Let's Put This Whole Voting Green/Indy/Not Gonna Vote Thing To Rest, Shall We? Use Logic.

Let's break down the whole spiel into its most basic indisputable logical form. Then, if confronted by any friends, acquaintances, relatives or otherwise who utter such nonsense premise, just repeat the basics below:

Not voting for the Democrat, whether through voting for a green/indy or not voting at all, can be broken down into meaning only two fundamental things:

1. They don't want the Democrat to win
or
2. They don't care if the republican wins.

Let's take number 1, 'don't want the Democrat to win'. Not wanting the Democrat to win means wanting a different candidate to win. Since in today's political picture that offers only ONE alternate candidate, that means they want the republican to win. Shame on them.

Now let's take number 2, 'don't care if the republican wins'. Not caring if the republican wins is no different than declaring that they do want the republican to win. Either way, they are condoning or accepting republican victory. Again, shame on them.

This is all it comes down to. Unless there is a viable third party candidate, this is the indisputable logic of the situation.

No argument on their part can overcome this fundamental logic of the situation.

3. They no longer believe it matters who wins.

Anybody who is a Democrat or normally votes Democratic and does not vote for the Democratic candidate for president in 2008 can share the responsibility for what the Republican does if he wins. I will gladly take my share of responsibility for voting for the Democrat since whatever that person does will be much better than the Republican. Can anybody say "nominees to the Supreme Court"? Still think it makes no difference if there is a Republican elected in 2008?

although it's hard some days, but rather that that's the perception, and richly earned.

Still think it makes no difference if there is a Republican elected in 2008?

How much of a difference will it make? The jury's out.

between a Democrat and Republican. The big Nader lie of 2000 was that there was no difference, but of the many, many things that Gore would have done differently than Bush did the biggest one for sure is that the Supreme Court would now have an entirely different and better makeup that would last for many years and for Democrats have a far more positve impact upon our future.

like the ones that OK'd the internment of the Japanese during WWII?

Or would it be more like the liberal Supreme Court that OK'd the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Or would it be more like all the liberal Supreme Courts that have unfailingly refused to enforce the war powers of the Congress?

I get so confused about these "liberal" Courts.

to get examples of what a "liberal" Supreme Court would be or appear to be able to discern the difference between conservative and liberal justices. We certainly wouldn't have a Roberts court with a Justice Alito to go along with that. Roberts and Alito as conservatives will impact our nation's laws for decades. Do not be so casual to dismiss the differences between the justices that Gore would have appointed as opposed to Bush along with all of the other federal judicial appointments.

in our Supreme Court under any management. My point is that the Court has yet - in 200+ years of flailing about - to act as real bulwark for the defense of our liberties. There have certainly been moments of hope - but in the big picture there's a LONG way to go.

And BTW, I don't just blame Chimpie for Roberts and Alito. Have you heard of my friend Phil A. Buster? He used to be a Democrat, but I missed him on the Alito vote.

FDR had the MOST CONSERVATIVE COURT to work with in the history of the US... since he had a STACKED court (Until now I am betting)

He tried to stack it the other way, but it took a little while...

Oh and the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by a very CONSERVATIVE COngress in the midst of war histeria (read war, a force that gives us meaning by Hedges may explain the psychology to you), and pubshed by a monarchist President, who shared some believes with the current administration. It was also overturned by the Congress, the Supreme Court never had a say on it, but perhaps my recolection of US History is wrong. What is true is that 1897 was not one of our proudest moments...

Granted the court that FDR left behind was a tad more liberal but in 1941 it wasn't that liberal yet.

the Alien & Sedition Acts because they refused to even hear cases appealed to them that would've addressed those laws. I suppose the "liberalism" of the Court is always relative, if you only want to use the Warren Court as the standard.

But you make my point when you reference "war hysteria" - a recurring theme of American history. The Court and the Congress have long records of setting aside the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights in times of hysteria (like, for example, RIGHT NOW). My point is that they cannot be counted on. It's up to us, the people, to defend the Bill of Rights, by exercising the rights contained therein on a regular and aggressive basis.

Nader never said that, he said there was very little difference between the Parties. I have yet to see him proved that wrong..

