Hey I got an idea--DU'ers lets vote in 2008

[againes654]

regardless of who the nomination goes to. Regardless of what they stand for (or don't stand for). Regardless of what corporations are in their pocket. Regardless of if they will change the direction of this country. Regardless of what senseless wars they will continue/start. Regardless of their health care plan.

If you choose not to vote in 08, you are stupid, un-American, and have no right to complain. :sarcasm:


I am sick of this shit! Stop telling me how to vote, and who to vote for. You can suggest, but stop ramming your candidate down my effin throat.

[TheUniverse]

1. Yes I will vote,

But once democrats control the Prez and the congress, I want them to do us a favor. End the 2 party system, and instate an instant runoff election or something similiar. If people had more legitimate choices, maybe voter turnout would be higher.

[againes654]

3. Well, while I agree that the 2 party system has to go

the Dems nor the Repukes will fight for that. That would enable the real politicans to actually have a chance, and the HRC's of this world can't have that.

[JackRiddler]

60. I have an idea - vote in 2008

And enough of the campaign nonsense in 2007!

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. That won't be happening.

I've personally tried to get someone in the party to pay attention to instant run-off through a couple different groups I've belonged to and on my own as well. They apparently don't care. That is why I dismiss all the hatred around here for people who would consider a third party vote. The Dem party wants a 2-party duopoly. They know they can count on their party loyalist robots to shout down anyone who thinks for themselves and that is they way they prefer it. It has been 7 years since Nader and no national push for anything to solve the problem. The conclusion is obvious.

[Rhythm and Blue]

2. We're not telling you who to vote for, or how to vote.

We're saying if you don't vote, you're stupid. I would say that is a fair statement. I would extend that to "If you vote for anyone but the Republican or the Democratic candidate, you care more about making an impotent statement than you do about actually changing anything."

[againes654]

5. Yeah, the name calling works for me

that is going to convience me. Thanks

What in the hell gives you or anyone else the right to call me stupid?

[Rhythm and Blue]

11. If you're not voting, I think it's justified.

By not voting, you are saying, "I fundamentally do not care about what happens to this country or to me. I don't really think that it's worth my time to add my voice to our representative system." That is gravely irresponsible.

However, since you're posting on DU, you do care about what happens. It's not a matter of failing to recognize the gravity of the situation and the power of the vote; it's that you are willingly abandoning the only tool you have to change it. Therefore, you're more saying, "I choose to allow other people to set my fate. You see, I am upset about the power moneyed interests have, and so I elect to hand over to them what power I still have." That is stupid.

It isn't exactly my responsibility to have to pat you on the back and tell you not voting is an intelligent decision. Get offended if you like.

[againes654]

15. No, and since you don't know me you couldn't know this

but I have principles, morals, and convictions. I refuse to vote for a DLC, corporate loving candidate that will not help me and my family stay out of the poor house. I refuse to vote for a candidate that won't promise to end the damn war in Iraq, and promise me that they won't start another stupid war with Iran. I refuse to vote for a candidate that won't get insurance companies out of the health care system. Shall I continue.

See I prefer to sleep well at night, and I am tired of hearing that just because a person has a D behind their name, they are good. Now that is stupid. Supporting someone just because of the party the supposedly support. That is the same as me voting for Obama just because he is black, and we see what white men have done. That is backward logic. HRC knows people will "hold their nose and vote for her" because she is "the lesser of 2 evils". Why should she please the left, they will vote for her no matter what.

[Rhythm and Blue]

24. All right, sleep well

knowing that you've enabled the greater of two evils. That plan worked really really well for the Naderites in 2000, didn't it? Everything's so much better since Bush won and not Gore. I'm sure you're really glad those 70,000 votes didn't end up in Gore's corporate-infested pockets. Nader voters really showed the Democrats that they need to please the left.

Wait, no. They actually showed the Democrats that they need to go for the center, because the left is fickle and throws spiteful fits. Look at the political fabric of the nation. The hardcore conservatives always vote Republican. Guess who gets the meat at the Republican table? They do. The hardcore liberals often don't vote, and often vote for third parties. Guess who gets ignored at the Democratic table?

Keep throwing away your vote if you like. You're throwing away what little power you have to change the situation. And that, dear warrior, is stupid.

[againes654]

26. Yeah, Nader is why Gore didn't win

silly me I thought that bushco stole the election.

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. Bush did steal it.

