Holy Shit.. Bush says no God no Job??

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-07-07 12:06am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Really, I'm getting a bit stuck now. I can't, in good consciousness vote, for any of the wankers that are jockeying for the Democratic candidate in '04. But I can't vote Republican because Bush is destined to win that slot and I will not vote for Bush. But most of the other parties are worse than either and I want my vote to mean something, which eliminates the Libertarians. It's quickly becoming "Chose the Lesser of Two Evils: Vote for Wanker A or vote for Wanker B".

I am sorry Gil, but I disagree with you. See, the fact that people seem to feel their vote doesn't count unless it is Democrat or Republican because "no one votes in the other parties" is EXACTLY why the Libertarian party, with some wonderful ideas and candidates. It is a shame that people only think their vote "means something" if their candidate wins.

Personally, I vote my conscience, which has made me a Libertarian for 20 years. I believe in Libertarian ideals and even if a Democrat or Republican looks like they are going to win, I still vote Libertarian, exception being Lindon LaRouche. I wouldn't have voted for that nutcake if he were the only one running.

Point: Voting for President is NOT like voting for Prom Queen. The latter is a popularity contest, the former is YOUR chance to speak YOUR mind, not an opportunity to join the largest herd of sheep.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-07 12:15am

Sobbastchianno wrote:
I am sorry Gil, but I disagree with you. See, the fact that people seem to feel their vote doesn't count unless it is Democrat or Republican because "no one votes in the other parties" is EXACTLY why the Libertarian party, with some wonderful ideas and candidates. It is a shame that people only think their vote "means something" if their candidate wins.

Personally, I vote my conscience, which has made me a Libertarian for 20 years. I believe in Libertarian ideals and even if a Democrat or Republican looks like they are going to win, I still vote Libertarian, exception being Lindon LaRouche. I wouldn't have voted for that nutcake if he were the only one running.

Point: Voting for President is NOT like voting for Prom Queen. The latter is a popularity contest, the former is YOUR chance to speak YOUR mind, not an opportunity to join the largest herd of sheep.

I agree with the basic concept there, but the fact is that the two-party system has always functioned, and always will function in American politics. The only realistic way to manage the Libertarian party would be to try and build it to sufficient strength that it was considered a threat to one of the major parties, and then fuse with that party on terms which created a more libertarian-oriented political platform for said party. This is what the various Populist parties did with the Democrats around the turn of the last century, and unless Browne is willing to pursue that course today, there's simply no point in voting Libertarian except for lower offices, or as a protest vote under very particular circumstances.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-07 12:19am

But lets face it, the most difficult thing for the Libertarian Party is a lack of a cohesive platform on the national level. I mean, in one state a Libertarian believes in deregulating business and cutting back welfrae; in another state they talk about letting civilians own nuclear weapons.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-07 12:52am

Coyote wrote:But lets face it, the most difficult thing for the Libertarian Party is a lack of a cohesive platform on the national level. I mean, in one state a Libertarian believes in deregulating business and cutting back welfrae; in another state they talk about letting civilians own nuclear weapons.

That is a problem. There really needs to be a coherent platform of the Libertarian Party--sheesh, the simple fact is that you need an organization, even if it is to preach more disorganization at a government level.. *crooked grin*--and they don't have one. Harry Browne is also, well, a bit of a kook.

There needs to be a coherent platform for federal goals, and then, in the areas that we can consider to be what the Libertarian Party thinks are States Rights, each State needs to have its own coherent goals as well.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-07 12:57am

Gil, I'd advise voting for the Libertarian party as a protest vote. I suspect they'll actually do pretty well this year--Nader did well in 2000 when Gore, the Green Candidate, was around, and in 2004 we have Bush, but with the obvious statist leanings of some of what the administration has done. (Nader himself was rather statist, for that matter--have you ever looked at his income tax proposals? They'd make me want to move to France)--and so I suspect a fair number of people will vote Libertarian, enough to make a bump, but not change the outcome. I mean, the best Democrat in the field is John Kerry--in terms of national appeal that is--and he's basically a Massachusetts Greek.. Except he's not Greek.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-07 01:01am

It would be nice if the Libertarian Party didn't focus so obsessively on the drug war. Libertarians need to go after the big fish first, like the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare, then we can worry about parlor costs like the Drug War.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-07 01:03am

Nader wasn't just rather statist, he is by far the most statist candidate to ever receive as much votes as he did. He would have jacked up the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour, made American corporations overseas pack up their bags and come home, and signed that insane Kyoto Treaty. He's a raving, maximalist, statist.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-07 01:05am

Durran Korr wrote:It would be nice if the Libertarian Party didn't focus so obsessively on the drug war. Libertarians need to go after the big fish first, like the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare, then we can worry about parlor costs like the Drug War.

The drug war is a HUGE cost when you consider it at all levels of government--not just the law enforcement aspect, but the education aspect, kinks it adds to dealing with drug patients in our hospitals, and of course the percentage of people in prison who have really done nothing wrong except run afoul of the "drug war"--and it gets even bigger when you consider the potential lost tax revenue we're not collecting from slapping a sin-tax on the stuff like we do with alcohol and cigarettes.