I'm sorry you cannot see the difference. Maybe the tens of thousands killed and injured, maimed and left homeless in Iraq might help to clear your vision if you choose to see.

Madeline Albright (a Democratic apointee) said that the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children were "worth it".

Nothing wrong with my vision or memory.

I don't think it matters to the over 2 million dead Iraqis whether they were killed under a Democratic or Republican president.

BTW: BOTH Democratic front runners have pledged to CONTINUE the Military Occupation of Iraq and the continued Privatization of Iraqi resources.

" he said there was very little difference between the Parties"

- then why are you a Democrat?

then get to a sane system of government. Then continue flip flopping between insane and bad.

I admit I can't figure out where you've substituted then for than, your tense, or the intention of your sentence fragments.

Does anyone have a working interpretation of markk's post?

attack a new poster for grammar rather address his point.

I take your point Markk. Many of us understand that the relative differences between mainstream Democrats and Repuglicans are very superficial. However, some of us have decided that the best solution in the present sick system is to try and push our fellow Democrats away from the right and into a position of sanity. It may take a lifetime or more.

Stick it out and ignore the haters. As a recent arrival here myself, I've learned that while the blinders may be standard issue, you don't have to wear them.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

If this current crop of Publicans-sinners-and-hypocrites stays in power even half that long there won't a prayer of "sane" government ever again. We'll have the New Medievalism, with a miniscule middle class, masses of half-educated serfs with no public education, and an extraordinarily powerful oligarchy in gated communities, the modern version of moated castles.

Do the research. If nothing else, do the research on their attitudes toward public education, which is that it has no place being funded with our taxes.

Also, you mean "than", not "then".

Hekate

Germany's got a nice, sane democracy now too.

There is not a single Democratic candidate that I wouldn't prefer to see in the WH instead of what we currently have, or what is being offered by the GOP.

Redstone

50% of the eligible population does not vote because they think it just doesn't matter.

If we could grab that 50%, we would have 75% of the vote. Why is no-one working on this?

would lose them the minority of those who do.

you'd think they'd have more sense.

Not caring if the republican wins is no different than declaring that they do want the republican to win.

Saying that it doesn't matter who wins is, in fact, not the same as saying that you want the republican to win.

Subtle, perhaps, but I think you can get it if you work a little.

If someone says to you "ya wanna go to to the mall later?" and you say "ehhhhh, I don't care", same difference as saying "ehhhhh, yeah, I'll go to the mall".

Same difference. Not caring means it's ok if that's the outcome. Same difference.

"I'll go to the mall" is less akin to "I want to go to the mall" in this case than it is to "You fuckers are going to take me somewhere so it might as well be to the mall as to the lake".

Either way in your example, you're still at the mall. It is the outcome that is relevant, not how you got there.

And if you knew at the time that your lover's ex was going to be there waiting to beat the living snot out of you, then maybe it would've been wiser on your part to have spoken up and said "let's go to the lake" rather than "I don't care which one we go to".

And spare me the whole "yeah, but at the lake there was gonna be blah blah blah ready to pummel the snot out of me" argument. Cause to be equal, it would have to be something like "yeah, but at the lake a bee's gonna sting ya in the ass". That's about the correct level of comparison. And though sure, the sting might might hurt a bit and be a bit embarrassing, it's a hell of a lot better than compared to getting the living snot beat out of you. So when looking at the two, I say bring the bee on!

(and no, don't tell me either about how someone could be allergic to the bee and blow up like a balloon and possibly die blah blah blah. You know full well what I'm saying)

I'm still where you chose to take me.

And spare me the whole "yeah, but at the lake there was gonna be blah blah blah ready to pummel the snot out of me" argument.

Huh?

(and no, don't tell me either about how someone could be allergic to the bee and blow up like a balloon and possibly die blah blah blah. You know full well what I'm saying)

Huh?

relevant as to what got you there. What's only relevant is where you are. When having the luxury of knowing before hand what your destinations are, then it would be wise to assess which destination you'd fare better at, regardless of the resentment that goes along with having been forced in the car to begin with.

