Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Are Democrats REALLY That STUPID?

▼

Are Democrats REALLY That STUPID?

from JoeUser Forums

I'm sorry, folks. I'm about to get a brain hemmhorage from beating my head against the wall here.

After reading the 5000th repetition of why I "wasted my vote" for voting for the candidate I believed in, I am astounded by the apparent stupidity of the Democrats who patronize this site. Now, I don't believe in the Republican Party platform, but as a rule, the Republicans and conservatives on this site have not made repeated ignorant attacks on me and my party.

For those who don't know, I am a Libertarian through and through. I believe in the party platform, believe in the candidates we put forth, and am even planning to make a run next year for city council to further advance the party.

As a Libertarian, I have seen at least 100 different arguments on why my position is "stupid", "ignorant", or a "wasted vote". I cannot help but conclude that, since those arguments have been made almost EXCLUSIVELY by Democrats and/or liberals, that it is a desperate attempt to try to shame myself and other third party supporters into rending our support to the DNC, no matter how inane or inept the candidates they present.

Until the Democrats decide to modify their platform into a platform that can support a wider diversity than their current ever narrowing platform, and until they can abandon the EXTREME negativity that is so characteristic of many of their members (check out the Democrat Underground for examples), they will continue to find themselves fractured and the support of their members waning. They have pretty much told their moderates "we don't need you", they've taken a similar position regarding the religious elements of their party by rallying around causes that all but the most liberal Christian finds themself having a hard time supporting. This is AT LEAST the tenth time I have stated this, and I have seen similar statements by many others, INCLUDING former Clinton advisor Dick Morris.

But it falls on deaf ears. Apparently, according to these folks, I should abandon my core principles and vote for a Democrat regardless of how much I disagree with their position. Makes sense, huh?

politics
12,887 views 39 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
Any argument for getting rid of the Electoral College is made out of either a complete ignorance of our system, or a total disregard for it.


Excuse me for appending my previous reply to this quote. Today, if you are in a very, very "Red" state (big or small) the "Blue" guy doesn't spend much time there. Of course, the reverse is also true. The reason? If he gets 20% or 49.995% of your "Other Color" state ... he loses. If, on the other hand, he can get a higher percentage from your state, he is far more likely to show up. John Kennedy did not even campaign in a number of states because he knew that his being Catholic meant he'd lose the state anyway (which, by the way, he did lose very, very big). Now, if he felt instead that he could get more votes by showing up ... he would have.

:p
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

They have a platform that the government should do nothing except promote inidividual freedoms.

Yes and no. We believe in MINARCHIST government, and a government that does not employ force. One of the reasons I believe the LP's platform is so relevant (primarily on a federal level) is that we are such a diverse nation with diverse interests, and trying to put those interests under a broad federal umbrella is counterproductive. I have seen microsocialist (for definition of microsocialism vs macrosocialism, please archive my article entitled same) enterprises work quite effectively in inner cities. But the dynamics of rural vs. urban poverty are quite different, and the needs of different communities and different regions are likewise different. If we continue to enable a larger federal government, individual freedoms will be LESSENED and oppression will be more likely. If, however, we encourage a minarchist federal government and return many decisions to the state and local level (ironically enough, as the Constitution INTENDED it to be), we will see a society in which the needs of the individual are best met.

Whoman, frankly, you are one of the WORST representatives of your party. You have in many ways shown EXACTLY why I want NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party whatsoever. Perhaps you would prefver if I voted Republican?

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

I've only been on this board a couple weeks but I haven't seen any of that...if I see it, I'll suggest they back off. But at this point, to me, you are starting to sound like moderateman junior. (And that's not good).

Oh really? For one, you haven't read enough of my articles if you think I sound like moderateman junior. But, to hold you to your promise, how's this?

Tell me again why your vote for Bednarik was any more important than writing in Mickey Mouse? They had about an equal chance of winning.

I could bring up other examples from my archives, but...you get the picture.

Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
Whoman, frankly, you are one of the WORST representatives of your party. You have in many ways shown EXACTLY why I want NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party whatsoever. Perhaps you would prefver if I voted Republican?


