LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:14 AM
Original message |
This election is teh proof positive why the Democrats need to attract the center. |
|
Why? Because we elected a decently liberal president and haters are still whining and trying to tear him down. These people will never be satisfied and will always look for something to complain about. It is their hobby.
Meanwhile, I have three libertarian-minded friends who are thinking Barack is cool.
Score one for Obama.
Go eat some crystallized pineapple.
|
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:17 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I have three progressive friends who would've voted Dem in 2000 |
|
instead of Green, if we had nominated a progressive. But we needed to attract the center. That went well.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. You need to stop hanging out with people like that. |
|
One of these days they are going to do something stupid and get you killed in an accident or something. Run away!
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
10. Al Gore was one of the best candidates we've ever run. |
|
He's been a lifelong environmental advocate and friend to science. If your friends didn't see any difference between him and George W. Bush, your friends are idiots undeserving of oxygen, to say nothing of a vote.
|
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. He's moved to the left since then. He was a DLC'er then, who chose Lieberman, |
|
for God's sake, as a running mate. Lieberman second in line to the White House. Yeah, THAT was a progressive idea. :eyes:
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. I didn't say he was a progressive. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 01:38 AM by Occam Bandage
I said he was a lifelong environment and science advocate. He is and has been. As a Senator, Republicans mocked him as the "Ozone man." He wrote Earth in the Balance, warning of the coming climate crisis, in 1992. He, as we all know, strongly backed internet funding back when nobody on the Hill understood what a computer network was.
|
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. We weren't voting for the King of the Science Advocates. |
|
Too bad. Maybe he would've won.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. No, nor were we voting for Lord Lefty Most High. We were voting for President. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 01:39 AM by Occam Bandage
Apparently your friends did not believe that there was a significant difference in the Presidential potential of Gore and Bush. Your friends are 'tards.
|
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:41 AM
Original message |
If the Dems had made an effort to attract my friends and others like them, |
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:49 AM
Response to Original message |
31. Or, your friends would have continued to bitch about meaningless bullshit, |
|
just as the malcontent left is about Obama, and all that Gore would have accomplished is surrendering centrist voters to Bush.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:54 AM
Response to Original message |
34. Your friends probably live in Illinois where it doesn't matter. n/t |
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #34 |
35. They lived in Iowa. It would've mattered. nt |
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #35 |
48. I'm sure your friends would have voted for the 2000-Gore in 2004 had he run. |
|
Why?
Because eventually, they would realize that actions have consequences. Sometimes, when things are going well for the country, some people think that they can do something stupid like vote for a candidate who can't win. But these types of people (should they get their way, as they did in 2000) are always swiftly reminded of the consequences of their actions. After realizing that they are indirectly responsible for all the actions and destruction of the Bush administration, reality would simply force them to come to their senses and vote for a viable candidate the next time around.
Sure, maybe some time in the future, when things are going well, they can think they can try their little experiment again without worrying about the consequences. But should they succeed in electing a Republican, the consequences will once again be swift and harsh, and they will come around yet again the next time around. There really is no way to reason with people like your three friends -- only visible, real-world consequences can bring them around.
|
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #48 |
53. Dems haven't realized that alienating progressives has consequences. |
|
You'd think that would've been clear after 2000. But no.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
54. That's because it doesn't. |
|
The Nader vote shrank in 2004 and 2008.
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
58. The absolute BEST way |
|
to insure Republicans will win is to nominate candidates who are too far to the left of the vast majority of the voting public.
The largest voting bloc are registered as "uncommitted"...what used to be independent until there was party by that name.
The general public is not as tuned in as are the political bloggers.
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
79. That's because it DOESN'T. |
|
After all, look at 2004. After what happened in 2000, we nominated a candidate who supported the Iraq war invasion, over Dean, who did not, and who was more liberal on many issues.
Guess what happened to Nader's share of the vote? Cut in 10.