But if you know before hand that you're either being driven to the mall or the lake, and that the mall has someone waiting to pummel the living snot out of you but the lake has a bee that will merely sting you in the ass, then I'd wager it would be the smarter up front decision to say "sighhhhhh, what can ya do. Let's go to the lake. I'll be damned if I get the living snot pummeled out of me again. I just went through that last week! Bring it on bee.".

But if you know before hand that you're either being driven to the mall or the lake, and that the mall has someone waiting to pummel the living snot out of you but the lake has a bee that will merely sting you in the ass, then I'd wager it would be the smarter up front decision to say "sighhhhhh, what can ya do. Let's go to the lake. I'll be damned if I get the living snot pummeled out of me again. I just went through that last week! Bring it on bee."

I'll leave aside questions concerning degrees of pain and simply ask why, if you know your destination will involve pain, you would consent to being put in the car in the first place.

And yes, what got you there is ENTIRELY relevant.

You are trying to inject an additional premise into the OP that the winner of the next election is going to be someone other than the republican or the Democratic candidate. You can't possibly believe that to be true, and neither does ANYBODY else. So since the premise is not one based in reality; which is what we're talking about here; then it is completely irrelevant to even explore within context of this argument.

Whether you give your consent to being put in the car in the first place or not, the FACT is that you are still going to wind up at either the mall or the lake. Therefore, the detail of whether you did or didn't give your consent doesn't come into play at all. It is ONLY a question of when you get to where you're going, should it be the mall or the lake. That's it. There is no third option. That's why at this point in time, the OP stands on its merits. I'm not saying this because it's how I want things to be. I'm not saying these things because it's what I believe things to be. I'm saying these things because that's quite simply right now how things are. I didn't create the logic. It is just simply what is there.

You are trying to inject an additional premise into the OP that the winner of the next election is going to be someone other than the republican or the Democratic candidate.

Not it the least. Nice try, though.

Whether you give your consent to being put in the car in the first place or not, the FACT is that you are still going to wind up at either the mall or the lake.

What you're missing is that a free citizen doesn't have to give consent to the hijacking.

That's why at this point in time, the OP stands on its merits.

And it will never be different...if I accept that inevitability.

I'm not saying this because it's how I want things to be.

Oh, ok. I feel better now.

"easy - someone kicks you in the balls. who did it matters."


Flawed analogy. You already knew who'd be pummeling the snot out of you and that a bee would be the thing stinging you as well. To now have an additional analogy, the above would only be accurate if there was two choices of getting kicked in the balls or getting flicked on the ear. You may know full well in advance who will be doing the full thrust kick to your balls and who is doing the little finger flick on the base of your ear. But it would still be wise, while you had a chance to choose, to say "him! The ear flicker! I want him!".


You are trying to inject an additional premise into the OP that the winner of the next election is going to be someone other than the republican or the Democratic candidate.

"Not it the least. Nice try, though."


Yes, you were. By issuing a premise that you could refuse to get in the car, it is in essence saying that you don't have to go to the mall OR the lake. i.e. The outcome of the election doesn't have to be the republican OR the Democrat. But we both know that's false on its face.


Whether you give your consent to being put in the car in the first place or not, the FACT is that you are still going to wind up at either the mall or the lake.

"What you're missing is that a free citizen doesn't have to give consent to the hijacking."


What you're missing, again, is that even if the citizen doesn't give consent, they're going to find themselves at the mall or at the lake. At the mall, they get the living snot pummeled out of them. At the lake, they MAY (which I should've said before) MAY, get stung by a bee. Consent or not, would it not be the wise choice to go to the lake? What's even worse, is that whatever choice you make applies to EVERY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD. So if you end up at the mall, EVERYBODY gets the living snot pummeled out of them. If you choose the lake, then everybody MAY (or may not even) get stung by a bee. So it's not just you you're choosing for, consent or not, it's EVERYBODY. So what to do? You going to sit there with your arms folded, saying "I refuse to get in the car", even though you're already sitting in it on the way to your destination? Are you going to put EVERYBODY at risk due to your refusal to have spoken out earlier, when you could've helped ensure that at least the car would end up at the lake and not the mall? Do you think sitting with your arms folded, while repeating over and over "I'm not going. I'm not going. I do not consent to going" even while you're in the car and already going, is something that would serve any purpose? I don't.