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-07-07 01:19am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:It would be nice if the Libertarian Party didn't focus so obsessively on the drug war. Libertarians need to go after the big fish first, like the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare, then we can worry about parlor costs like the Drug War.
The drug war is a HUGE cost when you consider it at all levels of government--not just the law enforcement aspect, but the education aspect, kinks it adds to dealing with drug patients in our hospitals, and of course the percentage of people in prison who have really done nothing wrong except run afoul of the "drug war"--and it gets even bigger when you consider the potential lost tax revenue we're not collecting from slapping a sin-tax on the stuff like we do with alcohol and cigarettes.

Dutchess, I couldn't agree with you more on this point. I believe drugs should be legal, taxed, licenses, etc. HOWEVER, I also believe that any addiction is totally the responsibility of the addict and should not be considered a "disability" for the purpose of gaining government benefits, etc. Sink or swim, which is the only way you can legalize substances like Cocaine, without creating a class of addicts.

If the consequences of use are more dire than they are today, I think that is an even better deterent. So, today you use, and you go to jail, which is three square meals a day, cable television, a roof over the head, airconditioned, all for free. However, if they are legal, and you become an addict and lose your job, your house, your family, and everything else, without ANY SORT of government bail-out, then you might think twice before you even start experimenting.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-07 03:54am

I would vote green f they had a chance....

The problem with voting your concience(sp) in a two party system, is that the person who can win, who best supports your views(in my case, the democratic candidate whoever that ends up being) loses your vote, and so you end up hurting your cause more than helping it...

If I voted green in the next election I would be HELPING shrub get re-elected. And he is the last person I want to see running this country for the next 4 years...

So, I am backing Dean

http://www.deanforamerica.com

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-07 04:09am

Im so voting for Dean..

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-07-07 04:17am

There are decent demos that will be on the ballot~ problem is they're relatively obscure faces that most people have never seen

Nader is a back-stabbing whore and he knows it. His political career is shot anyway. Is he even running?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-07 04:29am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
So, I am backing Dean

http://www.deanforamerica.com

Bush thanks you for supporting him. If Dean gets nominated to the Democratic ticket, Bush is going to sweep at least 90% of the electoral college. It'll be as bad as Mondale's presidential bid. The only Democratic candidate sufficiently centrist-presidential enough is Kerry, with the exception of Lieberman, who, of course, could never get the support of the Democratic elite. So it's either going to be Kerry and a remote semblence of a real contest, or somebody else and a landslide.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-07 05:14am

Why thank you for your opinon

I personally think Dean has a chance. If he wins the primaries it stands to reason that the Democrats will vote for him.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-07 05:57am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Why thank you for your opinon

I personally think Dean has a chance. If he wins the primaries it stands to reason that the Democrats will vote for him.

Yeah, and that's 30% of the electorate. But what about the centre? How much of it can he win? I don't think very much, to be honest.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-07 09:16am

My problem is this and I'm going to take my own advise here. When the 2000 elections were rolling around, it was my first vote for a president, as I had turned 18 recently. So did my friend Max, who decided he was going to vote Green (don't ask). So I asked him "Isn't that just voting for Bush?" He opened his mouth to tell me it was for Nader and then closed it, realizing what I meant. In a two party system like ours, a person has to vote within the system, or else they are obliquely voting for the party that they don't want to win.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-07 11:09am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Why thank you for your opinon

I personally think Dean has a chance. If he wins the primaries it stands to reason that the Democrats will vote for him.
Yeah, and that's 30% of the electorate. But what about the centre? How much of it can he win? I don't think very much, to be honest.

I'll have to disagree. The Iraq War aside, people are pissed off at the economy right now, and Dean tells it to them like it is, while the current administration has been rattling about how we're just "slowly coming out of a recession" for the past 6 months with no results to speak of and a climbing unemployment rate. He says that the country is in the shit right now, that someone needs to fix it and that that someone isn't George W. Bush. I think that Dean could catch a very good portion of the center if he gets media exposure, and he probably thinks the same thing. He's begun a media campaign and if I'm not mistaken, is the first candidate with TV ads.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-07 11:24am

The Democrats STILL have no front runner and they have such juicy issues to bash Bush with. Its disheartening when the best the opposition can come up with is a collection of Stooges. Personally, unless the economy heads south again Bush has this election locked up. He just has to remember the lessons hsi father failed to remember. IN the end foreign wars and national security ALWAYS come second to the economy and people's jobs.

Now if only the Democrats could seize on that the way Clinton did. It's fucking idiotic to bash Bush on whether there were WMD in Iraq or not because guess what? The vast majority of the Electrorate support the war at this point no matter what the circumstances. Wake up and see that your issue is staring you right in the face.

The main problem with the Democratic candidates is that they have to pander to the elite and powerful left wing of the party to get the nomination and sometimes to do this they have to make statements or stances that are really left wing and away from the center that come back to haunt them during the election. The Democrats' nomination system usually shoots the candadites in the foot before the race has even begun by forcing them to go far more to the left than Americans are comfortable with.

There have been notable exceptions, Bill Clinton refused to go left and remained firmly planted in the middle much to teh chagrin of the elite, went on to become one of the more popular presidents of this century and the Democractic Left STILL doesn't get it.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-07 02:23pm

I don't envy the fix the Democrats are in. They got burned in the 2002 midterms with wishy-washy positions and no clear platform other than "We're better than Republicans". The center believed the Republicans were the better choice for the country, especially on national security issues where Democrats always get clobbered (with good reason, IMHO). So now they're stuck: if they go to the center, the left wing which utterly loathes and despises Bush is going to revolt, on the grounds that going to the center cost them votes and the Democratic party needs to "get back to its roots" (i.e., fearmongering, class warfare, racial pandering, statism, etc., but I digress). But if they go left, they might as well hand the Republicans the moderate center on a silver platter--the fact of the matter is, mainstream America does NOT buy the radical left's message and never has, even in its heyday during the late 60s and early 70s.

Their best strategy would be, IMO, to go right on national security, moderate left on the economy, "sensible" gun control, pro-choice but anti-partial birth, tough punishment for corporate criminals but recognition that much of the middle class now invests (in other words, drop the Marxist all-investors-are-greedy-millionaire-swine rhetoric), health insurance reform, prescripion drugs through Medicare directly, promises not to mess with Social Security ("damn the future, we'll be dead by then anyway" is a shitty policy but it will, sadly, win votes), more Federal money for education, and "affirmative action that works", whatever the fuck that means, without racial preferences. Let the radica left stew in its own juices and vote for Nader if they're that unhappy. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats can survive a revolt from their hardcore base if they capture the center. This might not win them the Presidency, but that kind of message could win them Congress especially if the economy doesn't improve soon.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-07 03:32pm

I'll have to disagree. The Iraq War aside, people are pissed off at the economy right now, and Dean tells it to them like it is, while the current administration has been rattling about how we're just "slowly coming out of a recession" for the past 6 months with no results to speak of and a climbing unemployment rate. He says that the country is in the shit right now, that someone needs to fix it and that that someone isn't George W. Bush. I think that Dean could catch a very good portion of the center if he gets media exposure, and he probably thinks the same thing. He's begun a media campaign and if I'm not mistaken, is the first candidate with TV ads.

I don't know what Dean's plan for fixing the economy is, but I'm pretty sure that it won't work, since my guess is it will include more spending. A Dean Presidency would not fix the economy but such talk wins votes, I suppose. The only thing that could fix the economy are tax cuts and spending cuts - not these Lilliputian decreases with welfare checks tacked onto them, but real cuts.

I'm pretty sure Dean will be a disaster for the Dems if he gets the nomination. You can't grab the swing vote by pushing yourself to the left, usually, which Dean seems to happily be doing.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-07 04:08pm

i wonder what would happen if the popular votes turn up heavily in favor of the democratic candidate but the electorals turn up heavilly in favor of bush. you think supreme court would order bush out of office? what if they supported bush, how would the heavy majority of the US react? rioting? massive protests? outright rebellion?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-07 05:13pm

kojikun wrote:i wonder what would happen if the popular votes turn up heavily in favor of the democratic candidate but the electorals turn up heavilly in favor of bush. you think supreme court would order bush out of office? what if they supported bush, how would the heavy majority of the US react? rioting? massive protests? outright rebellion?

It's mathmatically impossible for the popular vote to be "heavily" in favor of the losing candidate. It's extremely difficult for the difference to even be statistically significant. That being said, should such a situation occur, the Supreme Court has no power to order that winner of the electoral vote out of office. Under the Constitution, the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes wins, period. Don't like it, pass an Amendment to change it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-07 05:30pm

kojikun wrote:i wonder what would happen if the popular votes turn up heavily in favor of the democratic candidate but the electorals turn up heavilly in favor of bush. you think supreme court would order bush out of office? what if they supported bush, how would the heavy majority of the US react? rioting? massive protests? outright rebellion?

Actually, there really is no enforcement mechanism for this kind of thing. The system assumes that candidates and incumbents will peacefully comply with it, which is why the Revolution of 1800 was such a big deal.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-07-07 06:07pm

Just a quick word about this "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate who probably won't win" bullshit:

IT'S NOT A FUCKING HORSE RACE!!!

You don't win squat if you correctly pick the winner. (unless of course you contributed shit loads of money to one candidate) If enough people bought into this 'wasted vote' crap 140 years ago, there would have been no Abraham Lincoln in the White House. How many more Lincolns will we pass up while we vote for more Dem and Rep clowns because we believe only they can win?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-07 06:43pm

Actually Dean s a rock solid fiscal conservative... socially liberal.. he will only put money into social programs and such if the country can afford it. Try looking at his platform before you make judgment based on political party...