View Full Version : Voting Left: Why Should I?
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 21:40
Inspired by the recent convo with the Don, I want to give you American Leftist Liberals one shot at me. Make your case. But if your argument at all makes a claim of "we're not Republican" in any way, then you have just wasted 2 minutes of your life typing to a wall.
Come on people. Do not define your party by what you are not. Show me what you are.
Here's your chance. The Don and I will be paying attention. And I promise not to assault your post with my conservative superpowers. :2thumbsup:
Big_John
08-09-2006, 21:42
why don't you tell us why you think we should allow you onto our side? :inquisitive:
(note: your offer better include some money)
Are we to asusme that by "American leftist liberals" you mean anybody who doesn't agree with you on 90% of the Bush administration's policies? Or do you actually mean American leftist liberals?
If the latter is the case, I'm not sure who would qualify to respond. Most of the real leftists on the Org are from Europe or South America ...
The_Doctor
08-09-2006, 21:57
America has a left?~:eek:
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 21:59
*sigh*
Why should I vote Democrat. Does that work for you people? :grin2:
Forget the Democrats, just vote against your incumbents. That's the Lemur's rule of thumb. Unless there's some pressing reason why you shouldn't, always vote for the new guy (or gal). Cycle those greasy scumbags through the halls of power as quickly as possible.
I'll leave it to any Democrats on the Org to make a special case for their party.
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 01:39
America has a left?
Yep , it's the east .
Unless your map is upside down .
Marshal Murat
08-10-2006, 02:23
Stay on topic
FYI-Northern East Coast and California typically vote Left.
Geezer57
08-10-2006, 02:57
Yes, America's left is bi-coastal, mostly concentrated in the major urban areas.
The question is an oxymoron.
You shouldn't. End of story.
The question is an oxymoron.
You shouldn't. End of story.
Reasons why not?
Papewaio
08-10-2006, 06:52
It is the fence sitters that get what they want.
If you are in a safe seat for any party they will not throw sweeteners at you, it is the swing seats that will get the most sweeteners. A similar trend is seen through the types of lifestyle, job, pay bracket... however if you are a die hard party member and a large part of your profession are as well then the parties won't pander to you, and it doesn't matter if you are for them or against them... their war chest of funds is better spent on the ones in the middle that could swing either way.
In the Netherlands there is really one reason to vote left, you have filthy rich parents and feel bad about it. Socialism is the rich kid's concience.
Ironside
08-10-2006, 10:21
*sigh*
Why should I vote Democrat. Does that work for you people? :grin2:
You shouldn't. But on the other hand you shouldn't vote Republican either, but move to something like Canada. :book:
Currently it seems that a good voting pattern in the US to vote for the most decent presidental candidate and let the other party get the senate. The problem is that you'll need a decent candidate...
Notice that what's stated below is very general differences and only my opinion. Others can feel different.
The fundamental difference between the left or right is that the right tries to progress the society through the individuals, while the left tries to progress the society as a community as a hole.
Then we got different tendecies. The right tends to be more traditionalists ("what worked yesterday will work today"), while the left tends to be more progressive ("we can make things better today than yesterday, and what worked yesterday won't always work today")
The right want's a smaller goverment as "they steal our hard earned money" and cannot handle the money properly, while the left doesn't trust the cooperations to really want the best for the citizens (their costumers).
To make the system sound, the right believes that the competition between companies will keep it optimized, while the left believes that the transparity of the system will keep it optimized. Both works moderately well, but has it's flaws.
Remind you that both systems strive for a balanced budget, high employment, etc, etc, a good economy plain and simple.
Alot of things in US politics doesn't fit with the classical left and right scale, due to thats scale limitations.
For example, were does a big goverment (disliked by the right) allying with big coorperations (disliked by the left) fit?
Voting Left: Why Should I?
My little buddy prefers I vote for the right
Well currently there is no one in the US that I would particularly vote for.
But if you look at a map of who votes who, you will notice that all the built up urban areas typically vote left, and the rural backward country areas typically vote right. I wonder why?
scooter_the_shooter
08-10-2006, 17:01
Well currently there is no one in the US that I would particularly vote for.
But if you look at a map of who votes who, you will notice that all the built up urban areas typically vote left, and the rural backward country areas typically vote right. I wonder why?
Rural areas are not a bunch of ignorant "backward" hicks:juggle2:
Well currently there is no one in the US that I would particularly vote for.
But if you look at a map of who votes who, you will notice that all the built up urban areas typically vote left, and the rural backward country areas typically vote right. I wonder why?
LOL a generalization that has been proven false over and over again.
2004 presidential election map, by county, from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png
If anything, I think it shows that Republicans tend to be afraid of water. :inquisitive:
Voting Left: Why Should I?
Why not?
2004 presidential election map, by county, from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png
If anything, I think it shows that Republicans tend to be afraid of water. :inquisitive:
That doesn't explain New Mexico.....:laugh4:
There is no point, because you will not change your mind. You probably wouldn't even if God himself argued the case for. Besides which we would first have to define the term "American Leftist Liberals".
Divinus Arma
08-10-2006, 19:08
Well currently there is no one in the US that I would particularly vote for.
But if you look at a map of who votes who, you will notice that all the built up urban areas typically vote left, and the rural backward country areas typically vote right. I wonder why?
Because the urban areas are filled with poverty-stricken urbanites. Ever heard of the "ghetto" or the "bario"? You won't find that in Montana! :laugh4:
That doesn't explain New Mexico.....:laugh4:
Doesn't the Rio Grande cut through that swath of blue?
Because the urban areas are filled with poverty-stricken urbanites. Ever heard of the "ghetto" or the "bario"? You won't find that in Montana! :laugh4:
And the poverty stricken areas tend to be better off under the democrats, well so do all the 37 million Americans that are living under the poverty line actually.
