He is an inflammatory question for you....

[everythingsxen]

Before election season actually starts, I have a question for you...


What if the Democrats ran Joe Lieberman for President and Al Gore ran on the Green Ticket or Independent.

What would you do?

I ask because I was recently flamed for saying that blind devotion to a party (any party) is bad, so I imagine I will be flamed for this as well, however, the question remains.

With as much hatred as I have heard spewed for Joe and as much love as there is for Al, what would you do in the above situation?

[mondo joe]

1. I think it's unimaginable. But I'd never vote for Lieberman.

I'm glad he's caucusing with the Dems because we need him for the majority.

But as a Presidential candidate, ugh.

If things were so bad that he was the better of the major party candidates I really will leave the US.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. So Joe Lieberman is a Democrat when he wins primaries

but not when he loses?

I don't think so. He left the party. If he runs for President, it won't be with a (D) after his name.

And I have no reason to think Al Gore would disrespect our party like that. He's a Democrat, through and through. If he didn't get the nomination, he wouldn't run.

[Kiouni]

3. go green party!

i guess in this situation. Your point is well taken and I think we should not simply vote on party lines but that seems to be more of a Rethug Dem thing because the morans leave me no other choice.

[flying_monkeys]

4. I'd go Al.

I am Liberal more than I am Democrat, if push comes to shove (and I would whinge that there wasn't a MORE lib person running than Gore).


But I am not exactly mainstream :)

[Lex]

5. If the Democrats were evil and the Republicans were good,

then I'd vote for the Republicans. But that's not the way it is.

I'm not devoted to a particular party so much as what the party stands for.

Just as the Republicans aren't "good," the Democrats aren't going to run Lieberman.

So there's your answer.

[everythingsxen]

7. You are right, that is exactly the sort of answer I was expecting...

...

[Lex]

9. Happy to oblige. Now, if 'yes' means 'no' and 'no' means 'yes'

would you like for me to smack you?

This is a trick question, so be careful.

[everythingsxen]

10. I could honestly care less if you smack me or not

but if you feel the need to hit me, you should do so.

[Lex]

11. You know, that is exactly the sort of answer I was expecting...

[everythingsxen]

16. I am sure you think that was a clever parable

and a good attempt to try and make it seem as though I asked the same sort of question as you, however, I didn't. Lieberman failed the primaries and ran as an "Independant Democrat". It is not all that impossible to conceive that within the next 2 years, if he votes like a good Dem and caucuses with the Dems, that he could in fact get the nomination. I am not saying it is likely, but it is possible, especially if Pollsters tell the Dem leadership that he will win. It is also not so unlikely a possiblity that Al Gore would run as an Independant or a Green, given his stance on the environment or perhaps he might feel that the Dems have too many corporate interests for his tastes, while this is hypothetical, it is not impossible.

Your analogy however, of attempting to say "What if Good was evil and evil was good" and "What if yes was no" is a logical impossibility, since you are simply switching the titles of two items and trying to devalue and discredit my point. It would have been faster if you had just pointed at me and yelled "You blackwhite duckspeak thoughtcrime!". I spoke in the specific, you generalized my specific question and then attacked what you presented as my point. This I believe is the essence of a strawman.

However, it is irrelevant since your posts seem to indicate that no matter what I say I am wrong and the Party is right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. What If, A Turd Of Shit, Got The Dem Nod, And The Most Brilliant Person To Ever Walk The Earth Ran

as a green? What would you do?

Knock knock.... Hey..... Knock knock.... McFly.... Knock knock.... Hypothetical's are stupid.


And just remember, come election time it is against the rules to advocate against the Dem nom or encourage voting for the Green/Independent one.

Thanks.

[everythingsxen]

8. Yes comrade, you have already reminded me of that

I am sorry. I am trying harder to be a goodthinker like you, but I don't have enough love for BB I guess. You are doubleplusgood to point out how stupid I am and you don't at all prove the point I was making perfectly.

Thank you so much for failing to read my post at all and simply look for thoughtcrime and attack me for it. If you are not already, you should be a member of the Inner Party, you really deserve it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Just Make Sure You Read It And Re-Read It, So That It Is Forged In Your Memory.

Fact is, your premise is completely and utterly silly; every bit as much as mine was.

Hypotheticals are stupid and show a complete lack of grounds for better argument. You could've put any two names in there and it wouldn't have made a difference. It still would've been a poorly made point without any substance to back it.

You seem hell bent on trying to get people to recognize some false notion that the Dem nod is going to be some evil not-deserving of the Presidency character that should be voted against, while the 3rd party candidate will be some wonderful savior to us all. That is what you're trying to do. I'm trying to just simply remind you that it is ok to spew this sort of ridiculousness right now, but come election time it would be completely unacceptable, as it should be. I know I've repeated it, and will continue to do so until I feel comfortable that the point has sunk in to you.

