Two Reasons why we should elect a Democratic President
Posted by Silus on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 2:06pm in#1 The Democratic party is more containable by the people. Historically speaking, the greatest tool used against a population is fear. Republicans have monopolized this. Democrats are unskilled in these matters, which bodes well for any opposition, especially in matters of war.
#2 The most significant reason why it is important to elect a Democrat is so people do not continue to look at the Democrats as the best political alternative. If a Republican is elected, people will funnel even more time, energy and hope into the Democratic party as the most viable opposition. What is good for our cause is that more voters become disenfranchised and join the struggle in allowing a more democratic election process. Given the current political climate, the best way to fracture the Democratic base is to elect a Democratic president. I think its inevitable.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 216 reads
****
If you are a Liberty supporter you need to vote for those who represent your ideals, your principles. Your suggestion is a variation of the tired old advice to vote for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils theory is to support one of the two major party candidates, even if you do not like them, for some sort tactical positioning or to send a message. Such philosophy has proven to not work if your goal is to change the treadmill we are upon.
If you really wish to support the ideals of Ron Paul, you must vote for those representing your principles. You do not vote for major party people because they are in your party (or out). You must vote your conscious and support those who represent your ideals ( your ideas ). Find and support those in the Republican Party who are for liberty or vote for third party if you can only find such candidates there.
I can not imagine Ron Paul planning to vote for Democratic in order to have more support in the Republican Party. He would scoff at such a suggestion. It is ridiculous. Ron would not do it and you should not either.
If you do what you've always done, you're gonna get what you always got.
Whatever the party of the president, we will fare best if Congress has a majority of the other party. I suspect the least harm will come us with Obama as president and a Republican Congress. A fine state affairs, isn't it, when gridlock is our best defense against a government that is supposed to serve us.
Truthfully, I cannot imagine how this nation will survive the next four years in tact with either McCain or Obama. It would take Ron Paul or someone with his understanding of the economy to be able to manage at least a semi-controlled crash. These idiots who just keep lying about the truth and ignoring it are going to bring us down hard.
Pat
Having a conflicting president and legislature is a good thing. The US government was designed with inefficiency in mind. The more inefficient a government is, the less it can do. The less it can do, the less it will screw the rest of us. It's an odd concept to grasp at first, but it makes sense when you realize that the governments which do the most are often the most oppressive. I would just as soon not have the trains run on time, thanks. When I turn on CSPAN and see them doing absolutely nothing, then it's a good day for America.
I think the focus on using the Republican Party alone to effect the kinds of changes we want is misguided. Despite the historical links between Republicans and some points of libertarian doctrine, too many people are sick of Republicans after Bush or would've never voted for one in the first place. In my view, the ideal option would be for freedom-minded people to enter into both parties and work their way up. Honestly, most voters don't know about the actions of individual members of a party--only the others in the party itself would be an obstacle. The goal would be situations where voters are choosing between Republicans and Democrats who both embody the platforms we desire. Most of the D and R candidates are already the same--why not make them the same for our own benefit?
This isn't some philosophical quagmire. You don't vote Democrat because you think it will mean a change of the guard within the Republican Party. I was/am a Ron Paul supporter. Maybe the smartest thing G.W Bush said "It's Hard Work". In my opinion what you are looking for is a quick fix. Well there isn't one. Look to the grass roots and build up. You can't go from 1 to 10, without going through 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. If you want Obama to win, or McCain for that matter, well than best of luck to you. But for once in your life if you don't like either of them... DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE!!!
1. Who is talking philosophy? This is clearly about strategy, which is the first step to your hard work even being relevant.
2. I'm not sure if you understand my point. A) You cannot characterize my argument as a quick fix, as clearly I was talking about progression in accomplishing certain goals, as opposed to taking an action that will by itself gain victory. B) Who is talking about a changing of the republican guard??
Let me repeat one basic point: I am for a more open democratic election process, which will not occur by sudden enlightenment, but rather when people become disenfranchised and see they are not being represented by their own party, and subsequently the two-party system. I laid out the rest in my first statement.
Come to think of it, this is not significantly different than many conservatives I hear wanting Obama to win so they can rebuild the fractured conservative base. In this case, so long as you believe a Democratic President will not succeed, you can count on him alienating his own support, and if we do our hard work, they will eventually come to us.
Basically, if the Republican candidate wins, that will do more to fuel additional support for the democrats.
.......................... http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus http://mrxfromplanetx.com/naomi-wolf http://inflationtax.blogspot.com .......................................................................................................
McCain and Obama both suck, and they are both going to get thousands of people killed. I would vote for Nader would be my first choice if I didn't think he would support illegal immigration, but look at who his running mate is.
http://www.votenader.org
Also check out
http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/Third-Party-Candidates
Do you understand the purpose of a forum? Its a place to exchange ideas, not to advertise your beliefs independent of a discussion. So please, keep your links, i'm not even remotely interested.
There is an argument presented here, do you wish to engage it? That is the question. If the answer is no, don't post here. Its just that simple.
Are you referring to the presidential election? If so, I've been saying we should vote for Obama in the swing states. If McCain wins, Republicans will keep on nominating neo-cons, and future Ron Pauls will have an even tougher challenge.