Part of the reasons for this is that actual Green party voters (who aren't just Republicans pretending to be Green) have much more to lose by a Republican victory than their centrist counterparts. Bush won in 2000, and his views were much more divergent from these Nader voters than they were from centrists.
The truth is, the people who vote for Nader have a very "my way or the highway" attitude that is eerily reminiscent of Bush. They know they can't get an actual majority of Americans to support their ideas (Nader got around 3% in 2000), so they try to "punish" dems for not bowing to the 3% of the country by taking advantage of the mathematics of a 2-party system.
These people cannot be negotiated with or reasoned with. The only thing that will make them see reality is having the consequences of their actions unfold right before their eyes.
|
rvablue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message |
82. Q: Did these sycophantic friends of yours vote for Obama? |
|
Because President Obama is not going to be that much different than a President Gore would have been.
So, if they did, have they been duped, or they just cut down on the my-way-or-the-highway approach.
Do me a favor and ask your friends for me because I can't find any evidence: name one thing that Ralph Nader has done for his country since he ran in 2000 except put down Democrats?
Wowie! Look what Gore did? Finally made everyone wake up and smell the carbon footprints, so to speak, and won a Nobel Prize doing it.... oh, and, uh, campaigned for Obama, instead of running some silly, disruptor campaign.
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
60. It did go well. Al Gore won. |
|
SCOTUS delivered the Presidency to Bush in one of the worst decisions ever handed down.
|
Critters2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #60 |
65. Not by enough. If the Naderites' votes had no impact, why all the bitching |
|
about Nader around here? The fact is that we lost in 2000 because of those who defected to the left. If they had voted Dem, we wouldn't have had GWB for 8 years. We paid a heavy price for writing off the progressive vote.
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #65 |
69. As others have pointed out, courting the far left would have been a disaster. |
|
2000 was a very different America than now. The economy was pretty good for most people and the Repukes were running on "restoring honor and integrity to the White House" and "guy you can have a beer with" faux-populist bullshit. Sure, Gore would have gotten Nader's votes if he'd run hard left but he wouldn't have gotten many more. The fact is that Gore ended up winning the popular vote after being double digits behind just a few weeks before the election.
|
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #69 |
72. "the far left"???? what are you smoking? First, that's Limbaugh-speak, code for |
|
anything to the left of Ronald Reagan.
Second, there IS NO organized "far left" in the US anymore. It's been deliberately destroyed. What there is are some voters trying to keep the last tattered remnants of the new deal legacy.
Is this really "Democratic" Underground, or am i in bizarro-world?
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #72 |
73. Is this Nader Voter Apologist Underground? |
|
I didn't think so.
And by "far left", I mean public perception, which whether you like it or not, is where most people in the U.S. see us.
|
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #73 |
76. bull. "most people" voted for obama. who ran to the left. |
|
& where nader comes into it, i have no idea.
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #76 |
77. This is a subthread about people voting for Nader. nt |
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #77 |
80. Ralph nader took .38% of the popular vote in 2004, & no electoral votes. |
|
earth to catburglar?
in 2000, 2.7% & no electoral votes.
election is decided on electoral votes.
so where nader comes into it, i have no clue.
kerry & gore both ran center-right campaigns, & their poor showing is due primarily to that; plus gore's cowardice in conceding to bush.
if nader = "far left" to you, it's hopeless.
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #80 |
83. Tell it to the person who brought up Nader upthread. |
|
That's who I was arguing with. S/he claimed that "alienating progressives" had consequences.
|
rvablue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
81. Yes, that's right, Gore is just a DINO... and to go with that myth, Nader actually cares |
|
about his country more than he does about feeding his own self-absorbed ego.
|
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:19 AM
Response to Original message |
|
harrumph
"the center"
yeah. the center.
damn liburls.
libertarians like him?
that's NOT a good sign.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Weren't you saying that Republicans should be euthanized a few years ago?
|
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
weren't you saying the earth was flat?
