They are the party of everyone's favorite frat guy party boy - Ted Kennedy. Oh, and don't forget everyone's favorite carpet bagger senator Hillary Clinton.
I think the party could go a long ways by bagging both those members. Kennedy probably won't be around much longer, but it seems they are hoping Hillary will bring the party to greatness. Uhh, I just don't see it. Voting for her is just terrifying.
ok. this needs to stop. my other forum that i frequent has degenerated into self-effacing shameless "political" rants and mudslinging that is neither stimulating nor interesting to anyone other than those involved.
so this should just stop. where's silent disapproval robot?
Sorry ACfA, but ever since The Democratic Party got a local Iraq vet to stop running for Senate "because he didn't have the name recognition" and they stopped sending him money, I realized that they weren't interested in serious change. We really need a 3rd party.
A- There are only two parties in Arizona, and neither of them are called "Democrats". Basically you're Republican or your Libertarian. The first time someone I knew admitted to being a Republican, apparently I reacted as though they'd admitted to torturing kittens in their free time. So yes, people ARE raised libertarian.
And I'm completely with WonderK- the third parties make a lot more sense than most think, but so many people are convinced of the two party system, and so many laws are written by and for the Duopoly, that it will be a long time before anything can change.
I'm no great defender of the two party system, but I've never understood how the establishment of a viable third party would "fix" anything that's wrong with the American political system. For a third party to get to a level where it had the potential for long term longevity and the ability to compete seriously in national, state, and local elections I believe that, unfortunately, such a party would ultimately end up not looking much different from the two we have now.
the other argument against a 3-party system i hear a lot is the idea that theoretically you would always have a party in power that is supported by a potential minority of voters, leaving a large population of voters disenfranchised.
i don't know enough about political science to debate the point in detail, but it's obvious our current majority-elected administration isn't really working too well for us either.
politics will always be politics, no matter which party is in control....although with democrats in power, people might have a few more personal rights, and perhaps a more helpful government (read: healthcare, college aid, etc)
there are a few democrats showing promise: barack obama, eliot spitzer (although he isn't yet at the federal level)
Actually I think that the Democratic Party could be very successful if they annexed the Reform Party. The way I see it, the Reform Party has a very electable platform - level the playing field, root out corruption, etc. But then once they've accomplished their goals, and stuff comes up about abortion or gay marriage or the economy, they've got nothing. Democrats, on the other hand, do for the most part have positions on the day-to-day stuff, but nothing so stand-out that it'll get them elected. If we could merge that together, it may be very successful.
And as for j's point, I'd just like to point out that that's why I shifted to the Green party (check them out, they're more than just tree-huggers), and frequently vote Democratic. Actually there's a sort of unspoken alliance amongst the progressive parties, and members frequently cross party lines to vote for whichever progressive they think is most electable. They even conspire on it. For the last presidential election, I tried to participate in vote swapping, but apparently my state was QUITE safe from the Bushies already. But the idea is that if there's someone in Ohio that wants to vote for a third party candidate, and someone in California that wants to vote for a Democrat, the vote swap thing hooks them up, and they promise to vote for each others candidates, thereby placing each vote where it would go the furthest and working around the electoral college system.
And I would definitely support it if all the progressive parties somehow merged, though I have to say that the libertarians would never go for it. The reason the Libs are so left out is because they are actually squarely between the Dems and the Reps - they are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. So really they'd just as soon vote Republican as vote Democratic, depending on which candidate they think is the bigger jerk-off.
i agree...electoral college doesn't make sense to me
mdler - for 2000 i would certainly agree. perhaps my recollection is dodgy, but i don't remember the results of the 2004 election being as contested as 2000...although i'm sure that unending debate depends on who you ask -- i found it tough to delineate fact from fiction with the fallout from the ohio ballots. at the risk of sparking heated retorts, i don't remember bush's 2004 victory as occuring under dubious conditions (much to my personal chagrin).
Lied about reason for going to war. Lied about leaking classified information to press. Continues to raise federal debt and deficit. No wonder this country fucking sucks.
When I saw Rollins talk last month he cracked me up. He said he would vote for Clinton just so Bill could once again roll out of bed and ejaculate in the Oval Office and there is nothing anyone could do about it. He also said he liked the idea of Condaleeza Rice. Not so much her, but a black lesbian president. He said if she was in office we could get away with anything. "Those Americans just blew up 1000 school children." "Yeah, but they have a BLP." "True, that is totally cool, oh well."
bossman- it should be, otherwise I'd officially qualify as a major dummy. If you can't learn where the party's line lies after 22 years, there's something wrong.
Find out where you fit in: The World's Smallest Political Quiz. It often surprises people just how many libertarians are out there, aligning with other parties because third parties don't register on their radar.
Democrats
Are these guys still around???
(yes, as in the political party)
I vote Dem for the big ticket items, though I'm registered as a Green and was raised as a Libertarian. = )
......are weenies.
......need to grow some balls.
......are people that I vote for because the alternative is downright terrifying.
......are politicians too.
I like this game.
apparently they are having a contest to come up with 10 words to describe themselves....
People are raised libertarian? That's the first time I heard that.
They are the party of everyone's favorite frat guy party boy - Ted Kennedy. Oh, and don't forget everyone's favorite carpet bagger senator Hillary Clinton.