LOL a generalization that has been proven false over and over again.
Actually, drones map kinda proves it pretty damn true.
Rural areas are not a bunch of ignorant "backward" hicks:juggle2:
Hence my use of the word typically!
And the poverty stricken areas are led to believe that they are better off under the democrats, well so do all the 37 million Americans that are living under the poverty line actually.
Fixed. :2thumbsup:
Not saying that the GOP would treat them any better, but the poor base has not been served very well by their Democratic Party overlords, even when they were in control.
Inspired by the recent convo with the Don, I want to give you American Leftist Liberals one shot at me. Make your case. But if your argument at all makes a claim of "we're not Republican" in any way, then you have just wasted 2 minutes of your life typing to a wall.
Come on people. Do not define your party by what you are not. Show me what you are.
Here's your chance. The Don and I will be paying attention. And I promise not to assault your post with my conservative superpowers. :2thumbsup:
Tell us about yourself. Why were you a lefty ? What was it about the party that has brought so much good to this country that appealed to you at the time. What changed ? Joined the military ? Got rich ? Got poor ? Got educated ? Got indoctrined ? Where did you go right ?
I dont believe there is an answer to your question Eclectic, there is not reason to vote democrat.
but move to something like Canada. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Pannonian
08-11-2006, 06:19
Do you want to pay for another war?
Strike For The South
08-11-2006, 06:20
Do you want to pay for another war?
Yes becuase All republicans do is start wars and democrats are little angles
Pannonian
08-11-2006, 06:31
Yes becuase All republicans do is start wars and democrats are little angles
The current bunch of republicans certainly want another war in the middle east, either Iran or Syria (perhaps even both). If Lamont is any guide, the current bunch of Democrats will be anti-war anywhere.
In the UK, we are waiting for Blair to go and Brown to take over. The most appealing aspect of Brown is he is a penny pincher, hence intensely reluctant to spend money on deploying our military. If we can't have an isolationist PM, at least let us have isolationism as a side-effect. Now if only he can be equally stringent in his treatment of schoolsandhospitals.
Strike For The South
08-11-2006, 06:35
Unless we are directly attacked the populace wont support another war it just isnt going to happen. I would just as soon tell DA not to vote. In poltics very little changes once in a while you get lucky but other than that parties mean nothing. Its the special intrest groups that get things done around here.
Do you want to pay for another war?
Priceless. Sterotyping is fun.
Yes becuase All republicans do is start wars and democrats are little angles
But there is a very high chance that those republicans will want to start a war with Iran and North Korea.
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 13:37
But there is a very high chance that those republicans will want to start a war with Iran and North Korea.
If there's a choice between appeasement of North Korea and Iran, essentially giving them whatever they ask for so they don't use or distribute their nuclear weapons, or dealing with them in tough terms and forcing them to honor the terms of treaties they signed on not developing nuclear weapons, I opt for the latter course of action. I'm not saying war, but appeasement... well, ask Neville Chamberlain how well it worked for him...
But I don't think it's fair to paint with a broad brush and say that all Democrats are appeasement fans. It is possible for this Republican to separate the war in Iraq from the global war on terror and I see Democrats that support that view as well (and congressional Republicans, for that matter). How successful they are within their own party.... well, how Hillary and other strong-security Democrats get treated in the next few months should be a good bellweather as to whether Democrats, as a group, are anti-Iraq or anti-security... I'm withholding judgement until then.
Just stumbled over a quote from Sir Winston Churchill which seemed really appropriate for Eclectic's first post:
"The opposition is not responsible for proposing integrated and complicated measures of policy. Sometimes they do, but it is not their obligation."
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 14:02
We don't have a parlimentary system, Lemur. The whole idea of governing and opposition party works in parlimentary systems, because their institutions are set up for it. Ours is set up for collaboration, and without a 75% majority, it's still very difficult to accomplish your goals in the US Congress. You still need to get the minority party to come join you on issues to accomplish most actions.
Heck, using Winston's logic... the minority party in the Senate should just fillibuster every bill that comes to the floor, even pre-approved spending bills. Halt all Senate business for 4 years. Then, they can turn to the American public and say "See, they were in charge and did nothing for 4 years".
I would argue that while they don't have to sign on to the majority party's policy initiatives, the minority party is charged with offering alternatives should they choose not to go along. (This goes for Republicans and/or Democrats.)
Excellent points, Don, and in fairness, I don't really agree with Sir Winston. I just thought I'd throw a monkey wrench and see where it landed.
Divinus Arma
08-12-2006, 00:39
I would argue that while they don't have to sign on to the majority party's policy initiatives, the minority party is charged with offering alternatives should they choose not to go along. (This goes for Republicans and/or Democrats.)
Which is essentially what I sought from Org Dems here. They don't have an altenative aside from "We're not Bush! You dislike Bush so vote for us!"
Which is essentially what I sought from Org Dems here. They don't have an altenative aside from "We're not Bush! You dislike Bush so vote for us!"
You believe in a liberal world take over conspiracy. How seriously should you be taken ?
Don't anger him, whyidie, or he'll send the road warriors to your house when the civil war comes. Me, I'm laying low, with a good set of brownies to buy off the scum from the wasteland.
Kanamori
08-12-2006, 02:43
You'd better give me those. I have a car, you know.
Unless you've got a wrist crossbow, mohawk, and assless chaps, I'm keeping my brownies. These are for hard-core scum.
If you're just going to vote strictly according to a political party (which I hope isn't what you meant), I'd say vote libertarian. :2thumbsup: But I think its better to determine which individual candidate you think would make the best decisions.
Kanamori
08-12-2006, 03:15
You're saying I'm not hard-core?:inquisitive:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.