Which Democrat do you favor?

[CaptainBubba]

Vince, I think its time you started posting in other forums. You are an endless source of comedic value which is desperately needed in general blabber. And lets be honest here. You no longer have anything to add to any political disscusion.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Pinky's politics are stupid, but he/she has single-handedly made Kevin look like a flaming idiotic homo. I thought only a posting of Kevin's picture would do that.

Good show.

Why is it that you've never been able to say this of yourself...? It only seems like you get the chance when someone else comes in and holds a debate FOR you.

And pinky's politics certainly can't be any worse than yours, faux-libertarian-conservo boy....

[pinky lee]

who the fuck are you calling a he-she you anus with ears
Im female although that seems to be a bit threatening to some of the macho shitheads waving there tiny dicks around this entire forum

[CaptainBubba]

Pinky Lee obviously has this place figured out.

[O71394658]

I don't know if this has been said, as I've only mildly skimmed through the thread. I don't think the rise of the 3rd party is going to come too soon in this country. It just follows the lines of basic apathy. How many people come out to vote for President? 40%? 50%? 60%? The fact that people wouldn't bother spending the 5 minutes to vote for the person who is going to lead their nation for the next 4 years is rather upsetting. Among those who do vote, there are those that take the "Perndog" stance. They'll just follow the stereotypical roles of partisan politics and vote for the ones they hate less. Most would equate the Conservative to be a fat, rich, white man who likes to fuck over the poor. Most Americans don't even bother finding out the stances of their political candidates. They just choose the lesser of two evils. For example, no matter how far-left Dean turns out to be, he is still, if he gets the nomination, going to draw a substantial amount of voters towards him. Those merely dissatisfied with the Bush administration would take the stance that "anything is better than this guy" and pull the lever for Dean, not merely because they like him or support his policies, but only because they've developed a deep-seated hatred for the current President. For an example, I've pulled a quote from another thread.

dont like bush. he is bad. we deserve better.

See? Now do you think a character such as this (he didn't back up his stance either) is going to vote Bush again over Dean (or whoever)? I think not. Does this person know anything at all about Dean? I think not.

[VinceZeb]

We have raised a country of idiots that knows nothing of self-reliance or true indivudality. They only vote against Bush because a couple of celeberties and college-political scientist say he is bad.

[pinky lee]

"celeberties and college-political scientist"??
what the??

[glowbelly]

pinky? don't try to understand him. it's futile.

[VinceZeb]

I'll break it down:

If you ask most people why they wouldn't vote for Bush, they couldn't give you a real reason. The only reasons they have is because a celeberty said something or some so called "political expert" said something. They haven't done any research or even know shit about politics. I generally refer to these people as sheeple.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

well you should hope that Gephardt wins the nomination, and not Dean if you are a Democrat- Dean is going to cause a whole new wave of Reagan Democrats- conservative Dems who cant stomach a hard lefty like Dean and who might vote straight Rep ticket

Again, I ask you to prove to me what makes Howard Dean a "hard lefty." Gephardt is too synonymous with weakness to many on the left, and I think the grassroots base of the party will reject him on those grounds.

If some Dems. want to switch over temporarily or permanently, well that's theie perogative. It may be a good thing, cuz another realignment might be in order at this point in the game....

Labor delivered the votes for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000. But union members are much more conservative on issues like national security and gun control, and not likely to fall in line behind an old school peacenik like Dean.

Right criticism, wrong issue. If you've looked into Dean, or "Ho Ho" as he's called by Vermonters, you'd se that he is fairly conservative on gun matters. And as far as national security goes, he has taken cutting the defense budget off the table already. He believes in an investment in the "Star Wars" program, and his stance on the war was more conditional on a UN mandate than anything else. He has presented himself in a way to show that he doesn't oppose force or war, but he did oppose this war.

On the other hand, labor won't be stabbed in the back again like they were by Clinton. Dean has essentially endorsed the neo-liberal policies of Clinton on free trade and such, and that might cost him the labor vote.

However, once again, winning often becomes more important than idealism, and the current flocking of lefties to the Dean campaign serves as an excellent example....

Some labor leaders are agitating to back a single Democratic candidate to offsett Dean. The Teamsters already endorsed Gephardt and several other unions are also backing Gephardt.

This will mean nothing however if Gephardt bows out as a result of poor primary results. I'm not sure oif it was the article you linked me, but it mentioned the primaries working sort of like the NCAA tournament, producing regional candidates...? As I think you've mentioned, Gephardt is riding on Iowa.....

But Gephardt 's an uninspiring candidate.

I agree completely.

Union members may give him their vote but first they have to care enough to come to the polls. Dean can speak to the 25 percent of voters who hate Bush and will bring out college students who otherwise wouldn't vote. And in a primary with a lot of candidates, that could be all it takes to win. That would leave labor in using membership money to back a candidate its members can't stomach.

Again, the labor backlash against Dean may be just a bit overstated. As far as the sterotypical class traits of blue collar workers go, Dean is basically on the same page as them. Fair trade may be where he gets hit from them, but that's where the buzzing bee candidacies of Dennis Kucinich and maybe(?) even Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney come into play. Kucinich has consistently attacked Dean for not being the lefty he essentially promised to be (sort of). Kucinich realizes he has no shot in hell, I don't care what anybody tells ya. But he has essentially dismissed a run with the Green Party or as an independent, cuz again (back to the crux!), winning and anti-bushism has become more important than ideology. Kucinich will be the proverbial thorn in Dean's side, and that just might be what keeps Dean a possibility for the labor vote (see the Dem. debate before the AFL-CIO a few weeks ago).

Dean may talk the talk on trade and job protection, but union members are smart enough to know that jobs don't come from that far left. Privately, some union officials hint they may effectively sit out the general election if Dean wins the nomination.

This will never happen, it's a flat out bluff. They will support probably WHOEVER the Democrats run, period.

And pinky, please don't think I was patronizing you, I truly am grateful you aren't THIS:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I'll break it down:

If you ask most people why they wouldn't vote for Bush, they couldn't give you a real reason. The only reasons they have is because a celeberty said something or some so called "political expert" said something. They haven't done any research or even know shit about politics. I generally refer to these people as sheeple.

And you're telling me that every person who voted for Bush in 2000, and every voter who will likely vote for him in 2004, understand COMPLETELY why they vote the way they do....?

Please, just, stop. Stop. No more.

[The One and Only...]

I don't know who the hell I would vote for, but it would NOT be John Kerry. I would much prefer taking a large shit on his mouth by claiming that the problem with Bush is that he's an "extreme libertarian".

I'm not saying his comment was foolish because there's nothing wrong with libertarianism, but because he called Bush one. WTF? Bush is most certainly not a libertarian, and never will be.

My guess was that he was trying to make libertarians look bad, even though he knows damn well he shouldn't claim Bush among them.

Probably the best Democrat I've seen isn't even running for president, and I didn't care enough to catch his name. He's a senator: the one that basically whooped Wolfowitz's ass during a debate; that's all I really remember. I liked him because he actually seemed to have a clue with what is going on, and was able to tell that Bush is basically bending over for the neocons. I'm not saying I agreed with his political views entirely, but he was at least honest. You might know him from Real Time will Bill Mahrer last night.