[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lissener *
**[list=A][li]Every other word you’ve written is “Clinton.” You’ve mentioned him ten times in this discussion that is not about him.[/li][/quote]
**
I’ve actually mentioned him 5 times if you want to be nitpicky, which you seem to enjoy doing. You’re right, this is a discussion about Gore, who is a new democrat modeled after the style of Clinton. A man who defends Clinton’s record, and talks about continuing the “prosperity” that Clinton started. A man who repeatedly claims that we are better off now than we were 8 years ago, before Clinton. If he keeps bringing up Clinton, so will I. If he comes out and state “Clinton was a disgusting pig who has done more against the environment, the poor, homosexuals, a womans right to choose, welfare, and done more to endanger this country than any other force in the democratic party. I’m breaking from his GOP light policies and embrassing our populist past. FDR was right” Then, then, I’ll stop bringing up clinton.
**
OK. Why don’t you give some examples, or do you merely want to keep mouthing your empty assurances that Gore is the best choice for this country, Bush is evil, and Nader voters are morons for not seeing the light and voting for Gore.
I fail to see how showing that Clinton and Gore are similar is a hijack.
Personally, I’m somewhat disapointed that someone who argues so forcefully for Gay Rights now would support someone who opposes gay marriage. sigh…
**
Stop getting so huffy. My point was that you’re metaphor has no validity. It is not valid to reduce politics to the level of purchasing shoes, or purchasing a house, or purchasing anything. People who see it that way shouldn’t vote.
And at least with Bush we can get exchanges like this
How old are you? 12? You seem incapable of contributing to a GD thread without resorting to personal attacks or insults. You have yet to post anything substantive. If you, somehow, do, I will respond. Really, go back, read all your posts, now go ahead and post any substantive statement that I haven’t responded to. I dare you.
Geez, guys…Let’s try to keep this civil. We liberals are enough of a minority on this message board that we gotta stick together a little bit, even when we do disagree…Keep it in perspective.
As for the topic of the debate, I am with kimstu on this. I would put it this way: If your conscience won’t let you vote for Gore in any event because you don’t really consider him to be the lesser of the evils, then by all means, vote for Nader. But, if you do think Gore would be better than Bush (and, while I have sympathy for the claim that they are not fudamentally very different, I do believe in the end that there are some important differences), then take a good hard look at the political situation of the state you live in and decide whether you can risk voting for Nader or not. I live in New York State and almost surely can and likely will. But, at the same time, I am encouraging friends in, say Michigan, to vote for Gore…And, I was thinking of offering my mom down in Maryland (who is leading Nader) a trade: If she votes for Gore, I’ll promise to vote for Nader. [It’s not clear how close Maryland is…but it is much more of a toss-up than New York.] This may all seem overly pragmatic, but hey, soemtimes you gotta balance pragmatism and idealism unfortunately.
It doesent seem pragmatic to vote for gore at all.
Personally I read lisseners political posts for pure entertainment. Lissener doesent want to debate he just wants to be a troll. I mean look at the article the article itself is trollish and thats lisseners entire arguement. Lissener wont give a valid reason to vote for gore because there aren’t any.
And personally, I think that’s a wholly unfair characterization. I don’t think I’ve ever seen lissener behave disingenuously, and he and I frequent most of the same threads. On the contrary, while frustration sometimes gets the best of him, I strongly feel that lissener’s aim is to engage debate, rather than provoke arguments.
Speaking of which… Asmodean, heal thyself. We’re having a perfectly good discussion here; it’s not really productive for you to clutter it with your usual drive-bys. Thanks.
Well said. In the end, though, (IMHO) voting shouldn’t be a matter of pure pragmatism. It’s really about your selection criteria. “Does my preferred candidate have a realistic chance to win this election?” and “Do I fear what Candidate X would do if he/she were in office?” are only two of many possible reasons for supporting a particular candidate, and many people may not find them important.
I’m essentually a non-voter. I’ve never voted. I also realize that there are many here on the SDMB who might think me not intellectually qualified to vote. Too bad, I’m not a felon and I choose to vote this year.
I’ve looked a little at the Green party stuff, I’ve looked a little at the Libertarian stance. I choose to vote this year because I’m voting “party”. Not that I like Al Gore or his wife. I actually liked the Clintons, blow job and all. I don’t know if my financial prosperity can be attributed to Clinton policies. I am much better off now than I was when Reagan was in office. Could be because I’m older, left an alcoholic husband, and been in the workforce longer. Who knows?
I simply can’t vote Republican. I do live in Virginia which is by in large a Republican state, so by many people’s standards here my little vote is wasted anyway. I’m a child of the 60s/70s my sensibilities are still stuck there. The 80s didn’t change me at all. I can’t vote Republican because I don’t like the views of so many Republican voters. I can’t get behind a party that is against abortion but for the death penalty. I can’t vote for the same guy that someone like Pat Robertson, and skin head white supremisist types vote for.
I think it would be nice if there were more choices but there aren’t. I do believe in campain reform of some type. Although I don’t know enough about how all the financial stuff works to have a real opinion. I don’t however understand why other ligitimate candidates can’t be included in the debate. Three debates of listening to basically the same shit out of both guys mouths were enough for me.
Anyway, I don’t know how far “right” the Democratic party has started to lean. All I know is that traditionally the Democratic party has always stood for things that I believed in. If it’s compromised itself somehow then I guess that will eventually come fully into light. I know the party and the people who lean toward the Republican stance are not for me. I know too many Republicans personally and from a personal standpoint I will not vote the same party as bigots, fundamentalists, homophobes and the habitually greedy.
The analogy to Perot only works if Nader gets a significant percentage of the vote. If he gets 2-3% the Dems will conclude there are no votes to be won by moving left. However if he gets at least 5% or enough to tip the election to Bush the Dems will see there are votes to the left they will have to shift left. This is what big time politics is about, trying to hold down your base while shifting to where the votes are. This is what FDR did when the socialist vote made the difference for him in New York in the 30’s.
I wasn’t drawing an analogy between Perot and Nader; I mentioned Perot as an example of a candidate who inspired people to vote who might not otherwise have voted. This was in response to lissener’s zero-sum dichotomy that a more liberal Gore would necessarily do worse in this election.
Your point does stand on its own, though, puddleglum, and I agree. A more apt comparison to this year’s race, perhaps, would be 1948, when Henry Wallace challenged Truman and Dewey from the left, and Strom Thurmond from the right. Of course, if Truman ran today, he’d be well to the left of Gore, as well.
