Question to Green Party Supporters/Far left Democrats

[FinnMacCool]

Unless you can get 51% of the voters to vote green, the only statement you'll be making is "I lost".

So? If you realize the fact that democrats and republicans are virtually the same, then it really doesn't matter if you lose. At least your excercising your right as an american citizen to vote the way you feel is best, regardless of possible outcome.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Tsk tsk. You shouldn't hate your future president.

How can I not? She's a censorship whore.

Btw are you no longer a socialist?

 

[Kelzie]

So? If you realize the fact that democrats and republicans are virtually the same, then it really doesn't matter if you lose. At least your excercising your right as an american citizen to vote the way you feel is best, regardless of possible outcome.

What I'm hoping for is that if Democrats become more and more accepted, the political spectrum will shift to the left, with Dems being the conservative party (which, by the way, they would be considered in Europe) and another party...greens maybe...being the new left. Long shot I know. But just as long as the rise of a third party.

How can I not? She's a censorship whore.

Btw are you no longer a socialist?

Say what?

I never really was. More of a democrat with a little bit of socialists. I've decided to let the majority of my opinions rule. :mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

I read some of it, like some of it, don't like other parts.
I really like their ideas for political reform and participation, I don't like their economic ideas.
but yeah, check this out:
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#316100

You don't like their economic ideas?!? :shock: Income redistribution doesn't appeal to you galen?!? :lol:

 

[FinnMacCool]

I read some of it, like some of it, don't like other parts.
I really like their ideas for political reform and participation, I don't like their economic ideas.
but yeah, check this out:

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#316100
The thing about their economic platform is, if the green party lives up to their promise to increase public participation then there is always the possibilty of reform. Or, if none of that is true, you can always vote them out. I think its at least worth giving a shot. Whats the worst thing that can happen? I mean Bush is going to be our president for another two years. . .

 

[FinnMacCool]

What I'm hoping for is that if Democrats become more and more accepted, the political spectrum will shift to the left, with Dems being the conservative party (which, by the way, they would be considered in Europe) and another party...greens maybe...being the new left. Long shot I know. But just as long as the rise of a third party.

Yeah it is a long shot. . .particularily when you consider the fact that most americans identify with the conservatives in this country.

Say what?

Yeah. She supports censoring video games and who knows what else? A video game GTA:SA, which features car jacking, police shooting, and beating down people with a bat had to be taken off the market because of a wee bit of sex. She thinks that video games should be treated on the same lines as cigerette smoke. What a bitch!

I never really was. More of a democrat with a little bit of socialists. I've decided to let the majority of my opinions rule.

I've sorta been like that too but you were even more economically radical then I am. Thats why I'm kinda surprised. THere are actually Moderate Socialists in the Democrat party, or so I've been told.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I've seriously considered supporting libertarians but I'm just not into a lot of their ideas. Out of curiousity, what thread was that?




Your right about that. I don't think it really needs to though. Do you?

The thread was something like "what am I" I don't know, didn't really interest me as a perused through it.

the unerlined part? huh?

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yeah but until that happens, theres no real reason for me not to vote Green. At least I'll be helping to make a statement somewhat.

sure there is, FREEDOM, LIBERTY those are good reasons, VOTE libertarian! Resist the Dark-Green side!

 

[libertarian_knight]

You don't like their economic ideas?!? :shock: Income redistribution doesn't appeal to you galen?!? :lol:

Income redistribution is already what the reps and dems do anyway.

saying "I lost" is far better than saying "I see these two parties crating problem after problem and never a real solution (because their solutions produce problems too), so I will vote for them."

<insert winning sheep here>

 

[Kelzie]

Yeah it is a long shot. . .particularily when you consider the fact that most americans identify with the conservatives in this country.

*sigh* I know. This really isn't my country.

Yeah. She supports censoring video games and who knows what else? A video game GTA:SA, which features car jacking, police shooting, and beating down people with a bat had to be taken off the market because of a wee bit of sex. She thinks that video games should be treated on the same lines as cigerette smoke. What a bitch!

Oh that. I think violent video games are dumb anyway. So you can officially put me down as not giving a rat's ass.

I've sorta been like that too but you were even more economically radical then I am. Thats why I'm kinda surprised. THere are actually Moderate Socialists in the Democrat party, or so I've been told.