[everythingsxen]

18. Yes comrade, of course comrade

I thought it was an interesting exercise in comparing the personal love of one specific person against the personal hate of another and attempted to see if those personal feelings could override love for the Party. Obviously one can only truly love BB and to try and point that feeling toward a non-sanctioned candidate is the core of thoughtcrime.

Thank you again comrade.

I would like to say though, if I may please be allowed to speak before you have me taken to room 101, that I am truly not hellbent on on steering anyone to a third party or Independent candidate. I do not believe the Dems will actually run Lieberman or someone who is evil; my questions were mere hypothetical.

As you so articulately point out though, hypothesis is thoughtcrime.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. In This Thread And The Others, Your Intentions Have Been Transparent To Me.

In my assessment here's no other reason for you to keep posting this sentiment with such passion except for the fact that you consider it a reality that the Dems may run someone so evil that we should cast aside our political loyalty and vote for some worthless third party candidate. That is the only logical explanation for your continued passion on this.


"I do not believe the Dems will actually run Lieberman or someone who is evil"

Well then your entire reasoning and passion for this topic is worthless. The only way any of it would have any legitimacy whatsoever is if you believed it to an extent. If you don't believe it at all, then all your posts and defense of this concept have been a complete exercise in futility.

And you're right. The dems wouldn't run such people. The dems will run someone who will make a terrific President. Therefore, your entire theoretical and the conclusion we are to derive from it are both completely worthless and without any merit whatsoever.


"my questions were mere hypothetical"

No kidding. But they were also hypotheticals made under a completely faulty premise. Therefore, by default their conclusions carry absolutely zero merit.

[everythingsxen]

21. You must be

a member of the Inner Party with the way you are able to read my mind and know all that I think and intend with my every utterance. Aside from that, I would like to look at what you have said, bit by bit, as you have so elegantly with my post.

In This Thread And The Others, Your Intentions Have Been Transparent To Me.

In my assessment here's no other reason for you to keep posting this sentiment with such passion except for the fact that you consider it a reality that the Dems may run someone so evil that we should cast aside our political loyalty and vote for some worthless third party candidate. That is the only logical explanation for your continued passion on this.

As I just said above, your powers of telepathy are quite amazing. In fact, it is incredible since as far as I know I have only referenced this in one other thread where you so promptly pointed out my thoughtcrime. You truly are intuitive to know my very inner mental impurities and see me for the thoughtcriminal I am. I had thought I was merely pointing out concepts like "Adherence to a Party solely because it is the Party" and "Dealing in absolutes is a bad idea"; however as you have shown me I was actually being a traitor to BB and the Party. Thank you again. Thank you also for using your psychic powers to reveal the deep passion I feel about not wanting people to follow blind ideologies; of course as you point out that is not what I am actually feeling, what I am actually feeling is thoughtcrime and I should learn to love the Party and trust the Party. The Party cannot be wrong, ever.

Well then your entire reasoning and passion for this topic is worthless. The only way any of it would have any legitimacy whatsoever is if you believed it to an extent. If you don't believe it at all, then all your posts and defense of this concept have been a complete exercise in futility.

As I replied to someone else above, I said that it was a possibility, not a probability. Once again though you have used your stunning powers of mental manipulation to see into the deepest reaches of my mind and point out how passionate I am about opposing blind obedience to any party, as you show me though, that is thoughtcrime. If I do not have absolute, unconditional, unwavering love for the Party at all times for all things, I am a thoughtcriminal.

And you're right. The dems wouldn't run such people. The dems will run someone who will make a terrific President. Therefore, your entire theoretical and the conclusion we are to derive from it are both completely worthless and without any merit whatsoever.

You see, once again you have shown me what my motives were, even though I had thought my motives were completely different. I had thought initially that since so many love Al Gore and so many hate Lieberman, that if it were to happen that Gore were not the Dem candidate and Lieberman were, I wondered what people would do. Obviously I was wrong to even posit such a notion, since such an idea is a thoughtcrime. The Party is always right and whoever they tell me to vote for, I must vote for. That is the truest definition of a democracy if ever there was one! Thank you again comrade for showing me my errors and faulty thinking!

No kidding. But they were also hypotheticals made under a completely faulty premise. Therefore, by default their conclusions carry absolutely zero merit.

All I can really say is much of what I said to another poster above, only with more love and reverence for you. Thank you for showing me my flawed thinking. By carefully constructing a large statue built entirely out of dry grass, you have been able to point to my very specific example, turn it into a generalization and then attack the argument you told me I was having. Thank you Big Brother, I love you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. You Know What Cracks Me Up So Much?

That you actually truly believe all those snarky repetitious words just actually said something or refuted anything. They didn't, ya know.

