Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
61. Um, 1 in 5 American children currently lives in poverty. Still think the Dems are looking
Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:42 AM
Nov 2012

out for 'your' interests? Yikes.

our system- electoral college wilt the stilt Nov 2012 #1
As close as the two parties are in the Senate and the House... kentuck Nov 2012 #4
In Vermont we actually do have a Progressive 3rd Party- The Progressive Party cali Nov 2012 #57
+1 graham4anything Nov 2012 #11
More Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader. kentuck Nov 2012 #82
Yes, of course. Votes for Bush in 2000 caused Al Gore to not be seated. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #151
Fuck third parties. Look what happened when the Repukes allowed the Teanutters to take over. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #2
Are you saying "Teanutters" are not Republicans?? kentuck Nov 2012 #6
Extreme Republicans. I despise extremists and zealots, no matter what their political stripe. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #8
Are you saying progressives are "extremists"?? kentuck Nov 2012 #10
Before Pres. Obama, I didn't think I could despise "SOME" liberals as much as I do. But it is..... Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #13
Is it even remotely possible, in your mind, for the Democratic Party to change in such a way...? kentuck Nov 2012 #20
I don't think nuttery should be encouraged. We're all living with the effects of that. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #46
I'm right there with you Politicub Nov 2012 #28
Tarheel tama Nov 2012 #129
Tell it to Jill Stein, or as I like to call her Ms. 0.03%. Your insults are as ineffective as a.... Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #134
Sorry, didn't mean to insult tama Dec 2012 #136
Forgive me, but I expect absolutely nothing of you! Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #137
Thanks tama Dec 2012 #138
Which is why the Democratic Party is still viable Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #36
I don't think the Republican Party is in any danger of becoming "obsolete" Art_from_Ark Dec 2012 #147
Okay... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #148
There will always be a lot of support for the "other side", I'm afraid Art_from_Ark Dec 2012 #149
Parties evolve or die... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #156
thems fightin woids! dionysus Nov 2012 #111
Hey dion! You wanna fight? At least you're not showing me scary pics today. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #116
currently we have the xtreme right wing repubs, center-right dems. might be room for liberals nt msongs Nov 2012 #3
First YES, because we're more inclusive and they're exclusive orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #5
So in effect, we could elect a President with only 34% of the vote? JaneyVee Nov 2012 #7
I think third and fourth parties are more likely and more likely to be helpful Blasphemer Nov 2012 #9
Great minds and all....... socialist_n_TN Nov 2012 #18
There are NO COALITIONS in the U.S. DevonRex Nov 2012 #12
Thank You! Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #15
Coalition used to mean a body of people Asked to Temporarily orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #16
Thanks. We do not have a parliamentary system of government ... Hekate Nov 2012 #30
We already have a "progressive" Third Party NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #14
Another excellent point. In all honesty, I think today's Green Party is a front organization for... Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #17
Nancy Pelosi is a shill for the GLOP . orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #37
Seriously? NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #48
Hint " Not on the Table " that was the last shot to expose ShrubCo orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #72
What we need is reform of the system so that non-corporate voices can run and be heard. woo me with science Nov 2012 #19
+1 Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #70
There are virtually no progressive republicans Spike89 Nov 2012 #21
in unusual circumstances like in the state of Vermont or the city of San Francisco where the Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #22
If they believe as the Democrats believe, or pretend to believe?? kentuck Nov 2012 #23
2000. Ralph Nader directly caused Al Gore to not be seated. NEW HAMPSHIRE NH NH graham4anything Nov 2012 #27
The lesson I derived from 2000 is that our votes really don't matter, as the SCOTUS coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #59
WRONG. THAT WAS AFTER NADER CAUSED BUSH TO WIN NH graham4anything Nov 2012 #65
That is a monumentally ignorant Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #71
