I understand how they think. It goes like this....let's not vote for anyone who can win because that way we actually have to live with our decsion to support someone who won. It's a wonderful lose lose. Exacerbating class struggle implies that things have to keep getting worse and worse until a revolution breaks out (well facism could also break out as history has shown).

 

Reality has a way of getting away from people who live in their own worlds...

 

Yea, then he got on Fox (of all places) and wondered if Obama was going to turn out to be an Uncle Tom...

LouieB

There are people whom are not "ultra-left" whom also did not vote for Nader or a front-runner. You continue to pigeon-hole anyone who did not vote for one of the two big boy candidates, and in particular the one candidate that you supported, as whiny and clueless douche bags. But in reality, everybody bitches no matter who is in the white house. And people who voted contrary to you (or didn't vote at all, for that matter) have as much right as anyone else to carp about the system or whoever is in office or policy or whatever.

 

And, even those who do not support either of the two main parties often work within in the system. Heck, Nader works within the system- he's even a part of the system.

[MrRain422]

I'm all for changing the system, but I think it's wise to keep about a certain amount of pragmatism too. I support third party candidates (those who espouse views I agree with anyway) when they're in a position to make an impact. But at the same time, I think at the highest levels, where third parties do not yet have a chance to make a difference, it's best to get the best possible candidate in there. In 2004, for example, I thought that Kerry was a pretty shitty candidate, but a Kerry presidency would bring this country at least incrementally closer to where I would like it to be than another term of Bush would. Idealism is important to make big changes, but if those ideals really mean anything, then I think its important to take those small gains where we can get them rather than sacrificing them for some higher principle that doesn't really have a chance. Third party growth is an important part of making the long term changes this country needs, but in order for that to be successful, more realistic short term goals need to be accomplished first. And to me that's where Nader's candidacy fails -- he demands drastic changes immediately, which sounds good except that with no chance at all for success, all it does is stroke his ego and strengthen the power of those who are furthest from what he stands for.

[bjorn_skurj]

I have said it before and I will say it now. Iraq put the lie to the whole "Democrats are the same as Republicans" talk. President Gore would not have invaded Iraq. That, I contend, is a huge f difference, one worth thousands of thousands of lives.

[Good Old Neon]

I have said it before and I will say it now. Iraq put the lie to the whole "Democrats are the same as Republicans" talk. President Gore would not have invaded Iraq. That, I contend, is a huge f difference, one worth thousands of thousands of lives.

 

Sure, but the majority of democrats pretty much gave Bush the authorization to do so.

[Winston Legthigh]

Sure, but the majority of democrats pretty much gave Bush the authorization to do so.

The majority was in the Senate only: 29-21

The House Dems voted against it: 126-82.

[EL the Famous]

'majority'

[bjorn_skurj]

Sure, but the majority of democrats pretty much gave Bush the authorization to do so.

OK, but approving a bad idea is not quite the same thing as coming up with it in the first place.

[Dude]

Gore would have also signed the Kyoto treaty. You could go on and on about the differences between the candidates.

 

Obama is already trying to reverse Bush's stands on stem cell research, which could positively impact millions of lives if breakthroughs in research lead to cures / treatments.

 

I think a cynical view of government is fine and healthy, but people sitting out of elections, bitching about them and doing nothing else to improve what they see as a failed system is absolutely pathetic.

[embiggen]

'majority'

 

 

"mandate"

[EL the Famous]

[quote name='Đ

[Good Old Neon]

And FISA, again we see strong opposition from the democrats

[Lammycat]

[quote name='Đ

[MrRain422]

The Democrats failed as an opposition party. No doubt about it. But that doesn't mean they'd do the same things if they were in charge.

[Dude]

Partaking in an election, bitching about them, and doing nothing is thereby permissable? Where's the law that says you forego your right to criticize elected officials/policy/whatever if you don't particiapte or vote even? The people who elect (get it?) not to vote are just as represented as those who vote. You may not like that and think it's pathetic, but it's a choice nonetheless and one that affords the choice-maker just as much say as the person who chooses to vote and/or participate.

 

Would they be happier living in a country where voting isn't even an option?

 

This for me gets into the whole notion of enjoying the fruits of a democracy without participating and actively trying to make it better. And not to mention the idea that people actually took democracy and the ability to vote seriously enough to give up their lives for it. (/veteran's day tie-in)

[Lammycat]

[quote name='Đ

[bjorn_skurj]

Partaking in an election, bitching about them, and doing nothing is thereby permissable? Where's the law that says you forego your right to criticize elected officials/policy/whatever if you don't particiapte or vote even? The people who elect (get it?) not to vote are just as represented as those who vote. You may not like that and think it's pathetic, but it's a choice nonetheless and one that affords the choice-maker just as much say as the person who chooses to vote and/or participate.

The First Amendment protects the right to bitch for everyone, but as I have said before and will say now, I believe voting is a civic duty and I lose a bit of respect for those who fall down on that duty and I disregard their bitchery pretty much in toto.

[mfwahl]

People bitching (having voted or not) and having an informed participating electorate are different. I think third parties are great and don't like the two party system, but you have to admit Democrats like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Joe Trippi, David Plouffe and David Axelrod have helped bring about more enthusiasm and organization among the electorate in the past few years than third parties have. Third parties deserve some credit for this, of course (particularly on the local level). But when we see a sea change in Washington politics and corruption (and I think we will someday), it will be through the Democratic party and everyday people taking a stand.

[Dude]

I don't know. I don't think that's the point, though. The point is that they do have an option and are still represented equally.

 

Well, you're right, and people can bitch, it doesn't mean anyone is going to listen to them.

[mfwahl]

I don't know. I don't think that's the point, though. The point is that they do have an option and are still represented equally.

Represented by who, though? I think that's the point.