Presidential debate in NYC on August 31, 2004

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.

He did. Or have you forgoten that enormous and ridiculous Health Care Plan he tried to get passed?
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?

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.
 
tpahl said:
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.

I got that idea from I little thing called "history". Here's a simple site, so you don't have to read too much:

By 1896, the Democratic party took up many of the Populist Party's causes and the party faded from the national political scene.

tpahl said:
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.

From FDR's 1st Inaugural Address
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war,

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.

It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character.

And before even that, as Governor of New York:

In September 1929, the stock market crashed and FDR spent the rest of his four years as governor dealing with the consequences. He moved slowly at first but as the depression worsened, he became a strong advocate of government intervention. He established relief programs for people out of work, including a program that put 10,000 men to work in New York State’s forests and parks planting trees, building roads and park buildings, and taking measures to prevent erosion. This would become the model for the CCC, one of the most successful New Deal programs.

http://www.nps.gov/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm

FDR would serve two, two-year terms as Governor of New York, from 1928 to 1932. In true progressive tradition, he pursued an activist agenda, enhancing the power of state agencies, expanding support for social services and increasing regulatory supervision of business. He also provided help to the state's agricultural community by passing tax cuts for small farmers, boosting funds for rural education, and initiating the first program in the country that sought to raise commodity prices by taking land out of production. Following the collapse of the Stock Market in 1929, and the onset of the Great Depression, FDR moved slowly away from his fiscal conservatism, and through measures such as the New York State Unemployment Relief Act and the creation of the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA), moved to provide relief to the growing numbers of jobless in the state.

http://www.feri.org/archives/fdrbio/governor.cfm

But you said...

tphal said:
he became one because he saw that as the only way to get relected.

Moving on.





tphal said:
Spoken like a true socialist.

No. Spoken like a realist.

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?

If you can't see the difference, you're probably hopeless.

tpahl said:
Well if you are going to ignore all the facts there is not much hope of convincing you.

Facts would have to be presented before they were ignored.

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.

What's the difference? In small enough numbers voting for a 3rd Party is essentially the same as not voting at all.

tpahl said:
The democrats finally went more liberal and adopted a more nader like candidate because of the strong green showing.

Hardly. That may have been true had they nominated Howard Dean, but they didn't. They nominated a lifetime politician who is now trying to get as close to the center as possible.

Besides, if Kerry is 'more Nader like' why is he (Nader) polling as good now as he was this time in 2000?

tpahl said:
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.

No, the result was a Republican President, not a Democrat.

Had more voted libertarian would very likely have a better choice this election from the republicans.

Had more voted Libertarian the country would have moved farther to the left during the Presidency of Albert Gore.

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.

No, the mesaage sent is, 'my way or the highway.'

("I want it to move torward the libertarians or cease to exist")

Why are you then surprised the reply you've been receiving is, 'piss off?'

When 'limited government' Republicans leave the party to join fringe 3rd Parties. What is the result? Obviously it's a Republican party less interested in limited government.

If a Republican nominee knows he's not going to convert selfish and stubborn 3rd Party voters, he knows his election prospects are better served by moving to the center to try and capture as many swing voters as he can.

How are the aims of libertarians served by electing Bush?

Republicans provide a brake on what would otherwise be unlimited government expansion under Democratic rule.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top