As Bing Crosby says, everybody has an angle, and so do you. graham4anything Nov 2012 #74
"Your blind loyalty to Ralph the traitor Nader . . ." Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #75
I note now four other people have agreed that Nader directly caused Gore to not be seated. graham4anything Nov 2012 #76
That is the Big Lie... kentuck Nov 2012 #83
no, the first step comes before the final step. You'all keep missing that thingydingy. Without Nader graham4anything Nov 2012 #87
While those of us in Blue Hampshire appreciate a newblewtoo Nov 2012 #113
except that Tennessee is hard red state, while NH loves the environment, Gores #1 issue graham4anything Nov 2012 #115
It is a fact that a major progressive third Party would cause the election of a Republican President Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #35
Not necessarily. A Third party candidate helped Clinton quite a bit. TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #49
if we are talking about a right-wing populist candidate - of course that would benefit the Democrats Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #51
The SCOTUS stopped the ballots from being counted. Had they been counted, Gore coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #60
because YOU are looking after the election itself. A month later. Nader won it for Bush in NH graham4anything Nov 2012 #66
I can find him. union_maid Nov 2012 #68
Nader received 97,488 in Florida in 2000.According to the official Bush tally they won by 537 votes Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #69
And how many "conservative" Democrats voted for Bush? kentuck Nov 2012 #84
NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNHNH graham4anything Nov 2012 #88
TN TN TN TN TN kentuck Nov 2012 #90
So you blame Gore for losing blood-red TN jeff47 Nov 2012 #108
Gore received more votes in Florida than did Bush, even when Nader is coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #92
Two of those parties you mentioned were destroyed by the government FYI. Puregonzo1188 Nov 2012 #39
that's besides the point. The Leftist Parties in fascist controlled Europe were executed, jailed Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #41
It depends on who is funding, and who gets an governorship DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #24
Ventura was helped by two bland major party candidates LTR Nov 2012 #133
I think it depends ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #25
No. Next question. Politicub Nov 2012 #26
Um, 1 in 5 American children currently lives in poverty. Still think the Dems are looking coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #61
Yes I do. You keep throwing out red herrings. If we could do it, dems would Politicub Nov 2012 #81
1 out of 5 children living in poverty is a "red herring"? OK, if you say so. - n/t coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #89
Whatever, dude. Politicub Nov 2012 #103
I'm a strong believer in third parties liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #29
Because the Greens helped us so much in 2000. Yeah!!!!! Hekate Nov 2012 #31
Actually, channeling my inner rat-fucking Karl Rove, I might just do that. It would coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #62
DEMOCRATICunderground NNN0LHI Nov 2012 #32
Because juries allow their third party crap stand n/t RomneyLies Nov 2012 #38
Yup... SidDithers Nov 2012 #40
I think this simple fact escapes many of us. They are openly trying to co-opt Skinner's brainchild. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #117
A left leaning third party is a Republican wet dream RomneyLies Nov 2012 #33
No quaker bill Nov 2012 #34
Yes. Chan790 Nov 2012 #42
A Third Party Always Hurts The Party Closest To It/nt DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #43
Neither. But, it would help the country. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #44
It will hurt democrats, end of fucking statemen!!!. nt bluestate10 Nov 2012 #45
How so? kentuck Nov 2012 #47
Because we don't have a parliamentary system. pnwmom Nov 2012 #50
Um Gore actually received more Florida votes than Bush, but the SCOTUS refused to coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #64
That would have been a moot point if Nader hadn't drained away another 95,000 votes. pnwmom Nov 2012 #97
That assumes that the people who voted for Nader would still have bothered to vote and coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #98
Gore only needed less than 10% of them. jeff47 Nov 2012 #104
Or they could go to one Party or the other? kentuck Nov 2012 #85
I would love if there was a Social-Democratic Party that could vie for power. But here in America Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #52
At which point, if they want to ever win anything again they will have to recapture the left. TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #80
