If you vote for Kucinich in the primary, you're not ABB.

[Guaranteed]

Kucinich has no chance of beating Bush. Therefore, if you vote for Kucinich, you're a traitor to the Democratic Party.

A vote for Kucinich is a vote for Hitler.




Of course I don't believe this, but this is the same line of logic that the ABBers are using.

[MurikanDemocrat]

1. Please stop

[citizen snips]

2. What does ABB stand for?

[Bronco69]

7. Anybody But Bush.

eom :-)

[citizen snips]

13. Thanks!

:D

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. We must purge the Bush-loving Kucinich fans from the Party!

"A vote for Kucinich is a vote for Hitler." We can't say it enough!

[NNN0LHI]

4. Kucinich will support the eventual Democratic nominee n/t

[whirlygigspin]

8. A vote for Sharpton is a vote for Hitler

so your an anti-semite if you vote Sharpton.

[Guaranteed]

10. Him too.

Break out the tar and feathers.

[HuskerDem]

160. EXACTLY !

That's why this entire post rests on a logic mirage. It might look like there's something there a first glance but...............





nothing to stand on.

[mandyky]

5. That is not even funny!!

Hopefully people will vote in the primary for who they want, not who they think will win. If we show support for Kerry and Edwards in the primary they will feel they have a mandate to continue doing just what they do. On the Iraq War Resolution they were both DEAD wrong, same with the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

[Iverson]

12. true, it's past funny, and yet ...

... it's still fashionable to issue hilarious bon mots about doing violence to Nader or Greens or other third-party voters.

Did someone say "cognitive dissonance?"

[mandyky]

15. Odd how much some here sound

like the brown shirt goose stepping freepers and people we want replaced, and miss the irony of their own actions and attitudes.

[Iverson]

19. irony is not permissible

Soon it will be a moral imperative to say (with a straight face) that drifting to the right is the only permissible way to achieve liberalism.

[Guaranteed]

26. LOL! nt

[regnaD kciN]

139. What do you mean, "soon"...?

It's been what the Democratic LOSERship Council has been saying for twenty years!

[snoochie]

155. That's not what they're saying now?

I guess that depends on which one is real: "Liberal Kerry" or "Bush-Enabler Kerry"

:shrug:

[JVS]

128. I think Bullgooseloony is completely aware of the irony

[G_j]

63. Did someone say "cognitive dissonance?"

cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance

does that answer the question?

[Iverson]

159. the mysterious truth unveiled

"does that answer the question?"

Yes and no.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. *flabbergasted*

I can't believe what I read! :wow:

[TN al]

9. Please people who say that are no better than right wing hate radio

[HFishbine]

11. Oh Geez!

Why don't you at least get real and acknowledge that your not condemning people for not being ABB, but really are insisting that we be nobody but Kerry, or nobody but Edwards as the case may be.

[Guaranteed]

14. Hey hey read the last line!

:P

[mandyky]

18. I did

and it is still not funny, but people in here that think like that miss the irony of how much they sound like freepers when they say this crap.

[Guaranteed]

20. I totally agree with you...

I'm trying to make a point.

[mandyky]

24. The people doing it won't get it

LOL They are STILL in DEANIAL!!!

[HFishbine]

21. My bad

Missed the sarcasm.

[WillyBrandt]

16. That's false. A vote for Kucinich in no way increases the chance

that Bush becomes elected in November.

That makes no sense. Moreover, voting for DK reminds the other candidates of the unruly base.

[union_maid]

17. No, it's not the same logic

If you believe that, then you don't understand the electoral process.

[Guaranteed]

23. Of course it's the same.

We can't win by nominating Kucinich, so you're not allowed to vote for him in the primary.

[union_maid]

27. No one said that

I don't know..maybe someone did, somewhere, but the vast majority of ABB people never suggested not voting for Kucinich, or anyone, in the primaries. We might personally decide to factor in electability but Kucinich is a legitimate candidate and votes for him in the primary do send a message, and a good one. It's true he probably wouldn't have a very good chance in the GE, but he'd be one of the two major candidates and every vote for him would be a vote against Bush.

[diamondsoul]

31. Errr- maybe you haven't been in this forum much??

You can not believe how many times Kucinich supporters have been told we're wasting our time and we ought to vote for somebody "who has a real chance"!

No offense to you but basically some people are trying to make the point that some of the bullying, condescension, ridicule and outright vile treatment Kucinich supporters have gotten does not breed unity.