Go ahead vote your conscience then. But in many elections a primary is held to limit the people receiving votes in the election that counts to 2. Giving us a couple dozen choices for President does not make the system better. It simply means that those who go beyond the first two choice have in essense said they are willing to throw away their vote. I know the Libertarians have tried to get elected officials in at the lower levels of government, and I applaud that. But until they are sucessful in doing so, don't mind me if I call them irrelevent on a national level. What is their peak % of the vote they have received? I'm guessing from 4-5 %. You ran 219 house races but received just over a million votes, on average 4500 votes, nowhere near enough for election. I would have to guess that a majority of their candidates have zero experience in government. Why should they expect to win? Your party has had some success on the local levels. They need to use that to gain success on a state level and then from there move to national offices. Your own presidential candidate, Michael Bednarik did not even win the libertarian primaries and was nominated mostly on his performance at a pre convention debate. He has not served in any elected office since college. He ran twice for state legislature from Austin, Texas and did not win.
How would a Libertarian President govern with no people of his party in congress? Frankly, if a party has no members of congress, they do not deserve consideration for President. The Reform Party was all about Ross Perot and his disagreement with Republicans on the budget. His coattails did not include any other people elected to office. George Wallace formed his party to voice his displeasure with Democrats for doing away with their segregationalist past. In the next election, he was back again running Democrat. Similarly, the Bull Moose party was all about TR and his displeasure with his own hand picked successor. Once again no members of congress were elected to back him up. In all these examples, the party did not make a 2nd serious run and was disbanded. The Reform party continues on in some macabre way, but to go from Perot to Ralph Nader shows they were only interested in placing someone with a name at the top of the ticket and not concerned with the issues involved.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

How would a Libertarian President govern with no people of his party in congress?

Whoman,

What's interesting, is this comment reflects your selective reading tendencies. I have blogged repeatedly on my proposed strategies for the LP, and those strategies focus on 2006, rather than 2008. The reason being is that it is crucial for the parety to make a statement by running strong and obtaining winnable seats to build support for the latter year's presidential race. I am even throwing my hat in the ring for next spring's city council run to support my party, so I AM putting my money where my mouth is.

As to who "deserves" the office of the president, I think it is, quite simply, the man who is chosen.

I do thank you for your points, as points such as the one quoted above are VERY valid points, and issues that must be addressed if the LP is to gain support.

Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top


What's interesting, is this comment reflects your selective reading tendencies. I have blogged repeatedly on my proposed strategies for the LP, and those strategies focus on 2006, rather than 2008. The reason being is that it is crucial for the parety to make a statement by running strong and obtaining winnable seats to build support for the latter year's presidential race. I am even throwing my hat in the ring for next spring's city council run to support my party, so I AM putting my money where my mouth is.


The fact remains that they don't even have anyone in office higher than city council except for some governor appointed boards in Florida. They are not even in a position to have people run for congress because they have nobody in state legislatures, which are a springboard to congress. They have no mayors elected either. I applaud that unlike other parties they are running people for the lower offices. However, they are still not in a position to fill even one spot in national congress. I did some further checking on that one million vote figure they had for their congressional candidates. They often run against entrenched incumbents where either the Democrats or Republicans chose not to oppose. In those elections they would get 20K votes but still only receive 15 % of the votes. If the Libertarians can become a significant party, I'm all for it. They're not there yet.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Sunday, February 20, 2005"few nut case they love to harp on" have emerged as the voice of, and leadership of the party.I suppose you mean that Ted Kennedy is the spokesman as Ann Coulter is the spokesperson for the repubs.


the big difference is... drunken ted is an "elder statesman and a elected senator, while my sweet ann is an author and commentater.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ProgressiveUSAPosted: Sunday, February 20, 2005


I've only been on this board a couple weeks but I haven't seen any of that...if I see it, I'll suggest they back off. But at this point, to me, you are starting to sound like moderateman junior. (And that's not good).


this comming out of no where once again using an AD HOMININ ATTACK againsts me filled with VITROLIC HYPERBOLE, for absolutely no reason.Yet you wonder why I never let up on you weak minded liberals? I have seen your plotting posts on another site, the one from the female satan plotting against me. I see you for what you are. weak, cowardly and sneaky, needing allies to brawl with me. YOU should change your blog name to dabesbitchboy.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
this comming out of no where once again using an AD HOMININ ATTACK againsts me filled with VITROLIC HYPERBOLE, for absolutely no reason.Yet you wonder why I never let up on you weak minded liberals? I have seen your plotting posts on another site, the one from the female satan plotting against me. I see you for what you are. weak, cowardly and sneaky, needing allies to brawl with me. YOU should change your blog name to dabesbitchboy.


Lighten up, Francis.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
Hear here, Gid!

100%

- X
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm surprised that there are actually people that think that people should vote for the lesser of two evils and not the best candidates.