But could not have stolen it if there were 70,000 more votes in Gore's camp. The final tally was close enough that they could swipe it. 70k more Gore votes? Not a chance.

Everything that's happened in the last eight years is, to some extent, on Nader and the people who voted for him. We warned the Naderites what would happen. They didn't listen. It happened. Don't make the same mistake in '08.

[Imperialism Inc.]

36. And the party has had 7 years since then and has done nothing

about it. Any reasonable person would conclude it is because they don't want to. They would rather rely on people such as yourself to claim the problem is people voting their convictions.

[Rhythm and Blue]

38. About what?

About election reform? Rather difficult as the minority party. About pleasing the fickle wing of the Democratic party? They've done plenty about that--they've moved towards the center.

Don't vote for them, and they won't bother trying to please you.

[Imperialism Inc.]

45. Maybe they should just outlaw being a Republican.

After all, anyone on the left who doesn't think the Dems are the best thing since sliced bread are just part of the fickle wing of the party and really don't deserve a right to vote their convictions. And by that logic the same should go for Republicans who are surely even more confused that those darned fickle lefties.

Keep on diggin' R&B.

[Rhythm and Blue]

47. Nobody's saying you have to like what they're doing.

That's what primaries are for: to tell the party that you don't like the direction it's going in. If Obama or Edwards or anyone else manages to beat HRC, it'll be a wake-up call to the corporate wing. Dean's insurgent run may have technically failed, but it surely made an impression--look who chairs the DNC now.

And right now, all the Republicans are falling over themselves trying to attract conservative support, because that's who is most reliable in the general election. That's who volunteers and gets out the vote and donates and votes party line every time. Vote for the best guys in the primary, and they'll affect what they do in the general. Vote for the party in the general, and they'll listen to you in the primary.

Nobody's telling you that your stupid decisions ought to be illegalized. It is perfectly legal to do things that are counter to your interests.

[Imperialism Inc.]

48. To me,that's what democracy is for.

But then I'm from the loony left and all...

[againes654]

49. The primaries are a bunch of crap

[againes654]

37. Whatever

last time I checked this country didn't elect the POTUS on the popular vote. Do you know what states those 70,000 votes would have come from? Do you know how those 70,000 break up state by state? Are you POSITIVE that bushco wouldn't have done something about those 70,000?

The truth is that you have no idea whether Gore would have won with 70,000 more votes. That is not a convincing argument IMO.

Next....

[Rhythm and Blue]

41. I'm referring to the 70,000 votes that Nader got in Florida.

(Actually, it was 90,000; I misremembered.) All that would have had to happen for Gore to win would be if 1% of them went to him. If ONE PERCENT of the Nader voters had decided that the fate of the nation was more important than making a hissy "statement," the last seven years would have been very, very different.

You just stepped in a steaming pile of fail.

[Klaxon]

28. Amen

[Imperialism Inc.]

13. And if you are a national party that doesn't promote instant runoff voting

then you care more about keeping a 2-party duopoly than you do about democracy.

[Rhythm and Blue]

14. I would say that both national parties do indeed want a 2-party system.

I don't think anyone would ever suggest that the Democrats really want a multiparty system.

[Imperialism Inc.]

18. I don't know. I think if individual people realized that then they

wouldn't use the "vote for a dem or you are really voting for a repub" line. If there is a solution to the 3-party spoiler effect (instant runoff), and the party being most hurt by the spoiler effect isn't promoting it, then they really have no leg to stand on.

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. Not voting for a Dem isn't quite voting for a Republican.

It's more giving 0.5 votes to the Republican, as the net effect of two Dems not voting for the Democrat is the same as 1 Dem switching their vote to the Republican.

I wouldn't mind seeing IRV, personally, but it would have to start at the local level and work its way up; local politics is more responsive to people pressure than national politics is.

[Imperialism Inc.]

30. The national party could easily drive the process.

I'm not buying that lame excuse.

[Rhythm and Blue]

33. It could, yes. But it won't.

Because it won't vote to surrender its own power to a third party. There's no excuse; it's just not in the Party's interests, even though it's in ours. Better to join a local election-reform group and petition your city.

[againes654]

40. "it's just not in the Party's interests, even though it's in ours"

Do you see the irony of your statement. Isn't the Democratic party supposed to do what is in the peoples interests?

