• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who here has the Balls, the Honesty, the Strength of Character to...

I'd never thought of it this way, but I guess I'm a "party of one" too. I always vote for the individual, and I figure that those who don't belong to a party have the luxury of criticizing everybody. :lol:
I'm with you on that. The problem I see, particularly now with increasing polarization, is that we're all stereotyped and placed in the box of party with a "one size fits all" label. We all know that one size fits nobody. There is no one-to-one correspondence between stated party beliefs and anybody except the shills for each, and I suspect that they actually believe nothing at all of any value. In the end, I'd like to see things in better shape for the next generation, and the party of those who can do that doesn't matter to me at all.
 
Currently, a third party candidate is NOT gonna win. Voting third party based on candidate is myopic and, frankly, small minded. Perhaps after the party has 5% in a general and the next year polls 20-30% such a push could happen. Until then, it's about issues and not the candidate.

I don't care about your idol-based conscience. It's irrelevant. And besides, Nader is an asshole.

Really? WOW, did this come to you in a vision? Apparently you didn't read my posts. No kidding it's about the issues but do you vote for issues or candidates who share your position on the issues? eh? Whadda ya tink? Maybe so, possibly? I don't even know what you mean by idol based conscience, I mean seriously, I don't think you do either. Nader can be whatever you want him to be, I wasn't the guy thinking him and his buds were crafty ninjas voting for him instead of Al Gore like some attention starved children, because negative attention is better than no attention -- that was you.

Reread or I should say read my posts and maybe another vision will strike you and you'll wake up to what I was saying, or don't...
 
I grew up in a Christian, Conservative, but Democrat family.
I'm an Atheist and voted Republican for years.
I started voting Libertarian due to my distrust of the nannystate.
But then I met/debated several Libertarians, and realized that most of them are just trying to return us to America from 200 years ago, which isn't my idea of a good society.

I now consider myself to be a Left-wing Libertarian, or a Libertarian Marxist. I want more rights for individuals, but don't consider businesses to be individuals. Looking back at my Republican or Right-libertarian beliefs, I see plenty of flaws. Mostly, it's the idea that they can get a better future by going back to the past. There was also an over-reliance on the founding fathers for what a government should be or what our rights are. The last thing that my old parties did that got me was a lack of PR; you can want America to do something all you like, but you have to get Americans to want it, too. One of the last times I tried to help the Republicans was with tuning down their anti-minority and anti-gay message; I said it would lose them the 2008 and 2012 elections and it did. With the libertarians, they really need to focus on the rights that are already in popular demand, not just "everything in the constitution".

Losing an election after supporting popular items 'x' and 'y', just because you also support 'z', you should learn to tune down 'z' and pump up 'x' and 'y'. I thought it was common sense, but apparently not. The republicans need to tune down opposition to gays and marijuana legalization, where libertarians need to tune down support for abolishing the minimum wage or the civil rights act. They should both pump up their support of cutting taxes for all and reducing most of the regulations for small businesses.
 
Isn't Libertarian Marxist, an oxymoron?
 
Really? WOW, did this come to you in a vision? Apparently you didn't read my posts. No kidding it's about the issues but do you vote for issues or candidates who share your position on the issues? eh? Whadda ya tink? Maybe so, possibly? I don't even know what you mean by idol based conscience, I mean seriously, I don't think you do either. Nader can be whatever you want him to be, I wasn't the guy thinking him and his buds were crafty ninjas voting for him instead of Al Gore like some attention starved children, because negative attention is better than no attention -- that was you.

Reread or I should say read my posts and maybe another vision will strike you and you'll wake up to what I was saying, or don't...

The people who voted Green because of Nader were not significant (less than 5% of Nader votes). Nader was not a factor. It was about Clinton totally failing to address issues that he had promised to, even in a great economy. Greens felt abandoned by the democratic party, sidelined even in the best of times. THAT is why Nader got 3%. That is why the dems lost.

It had NOTHING to do with Nader. Your idol worship is nonsense. Were you even old enough to vote in that election? It seems like you have no idea what happened. I was at FIU, majoring in Environmental Science. I have the real scoop, straight from the horse's mouth, in the county that decided the election.



and it took a legend to get that...

There aren't too many Ralph Nader's anymore...

