So, then, come the Revolution, they don’t all go to the wall? Gosh, Natasha, that rather complicates things, don’t you think? On what basis will we make these exemptions? OK, SDMB membership, but how would we document this?
Oh, I suppose, we could just enroll them all in minimum wage jobs, flipping burgers, that sort of thing. But you have to admit it lacks the drama. That’s the trouble with you liberals. Wishy-washy.
december:
As Stoid pointed out, the characterization that you linked to is not how Democrats / liberals characterize Republicans but how one Republican characterizes how she belleves Democrats / liberals characterize Republicans. “They want the water to be dirtier and the air to be smellier”…Give me a break!!
Stoid has about the strongest views on the SDMB on the subject of Republicans’ motives and even she notes here that she is not close to thinking what was said there. I personally would give most Republicans (though not all) more of the benefit of the doubt in regards to motives than Stoid would.
And, I have no idea what this whole thing with Katie Couric is about. Do you deny that there are Christian rights groups that have stirred up anti-gay feelings? [That web site devoted to her is amusing just to see what these people see as evidence of horrible liberal bias!!!]
So congrats to you, Sua, Sanders has lost, and now it looks like the party whose state platform says:
is going to be able to confirm GWB’s judges and justices. Great. A bunch of people with considerable power, appointed for life, and picked by the party whose national platform says:
JDM
JDM,
And how, exactly, is that different than the result had Sanders won? From his statement, it appears that he holds the same position on homosexuality.
Are your arguing that, had Sanders won, the Democrats would have had the majority in the Senate, and the justices confirmed would have supported gay rights or same-sex marriage?
My rebuttal: DOMA - passed by Democrats, signed into law by a Democrat.
JDM, say you have Strom Thurmond (having moved and returned to the Democratic Party) running against Jesse Helms. Do you argue that I should vote for Strom simply because voting for Strom will strengthen the Democratic Party?
Where’d this “prissily deciding not to vote” come from? I’ll get back to the third-party issue.
I’m befuddled by your response. I only have three negative criterion - I won’t vote for bigots, I won’t vote for those who advocate the deprivation of civil liberties, and I won’t vote for those who have committed fraud, theft, or violent crimes.
How in God’s name is that “naive”? Are you arguing that I should vote for Joe Smith, liberal Democrat, who thinks that “darkies” are dumber than whites, so long has he supports generous welfare payments to support those poor dumb darkies?
Am I support to vote for Jane Doe, who advocates constitutional amendments barring flag burning and pornography, because she’ll vote for a higher minimum wage?
I think what is truly naive here is your belief that, with politicians, there is a difference between thoughts and actions. All politicians produce are thoughts; that’s their raison d’etre.
As for the “third-party” issue, how exactly do you think we’ve gotten into a position where Democratic candidates say things like what Sanders said, where we have to hold our noses while voting for a Democrat? Because people like you and Stoid will hold your noses and vote for that Dem. If I vote for a third-party candidate instead, perhaps the Dems will get the message and not nominate a bigot the next time. Maybe they won’t, but either way I win; I haven’t voted for a bigot.
Sua
**
Much as it disgusts me, if control of the senate is up for grabs, I would. You know as well as I that the majority party has significant control not only in voting but in procedure- look at how the GOP blocked Clinton’s judicial appointments. Now they have free rein. When they were obstructing Clinton, the moderate wing of the party was not much in evidence. I don’t think a Dem bigot would be that much more in evidence. Maybe the Judges confirmed would not have actively supported equal rights, but at least the more egregious of GWB’s appointments would have been blocked. Half a loaf, and all that. But now, the party that is the avowed, open enemy of gays is in control.
Look at it this way- I am 100% against the death penalty. I still voted for Clinton and Gore (although Clinton’s use of it during the 1992 campaign disgusted me).
I think that we are in much worse shape than if we had the Dems, even with a bigot in their ranks, in control.
Now if you want to talk about the two party system being bad, I’m right with you.
I guess I am just getting old- idealism isn’t its own reward any longer. Obviously I have standards, but I can’t help but think that in the end we would have been better off if the Senate were in Dem hands, and then we could put pressure on them to use their power correctly. JDM
Hardly. I was responding to your statement, which I may have misinterpreted, that there are times you’d choose to sit out an election and take whatever others choose for you. If that isn’t what you meant, I take it back.
Yes, you do have to pick the person who comes closest to doing the job the way you want it done, or things can be even worse. Ideals are fine, but the real world is where we have to live. Let’s deal with the real world. Call it “voting the lesser evil” or “holding your nose” if you like, but also recognize that every candidate is human, too.
No, try again - what affects us individually and the world in general is their actions, not their thoughts. The finest philosopher in the world is unlikely to be a good statesman or even manager, and the most effective leaders are often fairly shallow people.
Third parties are fine if they approach their work with a sense of responsibility - the realization that the single issue they’re promoting (and they’re all basically single-issue operations) is worth implementing in the real world, in a form fairly unchanged once one of the majors co-opts it. If advocacy for a single issue that you think is being ignored by the parties who actually have the power to do something about it is more important than the identity of the office’s occupant for the next term, then that’s fine - it’s simply taking a longer view, in the expectation that it will someday be a reality you can and want to live with. But simply sitting it out is never effective.
I have a suspicion we still don’t understand each other, but I don’t think it’s entirely my fault.
I am the farthest thing from an idealist. I only have three criteria, and they seem extremely pragmatic to me - pragmatically speaking, bigots, those for deprivation of civil liberties, and those who have committed the crimes I mentioned, would make bad representatives/leaders.
And I am a pragmatist in another way. Your, Elvis’ and Stoid’s attitude leads to Democratic defeat. Democrats tend to apathy when confronted with the need to vote for a distasteful candidate.
Sua
Bzzzzzzzzzz. Overreach overreach! We are not * promoting * distasteful candidates. If we were, you might have a point.
Sure you are, Stoid. You are voting for them.
Sua
Quick question for anyone still following this thread. december posted something a couple of pages back that seems to be ambigious. Can I get a quick show of hands as to what this means?
Does it mean [ol][li]Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would [be to deny bigotry by a Democrat]?[/li][li]Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would [be to deny bigotry by a Republican]?[/ol][/li]Anyone? Everyone?
Enjoy,
Steven
It means #2. That’s why I used the phrase “one of their own.”
Sua, even if you call it voting for the lesser evil, that is not the same as supporting evil as you suggest. In the short run, it’s upholding our responsibility as citizens to make the best of things - and before we are political animals, we are citizens with all the responsibilities that the term entails. Some persons have different views - those who ignore the fact that we’re all one society in their zeal to push narrow agendas, and those who would rather run away than hold their noses and dig into whatever pile needs digging. I’m not sure which of those you are, perhaps both, but you’re not in any way convincing me that you’re actually advancing any useful cause at all with the course you choose.
In the long run, it’s maintaining our stake in the game, one which cannot be opted out of. By making candidates beholden to us as voters, we have leverage to make them behave the way we want them to.
Beautifully put, Elvis.