I'm not that radical. I believe rich people should be able to keep their money. Well, most of it at least.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Oh that. I think violent video games are dumb anyway. So you can officially put me down as not giving a rat's ass.

Thats a conveniant way of thinking. It's okay if she censors something someone else cares about. . .just as long as its not me. Well too bad I guess for the poor bastards that give a rats ass.

 

[Kelzie]

Thats a conveniant way of thinking. It's okay if she censors something someone else cares about. . .just as long as its not me. Well too bad I guess for the poor bastards that give a rats ass.

Yeah. It really is too bad for them. Oh....wait....are you one of those poor bastards? :mrgreen:

I kid, I kid. Realistically, you're never going to find a perfect candidate. If I agree with her in ever way except that she tried to censor some soft core porn from some stupid game than I'm going to have to go ahead and support her.

 

[barefootguy]

I will definitely be voting Democrat this year as we have tight Senate and Gubenatorial races here in MN. If Independence Party candidate Peter Hutchinson gets any more that 5% of the vote, it will be very difficult to beat Pawlenty. I can't stomach the thought of him winning another election without a majority. Last time around, independent candidate Tim Penny basically cost Democrat Roger Mow the election. What we need is to change the way our primary elections work, instead of merely narrowing down the field to one candidate from each party, it should narrow it down to two candidates total; that is, the first and second place finishers in the primary would advance to the general election. Also, a word to all those who say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans: Bullshit! If Kerry had won, Roberts and Alito would not have been nominated to the supreme court. The Bush tax cuts would have been rolled back. We would probably have some kind of timeline for a withdrawl from Iraq. I could go on, but you get the point. A vote for a third party is essentially a vote for the Republicans, with few exceptions.

 

[Red_Dave]

The thing is bringing about economic reform is a lot easier than to bring about institutional reform, and its the institutional reform ideas of the Green Party that I like. In congress ever went Green, or we had a Green President, they could do their economic reforms, which would, more than likely, **** up this nations economy pretty close to irrevokably, and not bring about anything close to the suggested institutional reforms that they mention.

I have concluded that, barring a republican or democrat who more closely represents me than the libertarian candidate (which is doubtful), I'm just gonna vote libertarian. I figure I waste my vote far more in voting for someone who I don't want to be president.

So how would the greens mess up the economy? by spending to much? If so how come scandinavian countrys get away with spending several times the percentage of G.D.P america does on public services?

 

[Red_Dave]

By sacrificing innovation. Do you think businesses go out of their way to practice in scandanavia where they have to pay over 50% of their profits in taxes? Do you think people are very motivated there to invent things when the amount of reward is cut in half?

The problem is the Green Party doesn't understand all of the negative reprucussions of government involvement in business. They're members of the "Economic theory? Schmeconomic theory! I don't like the results of it, so I'm gonna ignore it." It's like a guy who's trying to put together a hobby horse, so he reads the instruction manual, thinks it's too complex, so instead decided to just duct tape all of the pieces together. Sure, it's put together, but that **** isn't gonna hold for long with kids riding on it.

Isnt Norway the richest country/one of the richest countrys in the world? Ive heard someone atribute that to the fact they nationalised there oil so the wealth generated is channeled back to norway. Sweeden isnt doing to badly either.Im tempted think the tendency of those of right to claim that any government intervention in the economy will drive the economy down is just a scare tactic. One reason i have for thinking this is that these kind of ideas are particually popular in coporate sponcered american universitys and among those in the buissness comunity. So what we are effectivly left with is rich people saying "If we persue poilcys that benefit the poor rather than the rich the economy will crash and we will all die" That sounds a bit suspicious to me.

One thing that doesnt do the smithsonian school of thought any favors is the fact that oxfam and a number of other development agencys ran a big campain in responce to the World Banks forceing countrys to privitise there industrys by not giveing them aid and/or not writing off there debt if they dont. If free trade brings nations wealth then why doesnt oxfam or any other development agency agree?

 

[ashurbanipal]

I live in a red state that won't even let the Greens on the ballot, so I don't know that I will vote in the next election. But if I could, I would vote for a third party candidate that I could support.

In any case, given the horrors we bring about with our money, I'm not so sure that irrevocably screwing our economy would be such a bad thing in the grand scheme.

 

[Red_Dave]

If the stakes aren't so high in the next election, would you vote Green or independent rather then Democrat/Rep? By the time the next election comes around, I'm going to be old enough to vote so I will be voting Green. Why keep voting for the lesser of two evils? No progress to be made that way in my opinion.