Ralph Nader has done more for this country than any of the last 5 President's combined, what does Nader have to do with it he says, he says...
 
Last edited:
I do!

Which is why I don't have a party.

Registered Independent.
 
The people who voted Green because of Nader were not significant (less than 5% of Nader votes). Nader was not a factor. It was about Clinton totally failing to address issues that he had promised to, even in a great economy. Greens felt abandoned by the democratic party, sidelined even in the best of times. THAT is why Nader got 3%. That is why the dems lost.

It had NOTHING to do with Nader. Your idol worship is nonsense. Were you even old enough to vote in that election? It seems like you have no idea what happened. I was at FIU, majoring in Environmental Science. I have the real scoop, straight from the horse's mouth, in the county that decided the election.

You are making an argument from silence. Like Ross Perot, Nader's success was due to a cult of personality. To say that Nader had nothing to do with it is unfounded speculation on your part. All evidence shows that it was because of who Nader was, that the Greens got the support they did. If your name was on the ballot instead of Nader's Al Gore would have been President. It was Nader on the ticket that fired the Green Party up. To say the man had nothing to do with it is you just simply being dishonest.

In what Nader has done, he is a legend. That's not idol worship that is simply the truth. What I find laughable is that you presume to speak for the entire Green Party. Like where was I in 2000? Antarctica? Now, what you're carrying on about I know was the post narrative that the Dem pundits pushed, and that's just swell, you want to keep thinking that, who am I to come between a man and his delusions. You heard it from the horse's mouth? more like its ass...

Was I old enough? Are you serious? By 2000 I'd already served my country and had a job working in the real world while you were still trying to grow into your Birkenstocks. Was I old enough, gimme a break...
 
You are making an argument from silence. Like Ross Perot, Nader's success was due to a cult of personality.

That's delusional. Perot's success was the result of the same thing as Nader, members of a major party dissatisfied with inclusion. For Perot, it was 'conservative' economics. For Nader it was environmental issues.

Cult of personality my ass. Learn the issues, the history and why these things happened. Perot is a little weasel nerd and Nader is an asshole. No one expected either to win.

Was I old enough? Are you serious? By 2000 I'd already served my country and had a job working in the real world while you were still trying to grow into your Birkenstocks. Was I old enough, gimme a break...

By 2000 I had served my country as a paratrooper (left an expensive private uni to volunteer 11xa during war), finishing my BA and was preparing to go to Europe for my masters (education via GI Bill/College Fund). You were a dirty nasty leg? MSc Intl. Env. Sci, PhD Interdisciplinary Ecology. I've forgotten more about environmental science than you've ever known. No one on this board can touch me as far as being green goes, not even close.
 
Last edited:
When I was in 6th grade I "voted"for Ross Perot. Later,as I got to actually study issues I found out I disagreed with him on major issues like trade.
 
That's delusional. Perot's success was the result of the same thing as Nader, members of a major party dissatisfied with inclusion. For Perot, it was 'conservative' economics. For Nader it was environmental issues.

Cult of personality my ass. Learn the issues, the history and why these things happened. Perot is a little weasel nerd and Nader is an asshole. No one expected either to win.

As much as you claim to know about environmental science you're showing you know bunk about the nature of mass movements. While no one was expecting to win they had hope. That's what Perot and Nader brought.

It seems we are going off the reservation a bit too far and as much as I would love to go back and forth with you trading barbs it seems either by purpose or design that you are attributing to me a position that isn't mine. Matter of fact, outside of you thinking I'm a Nader Raider, which I voted for Bush in 2000 for pete's sake, instead of realizing the very specific point I was making, which we'll apparently just have to agree to disagree, I don't even know what the hell we're going back and forth about. What is it -- you saying a side of tofu could have been the Green Candidate and they'd of still got the % of the vote they did? The rest is past me...

The rest of your provocative quips I'm going to just choose to ignore.


By 2000 I had served my country as a paratrooper (left an expensive private uni to volunteer 11xa during war), finishing my BA and was preparing to go to Europe for my masters (education via GI Bill/College Fund). You were a dirty nasty leg? MSc Intl. Env. Sci, PhD Interdisciplinary Ecology. I've forgotten more about environmental science than you've ever known. No one on this board can touch me as far as being green goes, not even close.