That's why at this point in time, the OP stands on its merits.

"And it will never be different...if I accept that inevitability."


False on its face. Nothing is written in stone. The logic applies to the NOW. It applies to THIS next election. Who knows what will come thereafter. But until there is a legitimate third party contender that throws the balance of 'definitely winning will be the Dem or repub' away, the points stand. In order to override the logic in the OP only one question has to be asked and answered affirmatively. That question is "Is it a feasible reality that the third party candidate has a legitimate shot at winning the presidency". When that question can be answered "Yes", that's when the OP premise is no longer legitimate.

I think the ex-boyfrind is going to follow you either place and kick the shit out of you either way.

I still say go to the lake, cuz while you're there you might get a nice tan.

is one that I tend to reject. I should also say that, given the reality of the Clinton years, the bee analogy is understated by a wee bit.

By issuing a premise that you could refuse to get in the car, it is in essence saying that you don't have to go to the mall OR the lake. i.e. The outcome of the election doesn't have to be the republican OR the Democrat. But we both know that's false on its face.


Your OP had to do with voter intent - in your dichotomy, one either wants the Dem to win or wants to Repug to win (since, as you said, not caring if the Repug wins is the same as wanting him to win). Not believing that it makes all that great a difference either way is the third choice I identified. None of these is the same as saying, "Well, whatever you may want, one of these two outcomes will happen", which is what you're saying now.

Not believing that it makes all that great a difference is not a third way, it is number 2 in the OP. It is the same as not caring who wins. And after what we've seen transpire before our eyes these last 8 years, if that is not enough for one to realize that they SHOULD care if the republican wins then as I said; shame on them.

And you said that isn't the same as saying "well, whatever you may want, one of these two outcomes will happen". No shit it isn't, nor were they compared. The latter was in defense of the groundwork of reality that has been laid in order to make the rest of the premise able to exist accurately.

i'm fed up with this machivellian bullshit. so many people are holding their noses and the party wants to blame those who point out the stench.

C'mon J, you and I have been here before.

His two points work even for those wanting Republicans to win so that the people will see how far this one group of people are from the rest of us.

If we had election campaigning and counting that held the people as more important than money, a Nader have a real chance. But, we don't, so, we don't.

His two points read as "you're with us or you're with the terrorists".

But they aren't mine, as logic is something inherent within reality at any given moment; not something that can be created on a whim by one's opinion.

And based on the current reality and the inherent logic bound to it, the OP stands as factual.

They're Inherent Logical Realities That I Merely Recognize.

Bullshit.

You say bullshit. Saying bullshit is not an answer nor an argument either. It's a header. If you want to say bullshit, then you need to follow up with why.

Why is it bullshit ulysses?

That's what despots do, and it doesn't impress me. It's bullshit because saying "it's this way because I say it's this way" is bullshit.

You can deny or call bullshit all you want. But that doesn't change reality. You say I'm saying it's a matter of "it's this way because I say it's this way", but again that is completely false.

It is not this way because I say it's this way. It's this way because that's what it is. If you think it is not this way, then show WHY it's not this way. I don't see how you can do so, but hey, maybe you'll surprise me.

They're defining reality for us now.

Proud member of the non-reality based community that I am.

our reality is good reality.

Happy 6th DU Anniversary!

Either way, two Democratic voters could be cultivated in the time it takes before one gives up on the Naderite.

and you won't have to worry about those who don't vote for the D - either R or G or just leaving it blank and voting D down-ticket or whatever.

because if the Ds hadn't screwed Labor, working people in general, the poor, for yea these many years sucking up to Corporate $$ this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I am not a Dem (NYS, WFP) BUT election after election I go out, door to door, in poor neighborhoods, getting people who wern't going to vote out to the polls for Ds. And the only answer I have to "what difference will it make for me, my kid?" is "the R will be worse." It's a hard sell. Because these are people for whom the insane "war on drugs" really matters. These are people for whom no jobs in inner cities matter. People for whom "welfare refomr" really made life harder, more miserable. People for whom a national single-payor health care really matters. The Supreme Court is a long way away.