[Tinoire]

22. Haha. Yep, and that voice is only going to get louder

And yesterday Senator John Kerry's campaign delivered a not-so-subtle statement: "It is important that we remain united in November and rally behind the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/politics/campaign/21NADE.html?pagewanted=print&position=


Oh that lovely sound of heavy boots!

[liberalnurse]

25. I encourage all to vote their choice.......

I seriously doubt anyone here at DU can really be effectively swayed but I do find it a reservoir of options to review and sound off against.

By reading, posting and debating or discussion the current events and political posture of our candidates we all will ultimately make a reasonable choice. If you are here at DU, then it is highly unlikely one would vote carelessly. I believe many here, including myself, process our raw feeling first...then once the venting has escaped and our mind and hearts resume stability we then begin to logically formulate our true voting intent.


So relax, look at the big picture from all angles.....Make an informed decision and go out there and vote.

[buddhamama]

28. not just a traitor to the Party but,

your country. DK is an obvious RNC operative. Sure, he talks a good line but that is part of the plan. DK's determined to destroy democracy, he's a fascist.

[mandyky]

29. Hopefully that is a sarcastic remark

yeesh!

[Guaranteed]

30. It is

;)

Very effective, though.

[Iverson]

33. a question

What does it say to you about this progressive venue that you couldn't be sure whether or not that was sarcasm?

[buddhamama]

35. excellent question and observation, Iverson.

n/t

[mandyky]

43. Um, if I answer honestly

I'll probably get kicked off DU. In a word - ironic.

[buddhamama]

34. of course it was

just elaborating on the logic around the forum.

i voted for DK in my state's caucus and, was elected a delegate.

[diamondsoul]

36. You did see the comments by some

Dean supporters that Kucinich was "used" to pull votes from him didn't you? *ROTFL* Not meaning to offend, and I know you weren't part of that very strange theorizing, but I honestly found it hysterical.

Thanks for being reasonable anc concerned about this kind of thinking. People like you really help me not to take the stupidity to heart when I'm vulnerable.:toast: :pals:

[buddhamama]

38. you do realize diamondsoul

that my comment was purely a sarcastic one?

i am a DK supporter, who did cast a vote for DK.

[diamondsoul]

46. Yes, I do, sorry, budda!

I should have included the point that the comments I referenced were made seriously and not sarcastically.

Mostly I wanted to thank mandy for caring about the people who seriously treat Kucinich supporters that wayy. It wasn't meant to be a comment about you.:toast:

[buddhamama]

62. oh thank goodness,

i was concerned someone else had taken my comment seriously.

i appreciate every single member here that appreciates and repsects Democracy. :toast:

[mandyky]

47. I missed those, but between Iowa

and Wisconsin I stayed out of GD2004 forum because there were an abundances of idiotic and cruel posts and posters.

[edzontar]

32. Dean, Nader, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton--traitors all!!!!

Only Kerry is anointed one.

Only Kerry is chosen one.

From what I have read here in the last day, ABB is the favorite mantra of the crazed, the fearful, the hysterical, and the lame (not neccesarily in that order)....

[arwalden]

41. I Choose To Do What's Best For The Country. I Choose NOT To Validate

the irrational fears and insecurities and selfishness of people who seek attention and who choose to enable to criminal Bush*.

"Oh boo-hoo-hoo! They hate us! Boo hoo! Why do they fear us so? Boo hoo hoo! Nobody loves me! Boo hoo hoo! An insult to Nader is an insult to my family! Whaaaaa!"

Those fringe folks need to GROW THE FUCK UP! It's no longer about THEM and their petty little concerns about idealogical purity. Lacking that... they need to drink a fresh piping-hot cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP!

-- Allen

[Iverson]

44. hmmm

You wouldn't be referring to the U.S. Senate, would you?

[buddhamama]

51. he has gotta be, "...choose to enable to criminal Bush*."

i never knew arwalden, that you hated those selfish fear pandering Senate members as much as you do.

[edzontar]

56. Kerry enabled Iraq war, NCLB, USA Patriot, Scalia to Supreme...

That said, I plan to vote for him anyway if he is the nominee, despite the powerful arguments that you make--I presume unintentionally-- for supporting Nader.

[Guaranteed]

61. Don't forget the PBA ban! nt

[edzontar]

52. Which fringe folks? The ones who want to piss on graves, threaten

People, and run them out of the country?

Oh, those are very mainstream and "moderate" sentiments aren't they?

[arwalden]

77. Grave Pissing And Grave Dancing Is Hardly The Crime You Pretend It To Be

I think the admins have already addressed this concern of yours.