I was a squid. Considering I am not involved in environmental science I sure hope that's the case.
 
While no one was expecting to win they had hope. That's what Perot and Nader brought. .

Hope for what?

What is it -- you saying a side of tofu could have been the Green Candidate and they'd of still got the % of the vote they did?

Yes.

Matter of fact, outside of you thinking I'm a Nader Raider, which I voted for Bush in 2000 for pete's sake... I am not involved in environmental science...

I knew you had no idea what you were talking about.
 
(to my everlasting shame I only voted for 1, Obama, which was more a vote against McCain

I think that is one that can be excused, even with how horrible Obama has been. :shock:
 
I grew up in a Christian, Conservative, but Democrat family.
I'm an Atheist and voted Republican for years.
I started voting Libertarian due to my distrust of the nannystate.
But then I met/debated several Libertarians, and realized that most of them are just trying to return us to America from 200 years ago, which isn't my idea of a good society.

I now consider myself to be a Left-wing Libertarian, or a Libertarian Marxist. I want more rights for individuals, but don't consider businesses to be individuals. Looking back at my Republican or Right-libertarian beliefs, I see plenty of flaws. Mostly, it's the idea that they can get a better future by going back to the past. There was also an over-reliance on the founding fathers for what a government should be or what our rights are. The last thing that my old parties did that got me was a lack of PR; you can want America to do something all you like, but you have to get Americans to want it, too. One of the last times I tried to help the Republicans was with tuning down their anti-minority and anti-gay message; I said it would lose them the 2008 and 2012 elections and it did. With the libertarians, they really need to focus on the rights that are already in popular demand, not just "everything in the constitution".

Losing an election after supporting popular items 'x' and 'y', just because you also support 'z', you should learn to tune down 'z' and pump up 'x' and 'y'. I thought it was common sense, but apparently not. The republicans need to tune down opposition to gays and marijuana legalization, where libertarians need to tune down support for abolishing the minimum wage or the civil rights act. They should both pump up their support of cutting taxes for all and reducing most of the regulations for small businesses.

As a former Republican and right-libertarian, I understand where you are coming from. Big reasons why I left Republican Party: Drug War, death penalty, foreign policy, and social issues. Big reasons I stopped calling myself a right-libertarian: Too much focus on Constitution, and with non-issues (like min. wage as you mentioned), and the reverence for 'property' over liberty. Now I consider myself left-libertarian leaning, specifically a geolibertarian.

On topic: my biggest criticism for my party, err ideological subgroup, there aren't enough of us. :)
 
This is pure asininity.

90% of my friends at my uni, most of us majoring in Env Sci, had no clue who Nader was. We were just pissed at Clinton and Gore.
 
Who here has the balls, the honesty, the strength of character to be skeptical and critical of their own party's faults, flaws and mistakes?

This is one of the greatest metrics of integrity, morality and trustworthiness. Absent this, we are lowered to grade school, childish finger pointing, blind self denial, and clique mentality.

I was raised in a traditionally conservative home and taught that your own house needs to be in order before criticizing your neighbors house. The illusion of an ordered house, or denial of disorder is not honest or of strong character and invites tyranny of your neighbor, or their tyranny onto you.

So who here has the balls to call out the corruption and incompetence within their own party?

I wonder how many we can put on a list...

Being a libertarian I've got plenty of differences with the Republicans. However, criticism of Republicans is the job of the opposition, and they have never shirked in that duty that I'm aware of.

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." -Ronald Reagan after Gaylord Parkinson. Also known as The Eleventh Commandment.
 
Who here has the balls, the honesty, the strength of character to be skeptical and critical of their own party's faults, flaws and mistakes?

This is one of the greatest metrics of integrity, morality and trustworthiness. Absent this, we are lowered to grade school, childish finger pointing, blind self denial, and clique mentality.

I was raised in a traditionally conservative home and taught that your own house needs to be in order before criticizing your neighbors house. The illusion of an ordered house, or denial of disorder is not honest or of strong character and invites tyranny of your neighbor, or their tyranny onto you.

So who here has the balls to call out the corruption and incompetence within their own party?

I wonder how many we can put on a list...
Ill criticize individuals not generalize whole parties
 
Back
Top Bottom