In fact, out of all those words, only ONE sentence actually said anything refutitious (made up word, but I like it) at all. It was the following:

"was merely pointing out concepts like "Adherence to a Party solely because it is the Party" and "Dealing in absolutes is a bad idea""

Fair enough. But it is a point made on faulty premise which you have even admitted by stating that you do not believe it would be the case. Therefore you are passionately trying to make a point that has no real basis in logical likely reality. It is simply a waste of time.

Here's an example as to why your point is meaningless:

I ask sincerely:

"Do you always thoroughly inspect your silverware prior to its use to make sure by chance it didn't come in contact with some toxic substance?"

"Oh come on, that's absurd! Of course I don't inspect my spoon thoroughly before I use it to make sure there isn't a small piece of toxic chemical on it. I just use the damn spoon!"

"But what if it did, theoretically speaking of course. It's a possibility ya know. I mean, I don't really think it would happen, but it's possible. Wouldn't it be dangerous for you to continue just haphazardly using the clean spoon without inspecting it first?"

"Dude, you're nuts. There ain't gonna be no toxic powder on my spoon. Give me a break!"

"Hey, ya never know. Someday maybe there would be and it would kill you. I'm just trying to show you that dealing with absolutes can be a bad idea, that's all!"

See how ridiculous of an argument that is? Same damn difference in my opinion. I find your premise to be completely and utterly faulty. Sorry bub.

[everythingsxen]

23. You know what cracks me up so much?

Your comment in your profile: It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal.

Yet, if I dare to make bring up the concept that voting solely for a party is a bad idea, you immediately attack me and tell me I am having an illogical argument. Once more you have ascribed to me my motives, my feelings and my reasons for posting this in the first place.

Do you want to sift through and find how many posts attack Joe Lieberman and how many praise Al Gore? I don't have the number but there is a hell of a lot of them. I did not say that this was a logical or realistic question, I said it was a what if question. However, since you bring it up, you tell me: If the Democrats did polling and saw that if they ran Lieberman, he would win, would they back him if he continued to play nice and basically was a good Democrat? I think they would.

My real intentions, not the ones you impose upon me, were to see if people love Gore enough and hate Lieberman enough to cross party lines for it. That was it. It was not a vague generalization as you have tried to construct, it was a specific question.

Your example is also flawed, and here is why:

I ask sincerely:

"Do you always thoroughly inspect your silverware prior to its use to make sure by chance it didn't come in contact with some toxic substance?"

"Oh come on, that's absurd! Of course I don't inspect my spoon thoroughly before I use it to make sure there isn't a small piece of toxic chemical on it. I just use the damn spoon!"

This line of questioning completely diverges from my original point. However, even though your entire attack on me has been strawman after strawman (marching in perfect goose-step I might add) I will dignify this with a reply, by pointing out that perhaps the first person who is asking the silverware question noticed that person two has occasionally spilled bleach into their silverware drawer. (Zell Miller comes to mind, along with many other mistakes that the Democrats have made over the years)

"But what if it did, theoretically speaking of course. It's a possibility ya know. I mean, I don't really think it would happen, but it's possible. Wouldn't it be dangerous for you to continue just haphazardly using the clean spoon without inspecting it first?"

"Dude, you're nuts. There ain't gonna be no toxic powder on my spoon. Give me a break!"

"Hey, ya never know. Someday maybe there would be and it would kill you. I'm just trying to show you that dealing with absolutes can be a bad idea, that's all!"

How many years have Democrats supported Black rights? 50 something? Didn't they oppose black rights for longer after reconstruction? Didn't Dems support gay rights until recently when they gave it up to get more votes? Please don't take this as an attack on Democrats in general, simply that Democrats can and do fuck up, so blindly obeying them should generally be a bad idea, yes? If by pointing out that you should "look at your silverware" in this analogy you have constructed out of straw, mean "question your political leaders" then I do not believe it is nonsense at all to point out such things. But you have your agenda to push, I am a dissenting voice trying to speak reason to someone who is unwilling to be open-minded or reasonable or have any sort of discussion that isn't entirely orthodox in it's content.

See how ridiculous of an argument that is? Same damn difference in my opinion. I find your premise to be completely and utterly faulty. Sorry bub.

That's the beauty of your ability to doublethink. You attack me for pointing out that you are a hypocrite for doing exactly what Republicans do and behave in the same way as them. You have once again constructed what you believe my argument is, given me my motives and cast me in the role of the heretic. In fact it is you who are the fanatic, dedicated to his cause and unwilling to even consider the possibility that you have a God given right to more than two choices in the world. I feel sorry for you. It must be such a dreary black and white world for you.

[Richard Steele]

24. You might have more credibility if you were able to defend your hero...

...on his merits, without ALWAYS resorting to the condescension
and snarky personal attacks.