I think the party could go a long ways by bagging both those members. Kennedy probably won't be around much longer, but it seems they are hoping Hillary will bring the party to greatness. Uhh, I just don't see it. Voting for her is just terrifying.
ok. this needs to stop. my other forum that i frequent has degenerated into self-effacing shameless "political" rants and mudslinging that is neither stimulating nor interesting to anyone other than those involved.
so this should just stop. where's silent disapproval robot?
Sorry ACfA, but ever since The Democratic Party got a local Iraq vet to stop running for Senate "because he didn't have the name recognition" and they stopped sending him money, I realized that they weren't interested in serious change. We really need a 3rd party.
A- There are only two parties in Arizona, and neither of them are called "Democrats". Basically you're Republican or your Libertarian. The first time someone I knew admitted to being a Republican, apparently I reacted as though they'd admitted to torturing kittens in their free time. So yes, people ARE raised libertarian.
And I'm completely with WonderK- the third parties make a lot more sense than most think, but so many people are convinced of the two party system, and so many laws are written by and for the Duopoly, that it will be a long time before anything can change.
I'm no great defender of the two party system, but I've never understood how the establishment of a viable third party would "fix" anything that's wrong with the American political system. For a third party to get to a level where it had the potential for long term longevity and the ability to compete seriously in national, state, and local elections I believe that, unfortunately, such a party would ultimately end up not looking much different from the two we have now.
It's really an issue of leveling the playing field, not necessarily adding more players.
the other argument against a 3-party system i hear a lot is the idea that theoretically you would always have a party in power that is supported by a potential minority of voters, leaving a large population of voters disenfranchised.
i don't know enough about political science to debate the point in detail, but it's obvious our current majority-elected administration isn't really working too well for us either.
straight-ticket whig party
except that henry clay...what a loser
broccolijet,
i would like to remind you that our current administration was elected my a MINORITY of the population
What we really need to do is abolish the winner take all electoral college
this conversation won't be pretty. where nico?
republicans now are what democrats where 30-40 years ago...that makes democrats now pretty loathsome.
politics will always be politics, no matter which party is in control....although with democrats in power, people might have a few more personal rights, and perhaps a more helpful government (read: healthcare, college aid, etc)
there are a few democrats showing promise: barack obama, eliot spitzer (although he isn't yet at the federal level)
Actually I think that the Democratic Party could be very successful if they annexed the Reform Party. The way I see it, the Reform Party has a very electable platform - level the playing field, root out corruption, etc. But then once they've accomplished their goals, and stuff comes up about abortion or gay marriage or the economy, they've got nothing. Democrats, on the other hand, do for the most part have positions on the day-to-day stuff, but nothing so stand-out that it'll get them elected. If we could merge that together, it may be very successful.
And as for j's point, I'd just like to point out that that's why I shifted to the Green party (check them out, they're more than just tree-huggers), and frequently vote Democratic. Actually there's a sort of unspoken alliance amongst the progressive parties, and members frequently cross party lines to vote for whichever progressive they think is most electable. They even conspire on it. For the last presidential election, I tried to participate in vote swapping, but apparently my state was QUITE safe from the Bushies already. But the idea is that if there's someone in Ohio that wants to vote for a third party candidate, and someone in California that wants to vote for a Democrat, the vote swap thing hooks them up, and they promise to vote for each others candidates, thereby placing each vote where it would go the furthest and working around the electoral college system.
And I would definitely support it if all the progressive parties somehow merged, though I have to say that the libertarians would never go for it. The reason the Libs are so left out is because they are actually squarely between the Dems and the Reps - they are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. So really they'd just as soon vote Republican as vote Democratic, depending on which candidate they think is the bigger jerk-off.
ah yes. the illustrious democratic party.
fighting for your civil rights only since this guy:
i agree...electoral college doesn't make sense to me
mdler - for 2000 i would certainly agree. perhaps my recollection is dodgy, but i don't remember the results of the 2004 election being as contested as 2000...although i'm sure that unending debate depends on who you ask -- i found it tough to delineate fact from fiction with the fallout from the ohio ballots. at the risk of sparking heated retorts, i don't remember bush's 2004 victory as occuring under dubious conditions (much to my personal chagrin).
yeah, it was definitely more solid than 2000. Nobody wants a regime change in the middle of a war, apparently.
Bush = Fascist
Lied about reason for going to war. Lied about leaking classified information to press. Continues to raise federal debt and deficit. No wonder this country fucking sucks.
kim deal in '08
kim jung il '08
Hillary Hillary she's our man
If she cant do it no one can!!!!
Goooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hillary!!!!!
rationalist your assesment of libertarians is correct.
When I saw Rollins talk last month he cracked me up. He said he would vote for Clinton just so Bill could once again roll out of bed and ejaculate in the Oval Office and there is nothing anyone could do about it. He also said he liked the idea of Condaleeza Rice. Not so much her, but a black lesbian president. He said if she was in office we could get away with anything. "Those Americans just blew up 1000 school children." "Yeah, but they have a BLP." "True, that is totally cool, oh well."
Can you spot the democrat in the crowd?
bossman- it should be, otherwise I'd officially qualify as a major dummy. If you can't learn where the party's line lies after 22 years, there's something wrong.
Find out where you fit in: The World's Smallest Political Quiz. It often surprises people just how many libertarians are out there, aligning with other parties because third parties don't register on their radar.
centrist
Centrist.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.