And unless there is a candidate at the top in 2008 who gives me reason to talk people out of their doors on those issues, I won't be doing it this time around. The Dem Party can do it themselves.

The bottom line is this time if we do not All vote for the Democratic nominee the Republics will win....it's as simple as that.

We can try to persuade people to join us in backing whatever or whomever we're backing by pointing out the advantages.

Slamming them for doing otherwise just forces them into a defensive posture and doesn't get us anywhere.

but, it happens from time to time

Whether we like it or not.

Redstone

favor of those of it's more deep pocketed corporate sponsors and for the most part is quite comfortable with the status quo as long as they're not totally out of power, then I hope you won't mind ifI and others who see nothing but ruination in continuing down these rails because no matter who's sitting at the controls and blowing the whistle the track is going downhill and the train is picking up speed and it's gonna crash unless somebody takes the siding. and the democrats nor the republicans have shown any interest in getting off the gravy train as it is right now.

But I know that fear mongering ain't gonna work on me, whether it's doomsday scenarios from the GOPosse and their radical religous right, or Party stalwarts like you trying to intimidate me or telling me that by casting my vote exactly as I wish I might be as well be boting for a republican if that vote isn't going for a Dem. I call bullshit. The democratic party doesn't own my vote. If they wasnt it, then they damn well better earn it.

Do you have ANY IDEA who you're talking to?

Redstone

as voting republican is an intimidation to keep people voting for the status quo, the lesser of two evils, vote for someone with electability all the rest of the tired old horseshit.

Lighten up, would you?

Redstone

If the reality of that is harsh on you maybe it's cause it should be. We cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of republican rule. The stakes are too high.

It just is what it is. At this point in time, while 3rd party/green are impossibilities for election, the points in the OP stand. That's not intimidation, it's merely logical fact.

Petitioning
protesting
letter-writing
grass-roots organing
Voter registration drives.

Runung for something yourself.

Here's one!

Suppose you're running for president.

You need the support of a certain group to win, given your logic.

Do you: 1) Ignore them. 2) Berate them. 3) Listen to them.

as well as more conservative Democrats. They are also part of this party and deserve to have their voices and viewpoints heard. I am a Liberal, but enough of a realist to understand that the Democratic nominee cannot pander solely to the far left and still get elected. I would hope that our nominee, who is sure to be mostly a centrist, would at least listen to the more liberal views and incorporate as many as possible. I am not willing to bite off my nose to spite my face. I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

Because many of us treat third-party leaners with contempt, as if we take them for granted. If people go third party as a result, it is just as much the fault of the mainstream dems. The more outspoken people try to bully them into voting Democratic, instead of being diplomatic about it. Diplomacy = respect & compromise.

thereby helping the Republican, cannot discern the political reality of their choice then it is unfortunate. There is no Republican candidate who would be unhappy to see a 3rd party to the left which would siphon votes away from the Democratic candidate. It's a very, very simple concept.

listened and chose to support candidates who could unify, rather than marginalize, the disadvantage, then the outcome you predict would not materialize.

Accountability is not a one-way street.

The Republicans appeal to the far right and win. Why can't the Democrats?

The absurd logic a lot of people make blows my mind. Cover your base and you'll win the election. Try it and see. Had Gore covered his base he would've wiped the floor with Bush. Instead he ran a horrible campaign appealing to the right and lost.

vote for Repug Hillary.

She is a Repug in Dem clothing only.

Opinions don't overcome fact. Emotions can't overcome fact either. In fact, neither can passion.

And the fact of the matter is if you put bush and hillary on a scale that measures dishonesty, deceit and damaging policy, bush would sink it down so quickly that hillary would go flying into orbit.

They are incomparable. If you think for a second her policy would be equivalent to that of bush or the republican candidate, then you need to do some thorough research of her actual voting record.

Now she is saying anything to get votes. Sorry she is just another Bush.

support hillary or you're part of the problem.

Nobody owns my vote but me.

I will vote for the person I believe in; I believe will do the best job; I believe will make America a better place.

I am through voting for people and ballot issues I don't believe in for political strategic purposes -- look what that has got us.