Your posts have more projection than a MultiPlex.

[everythingsxen]

26. My Hero?

Do you mean George Orwell, Al Gore or Thomas Jefferson?

Well, Orwell was a visionary who saw what happened when fanatics blindly follow the orders their leaders give. You should read some of his work. I could probably write several pages about why he was such a visionary and how his insights into the heart of mankind are important, but since I am not sure if this is the hero you are referring to, I will wait for you tell me which you mean and continue from there.

As for Al Gore, I mean well, what can I say. He is a champion of environmental rights and civil liberties. A genuine, decent and down to Earth person, on Al Gore I could also write a lengthy amount.

As for Thomas Jefferson, he is my favorite of the Founding Fathers and his writings are brilliant. He was a great man and honestly, I doubt I could do him any justice, but I could most likely expound upon the things that made him great, if you so desire.

[otherlander]

12. Yes. Some things are best not discussed in the Underground.

[Trajan]

14. I have another scenario ...

What if Hitler rose from the dead, and won the Democratic party nomination ....

And say Jesus suddenly appeared out of nowhere; and then ran on the 'Nazi' ticket ?

Who would you vote for ?

This reminds me of those ethics questions regarding bank vaults, groups of human beings, but only one can live: who will it be ? ... Will you let the sweet little baby die ? ....

As much as I love Gore, and as surely as I would vote for Gore, he isnt going to be on any ticket .... I saw him in person not more than 4 weeks ago, and he passionately defended his desire to NEVER run for elective office again .... EVER ......

We might call this a false dilemma, but hey, no one should get all that worked up over it ...

I DO vote party line, generally, because I happen to believe in the 'CLASSIC' New Deal/Great Society platforms on which the Democratic party stood for so long .... I vote that platform ...

And Joe Liebermann, whom I reject as a good democrat, does in fact have a liberal voting record, though he does disappoint in key areas that mean so much to so many of us ....

And hey : DONT take much of this personally ... Given a choice between making someone feel good versus being honest, I will take honesty any day ..... MUCH grumbling today, and much frustration ... but its gonna be okay ....

I still love ya ....

[porphyrian]

15. If the party were that stupid in denying the reality of our constituency, they deserve to lose.

However, I don't believe the Democratic party we just elected is that stupid as a whole.

[seabeyond]

17. i think gore would have a possibility of winning, lieberman taking repug

votes so i could vote for gore

[Nite Owl]

20. If the Dems were to run someone like

Leiberman they wouldn't be the the same party that they are now, they would have moved signifcantly to the right. In that case I would have to vote Green or I. America before party and the right wing isn't the place to be.

[hfojvt]

25. we sorta ran Lieberman in 2000

and I've read that Gore was/is to the right of Clinton, and Clinton is way to the right, on economic issues, of Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, etc. So how does it not end up being a new party with all of these new Democrats in office and on TV, saying things like 'the era of Big Government is over'?

But the answer is not to go third party, which only elects more Republicans, but rather to energize and mobilize to re-take the Democratic party.

The hypothetical I find ludicrous, at best. Why would Gore run as a Green instead of as a Democrat? Why would he lose the nomination to Lieberman, a person who did very poorly in 2004? If he lost the nomination for some strange reason, why would he then switch to Green, virtually guaranteeing that Guiliani would win in a landslide?

[Nite Owl]

27. I for one didn't know that Leiberman

would be the way he is or run as an Independent after losing a primary, nor did any one every think that there would be a war again like VietNam and and Leiberman would go along with a Republican administration. Times were good during Clinton and most people now see him in a different light now that the effects of his trade plans are seen. I think if he were in office now or the dems had been after him things like outsourcing would not have been this harsh on workers at the least. Gore has come a long way from where he was in '00 too. No way would I vote for Leiberman and I don't care what he calls himself. A party that would nominate him after what he has done would no longer be my party period, it would not be good for America and it would be no use continuing to try to change that party.

[LeftishBrit]

28. This is a bit like my actual situation in the UK, and under present circumstances I do vote 'third

party'.

As you know, our so-called Socialist PM is way to the right of his party, and indeed of some Tories of the past; and he dragged the UK into Iraq; and no way will I vote for him.

The Liberal Democrats, our supposedly-centrist third party, are currently to their left; and I usually vote for them; occasionally for the Greens.

Having said that, if this was likely to result in the election of someone like Bush, or the return of Thatcher, I might hold my nose and vote for 'New Labour' to avoid the worse alternative.

So I don't generally believe in party loyalty for its own sake; but I do believe in uniting against the Devil incarnate, e.g. Bush or Cheney.

[LWolf]

29. I'd do what I ALWAYS want to do:

vote my conscience. Vote for the best candidate. Which, in this case, would not be Lieberman, lol.