The Green Party Must DIE

GoodSpeak · July-2nd-2007, 09:36 PM

I don't care what it takes or who it hurts...the Green Party must die a slow and painful DEATH.

We have Bush [not once, but twice] and the quagmire in Iraq....a country we should have never invaded. The next time you jackasses get a wild hair, scratch it with your finger, not your vote.

We had a chance to change the World with Gore then Kerry, fer crissakes, but you fucking blew it with your vote for Ralph "consumer Advocate" Nader. Now we are in a quagmire in Iraq, the environment is wantonly polluted and Lidddy takes a walk. ENRON, what ENRON, you jerks. We had a chance to completely undermine the republican jihad, but no....you had to vote for the Pat Paulsen of politics: Ralph "I couldn't' t win a game of jacks" Nader.

Thanks one hell of a lot.

DAMN you Greens!

Each and every one of your ignorant asses.

Jeffrey Wozniak · July-2nd-2007, 09:38 PM

Kerry would have lost even with the Green vote.

Pete C · July-2nd-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Kerry would have lost even with the Green vote.

And Gore won despite it.

Jeffrey Wozniak · July-2nd-2007, 10:16 PM

Damn Electoral College!!!!

Ron Thorne · July-2nd-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Now we are in a quagmire in Iraq, the environment is wantonly polluted and Lidddy takes a walk.

Lidddy (sic) and Libby are similar names alright.

One walked, the other didn't -- at least not so quickly. I think each of them were polluted, too, come to think of it.

Monte Smith · July-2nd-2007, 10:32 PM

As a Nader supporters supporter in 2008, I have never been so offended by a thread.

Greens is have it goin' on!

Third Party, baby!

Sandi22 · July-2nd-2007, 10:38 PM

Ralph Nader is running again isn't he? Someone said this to me yesterday.

Tom Storer · July-3rd-2007, 04:27 AM

The blame-small-parties position is peculiar to the two-party system... it holds that small parties unable to win the election should throw their weight behind the major party they like best, rather than actually fielding a candidate. I don't buy it. Why should the Green Party exist at all if it doesn't have candidates? If you have the right to run for President, as Nader did, for example, you can't say he's at fault for exercising that right. Either you have a democracy or you don't.

It's up to the candidates to get as many votes as possible--if they don't get enough, it's their responsibility, not their opponent's fault. Put another way, it's not Nader's or any third-party candidate's responsibility to win votes for another candidate.

And I say this as one who dearly wishes Bush had never won an election. But if I'm going to blame a candidate for losing, I'll blame the candidate who lost.

Gary Sisco · July-3rd-2007, 08:09 AM

No one owes the dim or repug parties anything.

I'm with Tom. If a "major" party can't swing more than a third of the vote from its own loyalists, it's nobody else's fault. Nothing gets in the way of organizing in the US. If a party hasn't sufficient base to win on its own, it's nobody's fault but the party's. Period.

burning dog · July-3rd-2007, 08:12 AM

Could be that many who vote for small parties wouldn't vote at all if they didn't exist.

Brian Olewnick · July-3rd-2007, 08:42 AM

Please stop complicating Goody's thesis, guys.

Nim Chimpsky · July-3rd-2007, 08:58 AM

I blame Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford myself. Out, damned chad! out, I say!

burning dog · July-3rd-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

I blame Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford myself. Out, damned chad! out, I say!

O,beware my lord, of jealousy;
It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.

Gary Sisco · July-3rd-2007, 09:09 AM

Burning Dog is right, by the way. It's arrogant as all hell to assume that people who vote for alternative parties would have voted dim (or repug) if they weren't on the ballot.

I've not voted dim or repug in a presidential election, yet, since '72. I don't approve of either party's politics. Why would I vote for either?

This kind of arrogance on the part of dims also insults people, which is one of the things that people don't like about that party. They expect people to vote on dim even if they're treated insultingly or arrogantly. The party leadership takes its loyalist base entirely for granted. Fine. If they want to be taken for granted, that's their business.

Everyone makes his or her own political choices. And "none" is a choice. I've exercised it many times, or voted for a third party if only to help it maintain ballot status.