I find it interesting that those fringe folk who most loudly complain about not getting respect are the ones who are least likely to give it. It's always the same old tune from that fringe crowd: "Me me me me. Me me me. Doo Dah, Doo Dah"

-- Allen (grave-dancer and grave-pisser)

[edzontar]

80. They decided to permit it. That is their decison...mine is to

Continue to denounce the lunacy of such talk.

Which is my right, by the way.

Actually, I hope this sort of stuff keeps getting posted, since it reflects far more shame on the authors who toss up this bile than it does on their intended targets.

[arwalden]

82. Guess What? --- I... Don't... Care.

I fail to understand why it is that some folks are unable to accept the same behavior in others that they engage in themselves.

When their blind rage and mob mentality is reflected back at them, they are taken aback... dazed... confused and befuddled. --- Wha'??

"Gee! This isn't the reaction I was expecting. I wanted to be coddled and cooed and validated. But all I got for acting like a spoiled child was being TREATED like a spoiled child."

Shocking, eh? Simply shocking!

[edzontar]

87. I feel no rage at the moment, Only amusement

At the pathetic panic and crude hysteria that has infected the Kerry camp like a virus.

I am done calling for civility.

All I have to say is:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[arwalden]

94. "I am done calling for civility." --- PROMISE???!!!

Please please please please! LOL! :hi:

-- Allen

[edzontar]

101. Let's put it this way...I am done EXPECTING it from certain quarters...

nt.

[Eloriel]

134. Clue for arwalden

You're projecting. Massively. (Hilariously too.)

Here's another free clue: The more you jump up and down in protest, the more some people think it's a hoot and a half to get you riled. Frankly, I think they're right. I'm getting lots of grins out of this thread so far. Thanks!

[arwalden]

140. What Has Two Thumbs And Doesn't Give A Crap?

ME!

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

147. They have stuff to fix that

Prunes are a good natural way.

Not giving a crap is bad for your health. Being that blocked up is so harmful you may actually be poisoning yourself.

Take some Ex-Lax (TM) and relax. After you give a crap, things might look better in perspective.

[buddhamama]

152. you care so little

but yet, you return again and again.

[edzontar]

154. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You SO do not give a crap!!!!!

I can tell by your numerous responses and barely contained rage that this means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO YOU!!!!!!!

[Walt Starr]

142. Thanks for posting this, Eloriel

This entire thread has CRACKED ME UP!!!

[youngred]

151. Hardly!

It's the centrists who most want to demean the left. The left is accepting of them within the party, just not in a stranglehold.

I find the most obnoxious and censoring people to be the centrists

[arwalden]

165. No... Just the fringe left, Kamikaze left, suicidal self-destructive left

there IS a difference.

-- Allen

[regnaD kciN]

166. You know, you're right!

We need to get rid of "the fringe left, Kamakaze left, suicidal self-destructive left."

We need to get rid of those who, by their unwillingness to give up their petty concerns, are threatening another four years of Bush.

We need to get rid of that fringe group who will only harm the Democratic Party in the eyes of the general public, but don't care.

We need to get rid of that tiny minority whose members are so focused on their own private validation, that they can't imagine compromising on their own wants for the greater good.

In other words, we must get rid of gay-rights activists in the Democratic Party today!



(By the way, for those upset with this posting, before hitting "Alert," please consult the dictionary definition for "irony"...and also consider the proverb about "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.")

[Eloriel]

138. Oh, "growing up" means I should vote YOUR choice?

Instead of mine? I see.

Original Message
"I Choose To Do What's Best For The Country. I Choose NOT To Validate"
the irrational fears and insecurities and selfishness of people who seek attention and who choose to enable to criminal Bush*.



I agree with Edzontar (I think it was) who remarked that you've just made a really compelling argument for voting for anybody but Kerry or Edwards. And so I shall. My vote's for Dean -- in March, and also in November.

ROTFL.

[arwalden]

164. Who Could Imagine Anyone Voting To Spite A Faceless Stranger

from an internet forum. Good fucking grief. Now that's probably one of the saddest things I've ever encountered. KABOOM! Another suicide-voter tries to make a point by making "others suffer as she has".

I don't know whether to be flattered that my opinion matters so much to anyone... or to feel pity for those people who choose to seek "revenge" on me with their vote.

I kind of suspect that some of the folks who tell me such things are yanking my chain just for the sport of a good flame fest. I also suspect that a great many others are not even of legal age to vote (or American citizens). Isn't that amusing?