[Rhythm and Blue]

44. There's no irony at all.

The Democratic party is a political organization. What is in its interest is not always what is in the interest of the people. The Democratic party is supposed to get itself elected. It does that by appealing to voters and passing legislation that people like. However, it cannot be expected to pass legislation that hurts its own power. We might expect it to do so, but it won't on its own. We can't assume that it will do what we want it to simply by complaining.

To change the electoral system, you need to apply massive political pressure. And that works best by starting at the local level; this is not something the Dems will help you with at the national level, so don't get your hopes up. 500,000 people saying "We want IRV!" on the internet is ignorable. 30,000 people signing a petition in a city of 80,000--well, that gets you somewhere.

[againes654]

50. WTF?

"The Democratic party is a political organization. What is in its interest is not always what is in the interest of the people."


Well, I am lost them. Fuck the little people, the Dems have to get elected. That is the most important thing. :wtf:

[CT_Progressive]

4. I'm not ramming any candidate down your throat.

I'm ramming the letter (D) down your throat, regardless of who that candidate turns out to be.

Vote (D), or suffer a fate worse than any (D) candidate you currently hate.

Simple as that.

[againes654]

7. No it isn't that simple

but if it is to you, I won't call you petty names.

[CT_Progressive]

56. Yes, it is that simple.

You have two choices:

Choice A) Allowing a Republican to win, by you not voting, or not casting a vote for a (D). Dems need veto-proof majority in congress to get work done, are forced to compromise with (R)s to pass any legislation we all want passed.

Choice B) Holding your fucking nose and voting (D) no matter what. Allows congress to pass important, liberal legislation with simply majority votes.


Wow, amazingly simple, isn't it?

[againes654]

57. So simply stated this is what you are telling me

IF I hold my nose and vote D in 08 congress will pass said bills? Is this a guarantee?

[CT_Progressive]

64. Its a guarentee an (R) won't.

[againes654]

65. Oh

that makes me feel better.:sarcasm:
Sorry, but I want better than just "not a R"

[Rex]

6. Okay if you say so, 5 minutes ago I was dead set against voting

but now I will vote, someone else tell me what to do please!

[trumad]

9. Damn!!! I almost had you.

[Rex]

19. No, no! I'm very gullible!

Don't give up so easy! Did something happen to make me want to not vote!? Keep me worried!

[Swamp Rat]

17. DON'T DO IT REX!!!!!!!!

Smother yourself with a thick layer of peanut butter, stick in chunks of chocolate, and call yourself a Rex Reese's Chunky Chub. :9 :D

Whatever you do, don't go running down the aisle at the Democratic Convention 2008 screaming, "I'm a Rex Reese's Chunky Chub! Bite me!" ;)

PLEASE don't DO IT! :evilgrin:

[Rex]

21. You supply the peanut butter

and consider it done!











Disclaimer: Rex will not be held mentally responsible for the damage done to innocent bystanders and local fauna.

[Swamp Rat]

23. It's a deal!

Disclaimer: Swamp Rat will not be held mentally. :D

[Rex]

29. The Truth will set you free.

No mental shackles will hold you back! At least it will be more interesting to talk about than some boring Dem lecture tones-grade pundit boring the crap out of us with platitudes and jingoism to a higher power.

Won't you think of the trees, Swamp Rat? :D

[Swamp Rat]

34. Forget the trees, I'm thinking about whipped cream and lemon meringue pies.

[Rex]

42. Oh man!

:rofl: Moments that deserve to be caught forever in time!

[TwilightZone]

10. Think for yourself.

If you think that people are telling you how to vote, it doesn't mean that you have to listen.

That being said, if you expect no one to suggest, even strongly, that it's important that Democrats be elected to office at various levels of government in 2008, including the presidency, you might be on the wrong web site. That's kind of the idea here.

[againes654]

20. If they were actual Democrats

that support the good of the country, I am all for it. Matter of fact, I support most Democrats. There are a few that I feel don't support democratic values. I won't vote for those people.

[TwilightZone]

32. It's your choice.

Do not expect, however, that everyone on a web site with a stated purpose of getting Democrats elected is going to agree with your decision.

[againes654]

51. I don't

but they should expect me to agree with their views either. We are still free right?

[TwilightZone]

61. True.

Life would be pretty boring if everyone had the same opinions on everything.