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
19. Genocidal post, coming right up! |
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
50. what's so wrong about that? |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #50 |
55. Make a YouTube video about how you want to kill conservatives. |
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #55 |
74. Make a youtube video? |
|
I'm poor. I don't own a video camera.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #74 |
91. Go straight to the New Mexico forum and ask if anyone can tape it for you. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 07:09 PM by LoZoccolo
If this is such a pressing issue that you think it's important enough to start a program of government-sanctioned genocide, you can do that.
|
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #91 |
110. what does the NM forum have to do with anything? |
|
You link to a four-year-old post and now it's "such a pressing issue"?
And I thought your 9-11 ghetto posts were, um, entertaining...
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
78. If it's the post about the 4 types of conservatives, I liked it. |
|
:shrug:
Humorous hyperbole.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #78 |
90. Except he's serious. n/t |
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:27 AM
Response to Original message |
7. people are 'concerned'!! |
|
I wonder how Rezko is doing.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
Kitty Herder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:28 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Crystallized pineapple? |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
I just pulled it out of nowhere, like I remembered it from some story I read in elementary school, about how someone used it to ease a tense situation.
Sounds good though!
I'm thinking it's some kinda dehydrated sugary thing.
|
Kitty Herder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
30. I remember it being used to win favor with a professor in one of the Harry Potter books. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 01:50 AM by Herdin_Cats
I just wondered if it was a reference to something that I didn't understand or if you just threw it out there randomly.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
36. Me and this dude - I forget who it was - started talking about... |
|
..."The Biscuit Boy" on here. We wanted to make people think we were talking about something secret! lol. We did it for the lulz!
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
|
Grammar Police time......The "Me and" phrase just really gets under my skin for some reason.....
"This dude and I started talking about it"!
Would you say "Me started talking about it"? NO!
Again...Sorry...I do the same thing with my friends and family...It makes me REALLY POPULAR sometimes!
:hi:
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
Augdog20
(119 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:32 AM
Response to Original message |
11. This economy is proof of the poverty of your centrism, the DLC |
|
and the libertarian views of your DLC friends.
Go read some crystallized pol. lit.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
20. Here I thought it was proof of the poverty of deregulation and lack of oversight. |
|
Neither are tenets of third-way politics.
|
Sebastian Doyle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
62. Then why did Bill "DLC" Clinton deregulate so goddamn much? |
|
A lot of the financial clusterfucks of the moment would not have been possible without Bill Clinton's help in the 1990's.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #62 |
111. He ate a lot of hamburgers, too. Are hamburgers a DLC food? nt |
nosmokes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:32 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Not by any stretch is Obama a *liberal.* If hard core centrist were in the |
|
dictionary Obama's picture would show up in the definition. Fuck appeasement,fuck any more war in asia, fuck middle of the road, fuck corporatism.
I want Gitmo closed and the war criminals and traitors that stole this country for the last eight years investigated, tried and put in prison for their fucking crimes. And all that can happen while we move forward at the same time.
|
leftstreet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:39 AM
Response to Original message |
18. Obama is drawing Warren fundies and Libertarians, and you call this good? |
|
Go eat some crystallized meth.
:P
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
21. *shrug* He also has a 90%+ approval rating among Dems. |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. I've got to remember that these are the 10%ers. n/t |
leftstreet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
28. I have a 90% disapproval rating on DU, lol. n/t |
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
32. I don't think he could break a 40% approval rating among LoZoccolo. nt |
Trajan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:41 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Am I the only one who is tired of 'Teh' ? |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 01:47 AM by Trajan
It would be nice to try and attract the center AND the left ....
The center for an electoral edge, and the left for your own reasonable soul ....
I would rather he rule as a Liberal, and toss moderates a few bones, than rule as a moderate, and toss Liberals a few bones ...
Moderation is too lukewarm an approach when disaster looms ominously ... He needs BONE FIDE Rooseveltean policies, with strong regulation in the marketplace, and decent low end stimulus ....
