- Thread starter
- #41
Zhukov said:The Socialist Party never was a big factor, in any election. The Democrats had absorbed the socialist ideas of the Populist Party before 1900. The Progressive Party, a collection of Populists, Bull-Moose, and Socialists, ran a candidate in 1924 and won a single northern state (Wisconsin, the candidate's home state), which hardly threatened Coolidge, who carried every single other state that hadn't been part of the Confederacy.
The democrats before 1900 were the party of small government and states rights. Not sure where you got the idea they had absorbed the populists platform then.
Roosevelt was a socialist through and through. Instead of riding the high horse of imagined political purity and assuming the unconstructive uncompromising attitude that accompanies such pig-headed behavior FDR joined one of the major parties and achieved success for his ideas.
Have you ever read his platform he ran on for his first term in office? it was so anti socialist it almost could pass as a couple of pages torn straigh out of Adam Smiths writings. he was not a socialist through and through. he became one because he saw that as the only way to get relected.
Moderate increases in government spending in the form of job creation and incentives to selected industries in conjunction with lowering tax rates (more expeditures from less income = deficit) has been shown to prevent or shallow recessions. It just happened. Or did you miss that?
Spoken like a true socialist.
Oh I remember that. It is just that Bushs ridiculous Health Care Plan actually did pass and is thus much more fresh in my memory. Did you forget that one?He did. Or have you forgoten that enormous and ridiculous Health Care Plan he tried to get passed?
You're hardly convincing me considering my whole point is that their parties are more or less irrelevant.
Well if you are going to ignore all the facts there is not much hope of convincing you.
What's important is the vast majorty of those millions understand voting for a Green or a Socialist helps elect a Republican and voting for a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist helps elect a Democrat.
perhaps some are. But those millions have generally decided they would rather vote for something they want than pick the lesser of two shitty socialist parties. More often than not the people taht vote for those parties would not vote at all if they were not given that choice.
Therefore, the sensible people who might prefer a Libertarian or a Green swallow their pride, vote Republican or Democrat respectively, and in so doing ultimately advance at least a portion of their cause.
No. They advance the democrat and republican causes. The democrats finally went more liberal and adopted a more nader like candidate because of the strong green showing. The libertarians did not get a good result last election and the result is an even more liberal Bush than last time we had a choice. Had more voted libertarian would very likely have a better choice this election from the republicans.
The illogical people, or those who are too prideful, vote for their fringe candidate and in so doing aid their dominant rival and thus divert the direction of American politics away from their cause.
So says the two party propagandists.
How are the aims of the Libertarians served by electing Sen. Kerry to the Presidency?
By sending a message to the republicans that they can not count on limited government supporters to support the republicans if they keep nominating liberal candidates that aim to make the government larger.
How are the aims of libertarians served by electing Bush?
If you believe that your protest vote will 'send a message' to the Republican Party to move to the right, you are wrong.
I do not want it to move to the right. I want it to move torward the libertarians or cease to exist.