Good question, ya know I dont know,...........
Perhaps I should attempt to find out what that may reveal about my innermost being
Good question, ya know I dont know,...........
Perhaps I should attempt to find out what that may reveal about my innermost being
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
What's happening is that both parties pander to the extremist factions of the party to get votes, because the extremists are the ones who vote.
The vast majority of folks don't vote, and they're generally moderate.
The vast majority of folks don't vote, and they're generally moderate.
This is such poppycock. I long for the real good ole days when we could lynch some negroes, kill some Injuns, and no bitchy woman could vote. Those were the real days. You're a pathetic excuse of an "American" with you're watered down idealistic good ole days.
Zephyr
Accept certain inalienable truths. Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders.
The party (in whatever year) that is having competitive primaries tends to shift to its respective end of the spectrum so that they have more appeal to the people that are actually going to vote in the primaries. After the primaries are over, they all plant themselves just outside the middle.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,976
- 141
- 106
The dem.party has been hijacked by a bunch of luni enviro-wakos and anything goes socialists who want to turn American sovereignty over to another bunch of lackeys called the UN. I voted for clinton..and in hindsight I realize he was a disaster for the US..the muck and mire out there now calling them selves democrats are infinitely worse then clinton and a huge embarrassment to traditional working class dem's...America is an experiment subject to failure..
I said the same thing during my analysis of the candidates, but was accused of exaggerating. If people here want to prove that I'm exaggerating, then please let me know why John Kerry is running for President. I really do want to know. He hasn't given any qualitative reasons other than to borrow from propaganda from the far-left.
While this topic should be moved to another thread. I think even the nominees played a game of follow the leader - borrowing successful stands from the people up top. For example, if Dean weren't running, they probably would've had a more moderate platform. With that said, I think Kerry and Clark's standing ground was nothing more than stolen ideas and bragging over "military experience" .
OMFG, I'm shocked that you've admitted all this. I now have more respect for you. So, what you're basically saying is that these candidates are running just for the sake of running, with no real objectives, right?
What? As much as you and your friends (including Romans, your new right wing recruit) would like to think otherwise, I'm not stupid nor blind. This is why I'm voting for Dean when elections come around. Edwards being #2 on my list
Edit: What I'm saying is the folks who would've been the moderate democrats decided to steal the fuel running Dean's campaign. Not all the candidates have few objectives. I'm just saying that Clark, Kerry, and perhaps Gephart (I never really read up on him) had the least defined stances
Edit2: Even with that said, I would never vote for Bush. He's turned this country upside down
Edit: What I'm saying is the folks who would've been the moderate democrats decided to steal the fuel running Dean's campaign. Not all the candidates have few objectives. I'm just saying that Clark, Kerry, and perhaps Gephart (I never really read up on him) had the least defined stances
Edit2: Even with that said, I would never vote for Bush. He's turned this country upside down
You can't steal the fuel running Dean's campaign without being burnt by voters. Voters don't trust candidates that stand for everything and for nothing.
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
That's why Clark failed. Kerry will too.
"I think the above posts got it right. The democratic party lacked a message, "
I don't know what part of the platform you object too..
1. deficits matter.
2. enviroment matters.
3. civil rights matter.
4. women's rights matter.
5. capitalism is a great system, but it can get out of hand without regulation.
6. jobs matter.
7. we are a powerful country, but we live on a planet with a bunch of other people who we aren't the boss of.
8. government can be a useful thing.
I don't know what part of the platform you object too..
1. deficits matter.
2. enviroment matters.
3. civil rights matter.
4. women's rights matter.
5. capitalism is a great system, but it can get out of hand without regulation.
6. jobs matter.
7. we are a powerful country, but we live on a planet with a bunch of other people who we aren't the boss of.
8. government can be a useful thing.
Easy there, Sketch. You're making too much sense and showing too little unconditional arrogance for your country. The neocons won't like it. Bow down before emperor Bush and repent now!
I'm further right then left. Bush is by no means a perfect candidate for me. But he is by far the least of all evils and the only one with the balls to stand up to international terrorism. Clinton, a democrat, was completely clueless about the world he was living in. 9/11 happened because of Clinton's soft do nothing approach in regards to our national security. Aside from national security, I won't vote democrat until they stop forcing the views of the extreme minority on the silent majority. If most people understood the true beliefs of the far leftists that control the democratic party, republicans would sweep every single election without any trouble. But the leftist media is very good at what they do - manipulating the truth and brainwashing the general public. So we basically have a 50/50 republican/democrat split while the contry is probably at least 75% conservative 25% liberal.
Yeah keep lying to yourself. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" change over time to reflect the actual landscape of American political beliefs. What you propose is ridiculous, true maybe if Swedish socialist standards are applied to US beliefs. And in regard to the extreme left's views, I bet alot of Americans would be equally surprised by some of the views of the extreme right in this country.
Zephyr
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The media is NOT leftist. That is probably the biggest myth in American politics today. Today's new media is owned almost exclusively by strong Republican-backing-and-contributing companies like GE, Lockheed Martin, Clear Channel and News Corp. Of the major media companies, only TimeWarner could be considered even mildly "leftist". What the media actually represents is the true politics of the hierarchy of today's Republican party (what I like to call the "Republicrats") -- big government, big profits, big military, big consumers. It is the neocons who are in denial over the political orientation of their own party.
To use your own quote: If most people understood the true beliefs of the far rightists that control the democratic party, Democrats would sweep every single election without any trouble. Both of our major parties are equally fscked up today. Bipartisan politics has nothing to do with actually political ideology anymore, and everything to do with the dollar signs. All that your post here has proven, my friend, is that you have fallen for the propaganda -- hook, line, and sinker.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter