if you are a liberal, you should be a registered democrat, end of story. whether you are left of the present democratic politicans - thats not the point.
nobody runs as an independent who would be more liberal than a democrat.
you'd have to invent a new party in order to accomplish your stated goal. ridiculous.
You think it's ridiculous because it would require a paradigm shift. I can guarantee that many other people would be willing to invest in it were they forced by the Democratic party to vote for Hillary.
Many voters would find installation of Hillary as the candidate incredibly alienating. I'd vote for her, but I'd have to hold my nose to do it, and would then consider devoting a substantial amount of my time and money over the next four years to working to develop a viable third party candidacy.
Jeb Bush?
I say we ride this lineage out till we elect the Satan-spawn offspring of a Clinton & Bush.
Where was the "liberal" Democratic Party after September 11 when Bush & Cheney hijacked the constitution and sunk us tits-deep into the Iraq war, torture, prison camps, tax cuts, trade deficits, and global warming??
Some principled politicians, like my former rep Barbara Lee out of Oakland, stood up to the administration and were chastised by their own party. I changed my registration around that time...
i think its ridiculous because you obviously never stopped to think why you are not a democrat. if the scenario you described were to occur, democrats wouldn't be abandoning the principles of the party (liberalism), but the chosen candidate. they could elect an independent who is a better democrat.
the party ideals are the left of every conservative position.
you don't seem to understand how "issues" become issues. democrats take the opposing view of republicans. its liberal v. conservative.
again, there is no present reason why you shouldn't be a registered democrat given your stated reasons for not being one. makes no sense.
if you are a liberal, you should be a registered democrat, end of story. whether you are left of the present democratic politicans - thats not the point.
nobody runs as an independent who would be more liberal than a democrat.
you'd have to invent a new party in order to accomplish your stated goal. ridiculous.
Nader. You have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances.
Where was the "liberal" Democratic Party after September 11 when Bush & Cheney hijacked the constitution and sunk us tits-deep into the Iraq war, torture, prison camps, tax cuts, trade deficits, and global warming??
Some principled politicians, like my former rep Barbara Lee out of Oakland, stood up to the administration and were chastised by their own party. I changed my registration around that time...
you are talking about specific politicans, not the party. there is nothing to the left of democrats. you would need to create your own party.
OR....VOTE FOR THE MOST LIBERAL CANDIDATES! they exist. and the more they get elected, the more that will be funded and run.
Nader. You have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances.
PLEASE. you too? the guy is a one issue egomaniac. thats your alternative to the democratic party. great.
I voted Nader in 2000 as well. I'd like to wade further into the morass that is your view on the two-party system, but my work pretty much limits me to very short responses, and I'd be doing the discussion a disservice by continuing on here. However, everyone but you seems to have it covered.
Where was the "liberal" Democratic Party after September 11 when Bush & Cheney hijacked the constitution and sunk us tits-deep into the Iraq war, torture, prison camps, tax cuts, trade deficits, and global warming??
Some principled politicians, like my former rep Barbara Lee out of Oakland, stood up to the administration and were chastised by their own party. I changed my registration around that time...
you are talking about specific politicans, not the party. there is nothing to the left of democrats. you would need to create your own party.
That's what you seem to not understand - I don't need my own party. I am anti-party. I don't feel like the Democratic Party is automatically more good or just. I don't feel more secure, looked after, or represented by affiliating with your party. I am quite happy with my independence and look forward to a time when there are more than just two viable parties. At that point, maybe I'll consider affiliating. My core beliefs have not changed; the parties blow with the wind. I have no desire to be a part of that.
i think its ridiculous because you obviously never stopped to think why you are not a democrat. if the scenario you described were to occur, democrats wouldn't be abandoning the principles of the party (liberalism), but the chosen candidate. they could elect an independent who is a better democrat.
the party ideals are the left of every conservative position.
you don't seem to understand how "issues" become issues. democrats take the opposing view of republicans. its liberal v. conservative.
again, there is no present reason why you shouldn't be a registered democrat given your stated reasons for not being one. makes no sense.
LOL, dude--you really sound ass-hurt at the idea of people not sharing your fervor for the party. On some Carville junior schitt. Are you going to call us all "Judases," next?
Nader. You have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances.
thats your alternative to the democratic party. great.
No, I was responding to you saying this:
nobody runs as an independent who would be more liberal than a democrat.
Again, you have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances. People who do not think that a particular party represents their views choose not to align themselves with that party. Makes perfect sense.
Getting the opportunity to vote in primary elections is not enough incentive for some people identify themselves with a party. Not a shocker really. Many states allow independents to vote in primaries anyway.
Nader. You have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances.
PLEASE. you too? the guy is a one issue egomaniac. thats your alternative to the democratic party. great.
???I???ve decided that talking to a conservative is like talking to a refrigerator. The light goes on; the light goes off. It isn???t going to do anything that isn???t built into it. And I???m not going to talk to a conservative any more than I???d talk to my damn refrigerator. Now, working for the democratic party, that???s kind of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.??? -Utah Philips
Getting the opportunity to vote in primary elections is not enough incentive for some people identify themselves with a party. Not a shocker really.
no, its just stupid.
there are a ton of reasons, including the Limbaugh crusade, that make it a good idea to require party affiliation be mandatory in primaries. and, whether you like it or not, there is no party that is more liberal than the democrats. so foregoing your right to have a say in who is elected is just retarded.
the response to my argument has been - oh, you just don't get it that we don't want to affiliate ourselves with a party that is not as liberal as we are. no, i do get it, but i think you are all morons. if you register as a dem, there is nothing that prohibits you from voting for an independent. moreover, even if the party restriction for primaries is inapplicable to your state - not only is there no party that is more liberal than the dems, but "independents" are historically to the right of dems (Lieberman is the perfect example, we ran him out of the party).
the only legitimate basis for not registering dem as a liberal would be if there really was a legitimate "green party". but f*cking Nader. please. a one-issue candidate? thats your liberal alternative to the democratic party.
Where was the "liberal" Democratic Party after September 11 when Bush & Cheney hijacked the constitution and sunk us tits-deep into the Iraq war, torture, prison camps, tax cuts, trade deficits, and global warming??
Some principled politicians, like my former rep Barbara Lee out of Oakland, stood up to the administration and were chastised by their own party. I changed my registration around that time...
you are talking about specific politicans, not the party. there is nothing to the left of democrats. you would need to create your own party.
That's what you seem to not understand - I don't need my own party. I am anti-party. I don't feel like the Democratic Party is automatically more good or just. I don't feel more secure, looked after, or represented by affiliating with your party. I am quite happy with my independence and look forward to a time when there are more than just two viable parties. At that point, maybe I'll consider affiliating. My core beliefs have not changed; the parties blow with the wind. I have no desire to be a part of that.
I have no use for political parties whatsoever and have no intention of ever joining one. I'll stick with being an unaffiliated independent and voting for the candidate I like best (which typically means "the candidate who is the least shitty").
I admit I am surprised you guys voted for Nader - was it because you lived in states that would go democratic no matter what, so you wanted to place a protest vote? Even though that holds true in Massachusetts, I still voted Gore just out of a desire to stack as many votes against Bush as possible.
I admit I am surprised you guys voted for Nader - was it because you lived in states that would go democratic no matter what, so you wanted to place a protest vote? Even though that holds true in Massachusetts, I still voted Gore just out of a desire to stack as many votes against Bush as possible.
That was it for me. But I voted Kerry in 2004 for the same reason you voted Gore in 2000. I figured it would help to demonstrate the failings of the electoral college if Bush once again lost the popular vote but won the presidency.
Don't the third parties get legitimized if they get a certain percentage of the vote at election time? And doesn't that allow them into the debates or something? Lemme know if im totally off base here.
Don't the third parties get legitimized if they get a certain percentage of the vote at election time? And doesn't that allow them into the debates or something? Lemme know if im totally off base here.
Third parties receive partial public funding if they receive 5% of the vote *after* the election. This also allows their party to participate in debates.
I admit I am surprised you guys voted for Nader - was it because you lived in states that would go democratic no matter what, so you wanted to place a protest vote?
In my case, yes. Had I lived in a state where the outcome wasn't already predetermined I would have voted for Gore.
I am with Paychex and Enki on this one, and I resent being told what I am obligated to do as a liberal independent.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
if you are saying your not a democrat because you are for Nader's Green Party...okay, i don't think that makes sense, but go 'head. dude is running in '08 and Obama is more conservative than Gore. So all those who voted for him in '00, i guess you have your candidate.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
Unless you identify completely with the platform of one of the two major parties, the sum of an individual's political beliefs cannot be plotted on a one-dimensional axis. For example, I believe in campaign finance reform, hold predominantly conservative financial views, support gay marriage and abortion, am a staunch environmentalist, and am completely against most forms of gun control. Where do I lie on your hypothetical line?
I am with Paychex and Enki on this one, and I resent being told what I am obligated to do as a liberal independent.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
Getting the opportunity to vote in primary elections is not enough incentive for some people identify themselves with a party. Not a shocker really.
no, its just stupid.
there are a ton of reasons, including the Limbaugh crusade, that make it a good idea to require party affiliation be mandatory in primaries. and, whether you like it or not, there is no party that is more liberal than the democrats. so foregoing your right to have a say in who is elected is just retarded.
the response to my argument has been - oh, you just don't get it that we don't want to affiliate ourselves with a party that is not as liberal as we are. no, i do get it, but i think you are all morons. if you register as a dem, there is nothing that prohibits you from voting for an independent. moreover, even if the party restriction for primaries is inapplicable to your state - not only is there no party that is more liberal than the dems, but "independents" are historically to the right of dems (Lieberman is the perfect example, we ran him out of the party).
the only legitimate basis for not registering dem as a liberal would be if there really was a legitimate "green party". but f*cking Nader. please. a one-issue candidate? thats your liberal alternative to the democratic party.