It is frankly bordering on unAmerican to be telling people to use their vote for things which they do not believe in ... for someone else's political benefit.

And for the one millionth time --- Nader did not cost Gore the 2000 election ... Gore won, he got the most vote --- Bush STOLE the presidency. Period.

in putting down what I think or feel and my reasoning. Others have done so and here you are still trying to make those that disagree with you look like they just don't get it or worse that they are stupid. I could really care less what you think about what I think and how I plan to vote so it is pointless to go on.

It seems much more than the good guys in the white hats vs the bad guys in the black hats but to each their own, that is what is so good about democracy. On that we must agree, at least I hope so.

It's about them simply being logically wrong. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out, as we all should strive to reach higher awareness and accuracy of logical reality.

All I've done is recognize and put forth an indisputable reality of our current situation. It may leave a bad taste in some people's mouths, but that is not of my doing. It is simply due to the shitty reality we find ourselves in, but it is reality nonetheless.

I'm not creating these concepts nor saying we should be thrilled with them. But it is what it is, and right now while what it is is what it is, the OP stands firm. If it does not, then I'd appreciate hearing how in our current reality for the next election it doesn't. If I respond with disagreement, that isn't a sign of mockery. It's merely a follow up logical response that may serve to show that the other premise wasn't enough to overcome the logical reality in the OP. There's nothing wrong with that. But hey, maybe your argument will be sound enough that it is somehow able to overcome the basic fundamental logic of the OP. If that's the case, my hat's off and I'll agree. But as it stands right now I can't think of a possible line of logic that could overcome the fundamentals supplied above.

in a kind of masturbatory frenzy of self-affirmation.

Nice.

You claim to be indisputable, call everyone who has disputed you "wrong" and encourage us all to seek "higher awareness".

Jesus H. Christ.

How do you fit your giant head through the door?

Not everybody fits into your neat little categories and you, I'm sorry to tell you, are neither the final keeper nor the arbiter of logic.

The problem of the deficiency of the two-party system has not shown any signs of improvement under the conservative approach, such as yours. For some, it is the dilemma of long term vs. short term goals, for others a matter of personal integrity and duty. You do not get to pigeonhole them, or demerit their virtue with bombastic proclamations of the "superiority" of your logic or sarcastic challenges you have no intention of considering the responses to.

Edit: Re-arranged a sentance, added a comma.

All I've done here is supplied fundamental logic and reasoning. I believe it to be indisputable in its merits. Not one response in this thread yet has shown why in the upcoming election the OP premise does not stand firm. When I see one, I will readily acknowledge it. I'm not going to just say "ok, I guess the logic is up for interpretation and not as bullet proof as I thought it was" just for sake of making you feel better. If you want me to acknowledge that, then you're going to have to show why the two logical points listed in the OP are false.

And I've listened to every reply and have not issued any sarcastic challenges. They are all legitimate and I welcome the answers to them all. If someone comes with even greater logic that stands even more firmly, I will readily acknowledge it. But I don't see how when broken down to its most basic form of fundamental logic, how it wouldn't in the end fit into one of the two categories listed. If you can show that to be in error, I welcome seeing how.

ultimately discredited by your confirmation bias. You've presented your own opinions, seeking to disguise them in the supposed motives of others hoping that we will not notice you play the foil against your own construct. It's weak, and counterproductive to the goal you seek to accomplish.

to present the supposed indisputability of your own rhetorical points.

this is not the same as saying that your own personal rhetorical points carry the same weight as fundamental logic and reasoning as they exist as systems we use to gain understanding or make statements about knowledge.

Criticizing it without offering a better analysis that can overcome it, is rather worthless is it not?

but it seems you understand the gist of what i was trying to say.

you're using what you consider logic to make a rhetorical point.

i would call it sophistry.

there is no need to refute, because your argument fell stillborn from your keyboard in the first place.

You have yet again failed to go any deeper than just saying "you're points are false cuz I say so". Well guess what pal, the world don't exactly work that way.

You say my argument fell stillborn in the first place. Oh really? I'd say it was solidly grounded and still as of yet unrefuted. How was it stillborn?