We don't need a pusillanimous, weak-kneed approach to government ... We need a bold visionary: One does not find bold visionaries in the center ...
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
26. My point is that the center seems to be more loyal than the left. |
|
Given that, why would our candidates toss DUers a bone? What do they get out of it?
|
Trajan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
37. I think you are just tossing out numbers ... |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 02:00 AM by Trajan
Implying ratio and proportions that most likely do not exist ...
Perhaps Moderates are just quieter, and are just as frustrated by some of the moves made so far, and perhaps the Liberals YOU hear are vocal, while a greater number of them are quietly awaiting the governmental policies to come before they judge ....
I think it foolhardy to throw away what is by most accounts a lopsided victory by a man who ran as an inclusive LIBERAL, based on the ignorant musings, however enlightened, of someone prancing about an internet forum with questionable assertions about popularity and political philosophy ...
I would prefer Obama rule as he ran: THAT is who we voted for ... That is the persona he should assume ...
NOTE: Ignorant = lacking knowledge of specific facts ... NOT Ignorant = stupid ...
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
40. I didn't toss out any numbers, lol. |
|
This is just my anecdotal evidence.
|
Trajan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #40 |
43. 'Numbers' = implied ... |
|
I am guessing you intended to imply that gaining a GREATER number of Moderate voters was worth giving up a LESSER number of Liberal voters ...
THEY are the 'numbers' I question .... They are without empirical foundation ...
We all know the limited value of anecdotal evidence ....
Hence: I do not believe it to be true ....
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
45. The center more loyal? Surely you jest... |
|
I guess you've never heard of Reagan Democrats?
|
G_j
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #45 |
51. & who did the tireless heavy lifting on the ground |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 10:47 AM by G_j
that won the election?
...not the center it was a lot work coaxing them off their asses to vote
It's always been a joke to me, to see Reagan and Democrats in the same sentence,
|
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
Trajan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
39. I am a nominal Pacifist |
|
But I feel some sympathy there ...
|
Bake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
52. Sometimes "teh" is just a typo ... |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #52 |
61. Actually here it wasn't though. |
specimenfred1984
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:43 AM
Response to Original message |
25. The U.S. is a progressive majority, not a centrist one |
|
Go suck your own banana and revise history with Chimpleton and his crime machine-o-lies.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
27. I want to start out by saying I hear ya', man. |
|
I remember when Kucinich won the primary and they said "oops, we're going to nominate Obama anyways."
lol
|
ima_sinnic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
75. there's no way to know who really would've won the primary if the media hadn't |
|
molded and influenced reality instead of simply reflecting the voters' will.
You do remember that Edwards came in 2nd in Iowa, yet he wasn't even mentioned on CNN (for one--I assume all the "news" stations were the same)--it was Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Obama Hillary Hillary Hillary 24/7
That is just one example of the way the election went the way it was "supposed" to go, not the way the voters might have wanted.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #75 |
88. We got the candidate CorpoRATe America wanted the repubs to run against. |
|
Ignore the progressive candidates and shove the corpoRATe candidates in our faces 24/7. x(
|
Kitty Herder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
44. You're absolutely right about the U.S. having a progressive majority. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 02:29 AM by Herdin_Cats
When it comes to actual issues. But when do real issues ever make it into campaigns? They don't, so we're left with the illusion of a centrist majority.
edited to add: The majority don't even vote. Perhaps if issues that mattered were discussed they would and we would have progressive candidates elected to office?
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
49. Apparently the exit polls are lying then. |
|
Only 22% of voters claim to be liberal. 34% conservative, and 44% moderate. Sounds like a progressive majority to me. :crazy:
|
Skittles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:47 AM
Response to Original message |
29. "decently liberal" - and libertarians like that? |
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:03 AM
Response to Original message |
41. Because the Iraq war was a good idea. So was the bankruptcy bill |
|
So was repeal of Glass-Steagall. So was Medicare Part Disaster. Torture is good. Spying on Americans is good. We need a less unionized workforce and more outsourcing. We can build a great sustainable economy by putting each other in jail and selling wach other cheap poison imported crap. The loony lefties are all wrong about that stuff.
|
Number23
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:03 AM
Response to Original message |
42. This independent thinks he's pretty damn cool too |
|
And the frothing feverishness around DU for the last two months has proven to me that becoming an independent was one of the smartest moves I've made in a while.