How much chance to you reckon there is of someone from a thrid party being elected?

 

[scottyz]

I'm registered green.....but, I live in the Bluest freakin state ever....NY will always be Blue in the Presidential election....so I can vote for whoever the hell I want....heh.

It's the same story here in IL

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What I'm hoping for is that if Democrats become more and more accepted, the political spectrum will shift to the left, with Dems being the conservative party (which, by the way, they would be considered in Europe) and another party...greens maybe...being the new left. Long shot I know. But just as long as the rise of a third party.



Say what?

I never really was. More of a democrat with a little bit of socialists. I've decided to let the majority of my opinions rule. :mrgreen:

To bad for you the exact opposite is happening and the new left is the Neo-cons due to their socialist tendencies and the new right is the Libertarians.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Isnt Norway the richest country/one of the richest countrys in the world? Ive heard someone atribute that to the fact they nationalised there oil so the wealth generated is channeled back to norway. Sweeden isnt doing to badly either.Im tempted think the tendency of those of right to claim that any government intervention in the economy will drive the economy down is just a scare tactic. One reason i have for thinking this is that these kind of ideas are particually popular in coporate sponcered american universitys and among those in the buissness comunity. So what we are effectivly left with is rich people saying "If we persue poilcys that benefit the poor rather than the rich the economy will crash and we will all die" That sounds a bit suspicious to me.

One thing that doesnt do the smithsonian school of thought any favors is the fact that oxfam and a number of other development agencys ran a big campain in responce to the World Banks forceing countrys to privitise there industrys by not giveing them aid and/or not writing off there debt if they dont. If free trade brings nations wealth then why doesnt oxfam or any other development agency agree?

Swedens socialist economy hit a roadblock in the 90s and they have been back peddling ever since their economy is becoming heavily privatized, as for Norway it's funny you mention their oil, because without it their economy would have collapsed years ago.

And just why in the hell should the world bank continue giving loans to countries whose economic policies have made them default on their original loans in the first place? The fact of the matter is that the agreement of the Latin American countries to privatize their economies and follow the Washington Consensus is the only thing that got them out of their depression and eventually out from under the boots of their jack booted socialist/corporatist tyrants. While following the socialist policies of the combination of the forces of labor and capital under the state their economies fell into stagnation, inflation, hyperinflation, and deflation.

SWEDEN: AN EXAMPLE FOR CONSERVATIVES

American conservatives should be shouting the Swedish experience from the rooftops

What would American conservatives say of a country that NOT ONLY has an extensive system of government-paid vouchers for private schooling but also has an extensive system of government-paid vouchers for private hospitalization? And what if the same country had ALREADY made big cutbacks in the size of government? A dream for the distant future? Not quite. That country does already exist. It is Sweden. Probably because the mainstream media turn a blind eye to it, most people seem totally unaware that Sweden is moving steadily AWAY FROM the "Swedish model". In the early 90s, the Swedish government was spending nearly three quarters of the national income. That is now down to about half.

Sweden still has a long way to go of course. After their big economic meltdown in the early 90's (huge unemployment and welfare benefits that could no longer be paid for) they undertook an exemplary program of privatizations and made big cuts to both taxes and welfare benefits but there are still huge disincentives to work in Sweden. Incomes are kept pretty uniform regardless of what you do -- meaning that there is little incentive either to improve one's skills or to work hard -- and the sickness benefit side of the welfare system is still a huge racket. People on sickness benefits no longer get a higher income than they would by working but the benefits are still close to wages and access to the system is very easy. So huge numbers of Swedes have declared themselves too ill to work.

As a consequence, average Swedish incomes have fallen well behind American standards -- as indexed by the most objective criterion we have: GDP per capita. When purchasing power is taken into account, the picture is even worse. A cup of coffee, for instance, is likely to cost you three times as much in Sweden as in the USA. Individual Swedes do however manage their money well so there is little visible sign in Sweden of their lower incomes. Visible poverty in any modern society mainly reflects bad decisions rather than lack of income. Money now buys options rather than survival.

So Leftists who advocate high taxes and pervasive welfare need to be told that the country that went furthest in that direction hit a rock years ago and has been paddling in reverse ever since.

 

[goligoth]

I think that the greens should be allowed to debate against the other two candidates....maybe then people will at least know that there is a third choice....