-- Allen

[youngred]

150. Charming Allen

It's not about ideological purity, its about getting ANY of the left's issue's recognized at all.

Perhaps you ought heed your own advice on whining

[arwalden]

163. In Your Heart You Know I'm Right

If it is as you claim it to be, the lunatic fringe chooses a damned odd way of demonstrating their zeal and attachment to their progressive goals.

Imagine the lunatic doctor in Africa who wants AIDS medications for EVERYONE... and the government tells her, you can't have it for all of them, but we'll give you enough for 10%... take it or leave it.

She's so angry that she can't have her way so she says "well I'll just LEAVE IT! FUCK YOU!"

"What do I care about making ANY progress at all and doing whatever good I can do (all things considered) I want it all, I want to have it MY WAY or NO WAY! Who cares if anyone suffers? I DIDN'T GET MY WAY! And while I'm at it... I think I'll just go ahead and destroy the little bit of medicine I already have here. FUCK YOU ALL!"

It's the same thing. Certainly we can all sympathize with her frustration... but she's being a fool.

-- Allen

Please do not lecture me on whining... I'm a mere amateur when it comes to the professional whiners and crybaby footstompers and suicide-voters. You have no room to criticize me.

[revcarol]

37. Thanks for the laugh!!

I NEEDED THAT!!

Sign up at DU to get your ABB card or go to Guantanmo!! :evilgrin:

[arwalden]

39. BULL FUCKING SHIT!!

This is absolute nonsense and you fucking know it.

The ones who have publicly declared that they will not support the (HIGHLY) likely democratic nominee (Kerry or Edwards)... and who have pledged to vote 3rd party (or not vote at all) are the traitors.

The rest are just immature provocateurs seeking attention and validation.

-- Allen

[whirlygigspin]

40. ah the real traitors are finally revealed

now comes the counter coup!
so only the pure will be left standing

-how very Pol Pot

[Iverson]

42. such thoughtfulness, arwalden

I know that I'm persuaded by your carefully constructed argument.

[arwalden]

53. Please... Don't Be Absurd! I'm Not Trying To Persuade Anyone

The fringe martyrs cannot be persuaded. Why would I waste my time trying to persuade the fanatical Suicide-Bomb-Voter who his hell-bent on self-destruction?

"Pity me... I'm so alone... I'm so isolated... Nobody pays attention to me and my cause... me me me me me." It's a pathetic attempt at attention-getting.

Now how in the would would I ever expect to "persuade" anyone like that. I may be gay... but I'm no magic fairy. Puh-leeze!

-- Allen

[Iverson]

55. frames

I had no idea that I mentioned your sexuality. I am looking and looking, but I still don't see it. Where was that again?

Still, you're right about one thing: anyone who doesn't vote as you do cannot possibly have a rational motive. Nope. Ain't possible.

[arwalden]

66. That Is Correct. Partly... Either they do not have a "rational motive" OR.

their rational motive is to benefit the criminal Bush.

There is no being rational with irrational people. You cannot use logical arguments with folks for whom logic has no meaning. You cannot speak of fact to the lunatic fringe that pays no attention to facts.

In their warped and twisted minds their motives do appear to be rational... but they have been fooled, or they are self-deluded psychotic martyrs.

They are lost to the great Satan.

-- Allen

[Iverson]

161. more to be pitied than despised

There's a technique of bad argumentation called "argument from inconceivability." I recommend that you look into it. I'd tell you about it myself, except that my political preferences seem to mean, in your eyes at least, that I have sacrificed rationality. Better that you learn about it from a source you trust.

It should also be equally clear that irrationality and inattention to fact is not dependent upon one's political preference, but again, better double check that with a more mainstream source. I'd hate the point to be lost based upon the messenger.

Or you could continue screaming obscenities at those with whom you disagree. I believe the expression was "bull. fucking. shit." only in all caps. Whatever you think to be the best and wisest course, do. You have my recommendation.

[arwalden]

85. BTW: Don't Be Confused... No... You Didn't Mention My Sexuality...

What a silly thing to say... it was *I* who mentioned it! I hope you didn't take offense that I chose to make a joke that included a reference to my own sexuality. No need to be so defensive. I have made no accusations.

What I did do was to make a colorful and humorous statement about my inability to perform magic by changing the "minds" of those who are unwilling to hear the truth.

"I'm gay... not a magic fairy!" Get it? Get it?

Oh good grief.