You say it isn't actually logic at all but a rhetorical point. Oh yeah? How so? Cause the fact is, it is absolutely fundamental logic making a point firmly found in our current reality. If you want to refute that blunt declaration you are invited to, but that means doing more then just saying "cuz I say it isn't". It would actually incorporate you putting down substance and reasoning as to why it is false or not of fundamentally sound logic. I can't find any statement on your part that has even come close to doing so yet.

In fact, it appears you are disagreeing with it simply because you don't like the concept. But when dealing with something logical, your like or dislike of the premise is irrelevant in regards to its legitimacy. Only stronger logic showing otherwise can refute it. That's how it works. If you have such logic at your disposal, then please provide it. If you don't, and you can't think of how or why the OP is false, then maybe you are taking the wrong position in arguing against it to begin with.

someone who uses it correctly needn't be so explicit in asserting "logic" every 5 seconds.

toodles.

you're long on declaration and short on actual understanding.

it's bombastic.

like watching pigeons chase after bread crumbs.

I've done more than my part to defend the premise of the OP. You've provided absolutely nothing but false and empty criticism. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm the one on solid ground here.

The fact that all you can do is throw out negative and personal criticism, without providing even the slightest hint of intellectual refutation of the OP premise, is a pretty glaring testament to how logically sound the OP actually is. If it weren't, you'd be able to provide sound refutation to it rather than only having as a weapon in your arsenal the weak avenue of empty attack.

So feel free to continue with the personal empty criticism. You are doing no service to the discussion and not putting the slightest dent in the premise of the OP. Until you are able to even BEGIN to refute the OP, I shall feel no need to respond any further; since there hasn't been a legitimate premise yet from you to respond to.

?

i think that was the question i posed to you.

why so combative?

it makes you seem rude and hostile.

you know what it means. You don't need me to tell you.

If you are trying to imply that I have some warped or misleading definition of it, then don't play games and just come out and say so. Then, explain why what I'm saying is not logical or how the logic of the OP is not sound. Then maybe you'd have some legitimate leg to stand on. But as long as you're going to play some game implying that I don't understand the meaning of logic, when it is obvious that I do, then this conversation serves no purpose.

If you disagree with the logic I've supplied in this thread then I implore you to explain where the flaws are or how it's wrong. If you can't, then there should be no reason to argue to begin with.

it is fun watching you twist around though.

Or is your only intent to offer empty nonsensical attack without any legitimacy or intellectual standing?

The idea here is - you don't want to vote for someone who is going to go against your core principals.

If the party you are a member of keeps voting as a group, many of them at any rate, then voting for them is an endorsement of what they are doing.

Voting green/independent shows them that there is a wing of their party which won't bend over like they do, and hopefully over time will move them to realize they cannot win without doing what they promise they will do and not pissing around making excuses why they are not doing more.

When people lose, they start to rethink it all and how to win. Then they listen. Then they win - and if they don't take those lessons and put them into action, they will lose power yet again.

The people want change, not more of the same - and I don't care which party it is, if I keep getting more of the same I don't see the point in showing I endorse that by busting my ass to campaign for someone and voting for them.

If we keep kissing dem ass and they keep sliding to the right, we lose it all. We were once the party of the people, and slowly have become the party of the corporations with a side helping of being for the people (ie, throw em a bone, get their vote).

YES - I will vote dem, even if it is Hillary. But if I don't see them making real progress after this next go around, and taking the chances on things they should be, then I have not left the dem party - it has left me.

*I* won't vote for someone who kicks to the curb the worker, the poor, the gays, etc and so on - although they would say 'we helped em' - yeah, with one tiny bone to keep em on the line while feeding the big bones to corporations.

The next election will be a landslide for dems, the people are sick of the pubs. And as long as they DO something with it (end the war, etc and so on ad nauseum) I will keep voting for them. But if they fuck it up this time they can count me out of being someone who gives them my vote. My life is only so long, and I have only so many votes to give to make a change in this world.

Then all bets are off. They've not demonstrated the courage we hoped they would, have they?

Redstone

But at some point I might have to realize that it's not the same party or the one I had hoped it was. *IF* that becomes blindingly evident, then I will put my vote where my mouth is.