Comments
You think it's ridiculous because it would require a paradigm shift. I can guarantee that many other people would be willing to invest in it were they forced by the Democratic party to vote for Hillary.
Jeb Bush?
I say we ride this lineage out till we elect the Satan-spawn offspring of a Clinton & Bush.
Some principled politicians, like my former rep Barbara Lee out of Oakland, stood up to the administration and were chastised by their own party. I changed my registration around that time...
the party ideals are the left of every conservative position.
you don't seem to understand how "issues" become issues. democrats take the opposing view of republicans. its liberal v. conservative.
again, there is no present reason why you shouldn't be a registered democrat given your stated reasons for not being one. makes no sense.
Nader. You have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances.
you are talking about specific politicans, not the party. there is nothing to the left of democrats. you would need to create your own party.
OR....VOTE FOR THE MOST LIBERAL CANDIDATES! they exist. and the more they get elected, the more that will be funded and run.
faux - please defend your Nader vote!!
PLEASE. you too? the guy is a one issue egomaniac. thats your alternative to the democratic party. great.
I voted Nader in 2000 as well. I'd like to wade further into the morass that is your view on the two-party system, but my work pretty much limits me to very short responses, and I'd be doing the discussion a disservice by continuing on here. However, everyone but you seems to have it covered.
Kirk out.
That's what you seem to not understand - I don't need my own party. I am anti-party. I don't feel like the Democratic Party is automatically more good or just. I don't feel more secure, looked after, or represented by affiliating with your party. I am quite happy with my independence and look forward to a time when there are more than just two viable parties. At that point, maybe I'll consider affiliating. My core beliefs have not changed; the parties blow with the wind. I have no desire to be a part of that.
LOL, dude--you really sound ass-hurt at the idea of people not sharing your fervor for the party. On some Carville junior schitt. Are you going to call us all "Judases," next?
No, I was responding to you saying this:
Again, you have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances. People who do not think that a particular party represents their views choose not to align themselves with that party. Makes perfect sense.
Getting the opportunity to vote in primary elections is not enough incentive for some people identify themselves with a party. Not a shocker really. Many states allow independents to vote in primaries anyway.
???I???ve decided that talking to a conservative is like talking to a refrigerator. The light goes on; the light goes off. It isn???t going to do anything that isn???t built into it. And I???m not going to talk to a conservative any more than I???d talk to my damn refrigerator. Now, working for the democratic party, that???s kind of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.???
-Utah Philips
no, its just stupid.
there are a ton of reasons, including the Limbaugh crusade, that make it a good idea to require party affiliation be mandatory in primaries. and, whether you like it or not, there is no party that is more liberal than the democrats. so foregoing your right to have a say in who is elected is just retarded.
the response to my argument has been - oh, you just don't get it that we don't want to affiliate ourselves with a party that is not as liberal as we are. no, i do get it, but i think you are all morons. if you register as a dem, there is nothing that prohibits you from voting for an independent. moreover, even if the party restriction for primaries is inapplicable to your state - not only is there no party that is more liberal than the dems, but "independents" are historically to the right of dems (Lieberman is the perfect example, we ran him out of the party).
the only legitimate basis for not registering dem as a liberal would be if there really was a legitimate "green party". but f*cking Nader. please. a one-issue candidate? thats your liberal alternative to the democratic party.
I have no use for political parties whatsoever and have no intention of ever joining one. I'll stick with being an unaffiliated independent and voting for the candidate I like best (which typically means "the candidate who is the least shitty").
you lived in states that would go democratic no matter what, so you
wanted to place a protest vote? Even though that holds true in Massachusetts,
I still voted Gore just out of a desire to stack as many votes against Bush
as possible.
That was it for me. But I voted Kerry in 2004 for the same reason you voted Gore in 2000. I figured it would help to demonstrate the failings of the electoral college if Bush once again lost the popular vote but won the presidency.
With that said, McCain will be the next president, and i'm slightly pissed (understatement).
This race is far from run.
Third parties receive partial public funding if they receive 5% of the vote *after* the election. This also allows their party to participate in debates.
For more info:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml
I'm saying. People keep telling me to vote for this Obama guy like he's the answer. I mean, fools won't shut up about it. Leave me alone already.
In my case, yes. Had I lived in a state where the outcome wasn't already predetermined I would have voted for Gore.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
if you are saying your not a democrat because you are for Nader's Green Party...okay, i don't think that makes sense, but go 'head. dude is running in '08 and Obama is more conservative than Gore. So all those who voted for him in '00, i guess you have your candidate.
We support Ron Paul for President in 2008
Who do I apologize to and where do I contribute $20 USD to balance things out?
Unless you identify completely with the platform of one of the two major parties, the sum of an individual's political beliefs cannot be plotted on a one-dimensional axis. For example, I believe in campaign finance reform, hold predominantly conservative financial views, support gay marriage and abortion, am a staunch environmentalist, and am completely against most forms of gun control. Where do I lie on your hypothetical line?
Just stop.
*sigh*