Why? It would be far easier to take over the right. jeff47 Nov 2012 #106
Branding. Anyone voting TeaPubliKlan currently is not going to vote Democrat TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #140
Go read that again. jeff47 Dec 2012 #142
So be it. Against my council but the movers and shakers will do what they will TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #145
I am a Moderate. But I am ok with Progressives holding office, even at higher levels than bluestate10 Nov 2012 #122
Ask a Canadian. moondust Nov 2012 #53
Ask the Israelis. Coalition building w/ multiple parties allows the Ultra-Orthodox .... Hekate Nov 2012 #54
It would DEFINITELY help the repugs... BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #55
No. It's a dumb idea. Think about it. MjolnirTime Nov 2012 #56
What would really help with that would be electoral reform Ken Burch Nov 2012 #58
I find it amazing that you call yourself one of the most Progressive on DU, yet you don't see that bluestate10 Nov 2012 #123
I also proposed removing the 435 seat size limit on the U.S. House, which would correct the problem Ken Burch Nov 2012 #126
No union_maid Nov 2012 #63
No. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #67
Nader gave us eight years of Bush michigandem58 Nov 2012 #73
*sigh* IDoMath Nov 2012 #79
His running cost the election michigandem58 Nov 2012 #94
So how did he cost Kerry the election? IDoMath Nov 2012 #95
Because it's much harder to unseat an incumbent, especially when they're fighting jeff47 Nov 2012 #107
nt bluestate10 Nov 2012 #125
according to some nothing is ever wrong with the dem message liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #102
Sound very conservative to me. Even dogmatic or fundamentalist. n/t IDoMath Nov 2012 #114
There often is a lot wrong with the democrat's message, but at some point people make bluestate10 Nov 2012 #127
Nader took 97,000 votes in FL. If Gore got 1% of those, he would have been President. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #124
And Pat Buchanan insists many of his 17,000 votes should have gone to Gore... IDoMath Dec 2012 #139
It depends on the goal. LWolf Nov 2012 #77
Ask me that question after they cut Social Security & Medicare. Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #78
A message to all the purists: kentuck Nov 2012 #86
+ a million quinnox Nov 2012 #91
Hogwash Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #99
I think you misread my post? kentuck Nov 2012 #118
Yeah I guess I did. Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #119
Something to counter the Bags of Tea PoliticalBiker Nov 2012 #93
Third-Party Underground is somewhere else...nt SidDithers Nov 2012 #96
. RomneyLies Nov 2012 #101
Seems to me that influencing through "intra-party" would have more results than the entire US libdem4life Nov 2012 #100
Yes, in that it would cause the Democratic party to replace the Republican party. jeff47 Nov 2012 #105
How many third parties do you need FFS? DevonRex Nov 2012 #109
as many as it takes to make those damned demmy-crats lose! dionysus Nov 2012 #120
Hey you!! DevonRex Nov 2012 #121
The problem is that the Third Parties are so far Left or far right that they don't appeal to bluestate10 Nov 2012 #131
"Centrists" really would prefer it if we would just "go with the flow" and allow the Romulox Nov 2012 #110
I feel you are wrong. The country is drifting to the Left, not the right. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #132
A Third Party on the Left Would Hand the Senate to the Rapeuglicans AndyTiedye Nov 2012 #112
Kentuck, I have a question for you and others from the far Left. You have to look back to answer. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #128
After Bush? kentuck Dec 2012 #135
I'm not really sure how post politics Gore can be counted as one and the same as the guy in the frey TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #141
To give international perspective tama Nov 2012 #130
Curiousity question for those who claim Nader caused Gore to lose...... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #143
That's a good question. kentuck Dec 2012 #150
Or, the Democratic Party could move left and negate the need for a third party. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #144
No Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2012 #146
A shiny dishonest distraction. Doesn't fundamentally change the system. Just a power grab patrice Dec 2012 #152
Make that a shiny dishonest distraction by those who don't give a fuck who they hurt in order patrice Dec 2012 #153
A progressive third party would help everybody. hay rick Dec 2012 #154
better solution: progressive takeover of the Democrats 0rganism Dec 2012 #155
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would a progressive third...»Reply #61