I can handle issues and disappointments, bitch about it, work it out later, etc. It won't be perfect, never has been and never will be.

But damn, we need LEADERS and I don't see that. I get more leadership here on DU than I do looking towards the people we elected to lead us.

Even if we lose the vote on a bill, etc, I at least want to see some trying, leading, and campaigning on bills like they do for office. Don't just introduce something and say 'well, we put it out there' get out there like you are trying to WIN and get people to back it. Just like for elections - get people on the ground, passing out flyers, calling people, etc and so on.

Run commercials, get in front of the mics, fight for US like you wanted us to fight for you during election.

Even in the case you stated above, the 2 points of the OP still apply. They just have an additional concept attached at the end, such as "to teach the dems a lesson" or "to wake the dems up". But whether that additional part is added at the end or not, the first parts (the parts in the OP) are still accurate and binding.

The problem as I see it, is that at this stage of the game we simply cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of republican dominance in the highest office. There is quite simply too much at stake.

So it is for those reasons that regardless of all the idealism that could be brought into the arguments as to why one could, should or might vote green, the concepts of the OP is still at its core what it comes down to.

"is that at this stage of the game"

At this stage, yeah I am voting dem. Period.

But I can see why there is a contingent that is getting sick of it all - and I think there are a lot of them out there who will give em the nod this time, in hopes of sweeping the dems into a lot more power than they have now.

If we win, and don't do much with it - then I can't see why I would vote for the same party again. Give em a chance, more power, and hound em like we do the pubs (ie, keep tabs on em and don't give em a pass because they are one of us). If they do well, they keep my vote.

My vote is earned, not given.

I'll let ya know if anything changes at the next stage.

And in this stage, you and I are in agreement

In the next stage, we both might be posting on the democraticunderground-underground

But for the sake of this country and our children, let's hope it doesn't have to come down to that, eh?

And a toast for civil discussion without emotional blowback one sees at times

I totally agree. Good on ya.

I think DU has enough sanctimonious lectures from advocates of partisan unity. They don't work. Repeating the same action and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. How about a little sympathetic understanding? How about trying to figure out why people are feeling the way they feel, rather than caricaturing and creating strawmen? If you actually want to create some understanding and common ground, you should be willing to try softer methods.

a democracy problem right now. The only way to get everyone on board is to fight and give everybody hope.

are a waste. The message a 3rd party voter is trying to send makes no difference.

can never be a viable third party candidate.

For example, if Al Gore ran as an independent tomorrow, he would absolutely be viable.

who would you vote for...

Gore would simply be another spoiler in the race. He would split the vote on the left more than the right. If there are no right wing third party candidates running in 2008 as well, the Republican wins simply by virtue of having a unified base large enough to satisfy the plurality requirement for victory. Gore would literally become another third party spoiler like Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

on a slippery slope, and we need to get off of it.

And we need more long-term thinking. Planning for only the next election has gotten us further and further into this ditch.

no one. at least a near majority. that's the way it goes. rather than scream about a few people voting for the natural law party or whatever... why doesn't the democratic nominee go for the vast number of people who are not motivated to vote???

The biggest reasons those who don't vote, don't vote, is due to feeling their vote doesn't matter, that elections don't impact them, or just because they simply don't care about politics and ignore them altogether. All of those concepts technically carry with them some sort of ignorance. Problem is, the media is the number one vessel to blame for almost all of it. So the candidates can only do so much to reach out to the non voters because of that. But they do what they can.

if people prefer to "punish" the party because their candidate did not win the nomination then what can one do? Nothing. Let everyone make up their own mind and hope for the best. If we have a repub in the white house come '08, I'll just travel to another country and live my life in a better environment.

I have been here a long time and I have never seen someone say they are voting third party or not voting at all because their candidate did not win the nomination.

Maybe that is a part of where the disconnect is. It is not about punishment at all, it is about trying to get the party back to the people.

The people vote for whomever they want as their nominee. It has worked that way forever. I don't think it has stopped working. Perhaps you just want the party to be given "back to the people" who agree with you?

...oh, yeah, a mind crime.

there are only two possibilities about the purpose of this thread:

1) stir up trouble
2) um...i'll get back to you on #2