[Individualist]

12. Cult behavior is good!

Party uber alles! Anyone who doesn't vote for the nominee is voting for a republican!

obvious :sarcasm:

Gotta wonder if people have actually deluded themselves into believing that condescending crap will persuade people to their way of thinking!

[DaveJ]

16. I wonder what would cause someone not to vote

Do people really KNOW which candidate will get us out of the M.E. sooner, or which one actually will follow through with a health care plan? I doubt it. So, I'd really like to know how some people think they can predict the future with such confidence.

[againes654]

25. Obviously no one KNOWS anything for sure,

but we can see who will MOST LIKELY. I would like to be as sure as I possibly can. Since my family has no health insurance, and can't afford insurance, I would like to be fairly certain that my next president will help me out with that.

[DaveJ]

35. The only thing certain is that a Republican Admin won't do a thing

If we get a Democratic in the executive office Democratic bills drafted by people you do like will be more likely to pass without being vetoed. I would think that would be enough to prevent someone from withholding their vote.

[againes654]

52. Unless those bills drafted by people that I do like

upset the corporate interests of the DLC president, then how sure are you they wouldn't get vetoed?

[depakid]

39. In some cases, it's learned helplessness

They don't think they make a difference- that politicians are all the same- and that no matter who they for (or against) things won't get any better for them.

Unfortunately, all too often, that notion gets reinforced when offices and legislatures change hands and it looks to them that they've been proven right.

[DaveJ]

46. Or they get what they need, but maybe not in the way it's expected

For instance, if the healthcare problem is looked after, I really doubt it's realistic to think the federal government will just one day say 'alright everyone, healthcare is free for all!' Granted, That would be VERY NICE, but it's more likely to happen a different way. At any rate, it's not just the POTUS who decides what's going to happen but the entire Congress and Senate. Repbulicans on the other hand, will just make things worse. I can't believe people would risk letting power back into that party's hands.

[againes654]

54. I live in Texas

please tell me how I actually make one iota difference? Please tell me how HRC will help make things better for me.

[hfojvt]

22. open wide and say ahhh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaGtfWxQ9ak

There may be some slight discomfort as I ram John Edwards down your throat, but it'll be over in less than a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI

[question everything]

43. It is the Supreme Court, Stupid!

Seems like we have to repeat this on every post.

After so many years of Republican White House, the court is finally tilted right, but just so. There will be at least one, if not three vacancies in the next couple of years, all of liberals.

So stay home, do not vote for the Democratic nominee and you will be happy that you've helped Bush achieved his "legacy" of a Court full of "Thomases and Scalias."

And you won't have to keep DU and Daily Kos and others in your bookmarks. Or watch the Today Show and Countdown. They will be shut down in the name of "security." And if you are lucky, you will not be sent to jail for expressing your opinion.

There are many here who refers to our country as a "fascist" or a "Police State." Wait until the Supreme Court is full of Republican appointees and then you will see what a fascist government really means.

But, hey, you can rot in jail happy that you are a "purist." Or you will just cave in and abandon your opinions and say "who me? oh that was a joke. I LOVE big brother."

[againes654]

55. Thanks STUPID, I didn't even read what you actually

had to say, because you resort to fucking name calling.

[question everything]

63. You were not around in 1992, were you?

when Clinton won with "It's the economy, stupid?"

[againes654]

66. Well techniclly I was "around"

but I was a freshman in HS, so I didn't pay much attention to the actual issues, and what happened in the campaigns.

[bpeale]

53. if one of our well-known dem candidates

started a 3rd party, we'd have a chance ... especially if they had a huge following or people got behind them & pushed. but there is absolutely no chance of that happening if people won't support that breakaway candidate.

[Bake]

58. You do whatever you please. I'm voting for the Democrat.

Simple as that. The era of Repub control has got to end. The Supreme Court matters.

One more Repub presidency and we've lost the Court for a GENERATION. That means Roe v Wade gone. Wiretapping? No warrant? No problem. Individual rights? Gone. Free speech? Gone.

Bake

[againes654]

59. There is really only one that I wouldn't vote for

I am not so sure that she would really imporve the SCOTUS, are you?

[Bake]

62. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she would.

I'm confident that a President Clinton would not nominate a Scalia, Roberts, or Alito. Let me recommend a book, Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine," which is eminently readable and describes the interaction of politics and SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court really matters. What makes you think a President Clinton WOULD nominate the same kind of justices that we've gotten lately?

Bake

[mmonk]

67. A recommend for your awareness and passion.