Ideology is for suckas...
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #42 |
46. Everyone has an ideology.. |
|
Including those who don't think they do.
|
Number23
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
64. Some people's ideology is to be decidedly unideological |
|
Which imo, is unquestionably the only one worth having...
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:22 AM
Response to Original message |
47. The election proved people didn't like the way bush ruled or the policies |
|
as well. Democrats were given a mandate. I don't think the mandate was any continuance of any Republican ways, "bi-partisanship" or policies. They liked the message of "change" so it better be real.
|
Tierra_y_Libertad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message |
57. The election "proved" that the electorate saw Bush and the Repugs as a disaster. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 01:06 PM by Tierra_y_Libertad
The "center" didn't vote for "liberal" policies, or "centrist" policies. They voted against a disastrous 8 years of incompetence, arrogance, and failure.
Hell, even Hillary could have beaten McScrewy.
|
yurbud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message |
63. which center? Do you think FDR was an extremist? |
blindpig
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message |
66. That libertarians think Obama is 'cool' speaks volumes. |
|
Libertarianism is an excuse for injustice and exploitation.
You probably shouldn't go around telling people dumb shit like that.
|
Stevenmarc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message |
67. Centrist.... it's the cult of the mediocre |
|
God I am so tired of the Centrist concept, I want legislation that corrects an issue not legislation designed to make everyone do a happy dance, hold hands and sing Kumbaya but doesn't get to the core issues.
|
PVnRT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message |
68. Blah blah haters blah blah whining blah blah |
|
Same shit, different day.
|
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #68 |
87. what you have to admire |
|
is the ability to turn people who are taking Obama at his word and turn them into "haters". The moldy ghost of Lee Atwater is applauding.
|
Mari333
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
70. not everyone wants to be a dittohead |
|
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Teddy Roosevelt
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #70 |
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message |
71. if he runs on populism, but acts on neo-liberalism, damn right i'll bitch. |
|
some people's hobby is excusing lies & liars
|
L0oniX
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 05:58 PM
Response to Original message |
84. The "Check Spelling" tab is your friend. n/t |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 06:06 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Your libertarian friends (talk about people you should hang out with!) would bolt in a second if Obama went hard left. You've just bought the idea that there are more of them than there are on the left.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #86 |
92. Define "hard left". n/t |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #92 |
|
"attempted to address poverty through a $700 billion bailout".
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #93 |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #94 |
|
Bolt? Libertarians who like anti-poverty programs? Perhaps your friends don't understand the label.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #95 |
96. They probably wouldn't. n/t |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #96 |
97. then it what sense are they libertarian? |
|
And if they wouldn't bolt, why the need to attract them by *not* doing things more progressively?
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #97 |
98. They like their civil liberties. n/t |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #98 |
|
Being a libertarian also implies the minimization of the state and state action.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #99 |
|
I said "minded". There would be things they would abandon over, but it's not nearly as sensitive as what I've seen here.
"Labradoodle."
|
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #100 |
101. so it's a matter of sensitivity? |
|
What *would* they abandon over? I'm trying to get a handle on these paragons of loyalty.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #101 |
102. Probably some kind of Chavez shit. n/t |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #102 |
103. define "Chavez shit". |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #103 |
104. Caring for the poor. |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #104 |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #105 |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #106 |
107. so define "Chavez shit". |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #107 |
108. Like using phrases such as "up the spout" during dignified interviews. n/t |
ulysses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-13-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #108 |
109. that would make your friends bolt? |
|
Glad they're not overly sensitive. :D
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 02:39 AM
Response to Original message |