The dims' arrogance is especially galling, considering how once in power they continue bemoaning their powerlessness.

Hell, the party doesn't have an identity, even, never mind a politics. The only thing it's able to say is that it isn't the repug party. That's not an identity or a politics.

Pete C · July-3rd-2007, 09:24 AM

Fixed:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Damn Supreme Court!!!!

Jeffrey Wozniak · July-3rd-2007, 10:26 AM

The first one is the correct one.

tippy · July-3rd-2007, 02:06 PM

Go Blumberg! Blumberg for President!!!

Brian Olewnick · July-3rd-2007, 02:14 PM

tippy · July-3rd-2007, 02:19 PM

Juan Blumberg, that's my man!! Go hwan Go!

JamesH · July-3rd-2007, 03:23 PM

It's highly likely that the majority of the Green vote would go to the Democrats.

Given that, I think it's silly for those Green party members to vote for their own party in an election where they don't have a chance in hell to win, given that they prefer the Democratic candidate who has a chance. That would be voting against your own interest.

This would not stop the democratic process as others may have alluded to, because a snowball in hell is going to melt, democracy or not.

I would love a strong third, fourth and fifth party to represent the U.S. but unfortunately voting itself won't get the job done. The Green party has done a shitty job of building a power base in the U.S. among it's likely voters. They need better candidates then that nutjob Nader, and a better infrastructure, i.e. more organization and money. If they don't get that, why the heck would I want to vote for their candidates.

Scott Dolan · July-3rd-2007, 03:41 PM

Getting back to the original thesis:

Gore and Kerry were going to change the world?

Oh, and fuck being a slave to the two party system, Goodz. That's part of the problem.

JamesH · July-3rd-2007, 05:23 PM

Gore and Kerry wouldn't have changed the world. But I can easily imagine them creating a better one than we have now.

You know....

...Saddam and Iraq still under containment, working towards constructive goals to reduce the global warming threat, peace negotiations in the middle east, a realistic program for education, Supreme court justices that don't threaten to take us back to the 50's, corporate accountability, an America that's not as jaded and hopeless towards the political system, fair elections....

I could go on....

Gary Sisco · July-3rd-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tippy

Go hwan Go!

New Chinese dish?

Scott Dolan · July-3rd-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesH

I could go on....

...but you'd still just be making wild guesses.

I realize some still think that Dems are the saviors of mankind, but the reality is their not terribly different from Republicans.

Jeffrey Wozniak · July-3rd-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I realize some still think that Dems are the saviors of mankind, but the reality is their not terribly different from Republicans.

Excellent point, but if that's the case then we'd have nothing to argue about here.

JamesH · July-3rd-2007, 06:28 PM

Scott,

I agree, but there are degrees of bad. I don't have a crystal ball, but it seems to me that the current administration is the worst. You can't get more bad then that.

JamesH · July-3rd-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Excellent point, but if that's the case then we'd have nothing to argue about here.

Jeff, I gather you're a Republican. Just when it looks like things can't get any worse, accuse the other side of being just as bad.

Lucky the general populace can reason past that type of thinking or we'd still have a Republican Congress.

Again, there are degrees of bad. I'm tired of the argument stating that they're all a bunch of crooks (Republicans and Democrats) so fuck it, I give up. Those who are giving up, never gave a damn in the 1st place.

Scott Dolan · July-3rd-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesH

I agree, but there are degrees of bad. I don't have a crystal ball, but it seems to me that the current administration is the worst. You can't get more bad then that.

Never say never, James.

Scott Dolan · July-3rd-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesH

Lucky the general populace can reason past that type of thinking or we'd still have a Republican Congress.

Yes, but the general populace is also just as unhappy with this Congress as they were the last. And what happened the last cycle isn't any different than what happened in '94 when it was the Dem majority that got put out on their ass.

Jeffrey Wozniak · July-3rd-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yes, but the general populace is also just as unhappy with this Congress as they were the last. And what happened the last cycle isn't any different than what happened in '94 when it was the Dem majority that got put out on their ass.

And what has changed in your life or mine as a direct result of who was/is in office over the last 20 years?

Nothing.