-- Allen

[edzontar]

64. Actually Arwalden, your posts make very persuasive arguments--for Nader

nt.

[arwalden]

68. That Message Makes About As Much Sense As...

"I know you are, but what am I?"

-- Allen

[edzontar]

72. I guess you missed my point.

nt.

[arwalden]

83. No... I'm A Lot Smarter Than Folks Think I Am

In the past, when I've figured out someone's game and called them on it... those folks will begin to backpedal and start to redefine the "rules of engagement" and then start to redefine the meaning of words and accusations that flew earlier.

These folks are very good at it, but I see exactly what they are doing... it's much like something that Ari Fleischer would do. It's a wonder to behold.

-- Allen

[edzontar]

88. Whatever. I forgot this is not about Nader or Kerry after all.

It's about that treasonous Kucinch bastard and his Benedict Arnold followers!!!

(kidding)

[Eloriel]

141. You're beginning to sound paranoid

In the past, when I've figured out someone's game and called them on it... those folks will begin to backpedal and start to redefine the "rules of engagement" and then start to redefine the meaning of words and accusations that flew earlier.

These folks are very good at it, but I see exactly what they are doing...

Hmmm, do you also think there are conspiracies involved? Are they ganging up on you? Plotting against you? Following you? Do you see them lurking in the shadows? Or just around the corner of buildings?

Best be careful out there. You just never know.

[Guaranteed]

91. You're right. We can't be persuaded.

Kerry and Edwards lack of leadership is a matter of fact and history. Their votes, which ultimately define a politician, have been cast, and they can not take them back.

[arwalden]

162. Horse. Dead. Beaten. Nose. Face. Spited.

And both of them are yours.

Since you believe that Bush is the better man than Kerry or Edwards, then you certainly should do everything that you can to make certain that he has the advantage in the election, Sir.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

45. Sorry, but you're not allowed to vote for Kucinich.

We have to think about what's best for the country.

[arwalden]

57. "Doo-dah! Doo-dah!"

"Oh the martyr voters sing that song... Oh Doo Dah Day!"

[Guaranteed]

58. Martyr or shill, take your pick. nt

[edzontar]

67. In the end, what really convinces ABB is the best POV is the eloquence

And persuasivenes of some of its advocates here.

It would be so easy for threatened or troubled persons to direct this debate into pointless personal attacks and petulant ravings.

But luckily that has not been happening here.

I think we can all agree that Sen. Kerry has been very well served by his advocates here.

(edited)

[arwalden]

71. Again And Again... People Miss The Point. --- The Rabid Psychotic Maniacs

cannot have their minds changed. It's a frenzied mob-mentality that posseses them now. They are no longer thinking for themselves and are engaged in me-think, martyr-think, suicide-bomber-think.

They have given up the good fight and rather than accept the difficult challenges ahead, they choose to be self-destructive and to cause as much damage in the process as possible. In their world, logic has ceased to exist as rational people understand it.

"By god, if you won't feel sorry for me, then I'll make you feel sorry for yourselves!" (Whaaah!)

"You sons-of-bitches, won't listen to me. Well listen to THIS!" (Whaaah!)

"NOW who's sorry! Eh? How do you like THAT?! Eh?" (Whaaah!)

What a cowardly and pathetic bunch of lost people that group is.

Many folks appear to have difficulty with a simple concept and they continue to think my motive is to "convert" or "persuade". How absurd!!!!

I just don't know how I can be any more direct about this. I hope that those who DO understand will bear with me as I make it plain for those readers who just don't get it. I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVERT THEM. THEY CANNOT BE CONVERTED BACK. THEY ARE LOST.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

73. LOL who's rabid? nt

[edzontar]

75. To whom are you referring? Most of the bile I have seen here lately

In terms of rhetoric and language has been coming from the ABB side.

I don't need to rehearse the litany.

I must say I find this strange and counter-productive when there are any number of reasonable and persuasive arguments that cuold be made against the Nader candidacy (which I do not support).


What I gather from the tone and content of the recent ABb threads is that there is a genuine outbreak of rage and panic at the possibility of a Nader run.....

But hey, what do I know?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[edzontar]

78. At this point, I will admit that I am enjoying some of this panic.

Since it comes from the same place where we heard so much about "electability."

Oh the irony of it all.

[arwalden]

81. No Irony... Just A Close Election.

The mood of this country is split. Facts are facts. This election could go either way. More facts. (I know... don't say it... silly me. Facts are unimportant to the lunatic fringe. <slaps forehead> Habit I guess.)

Electibility is important and that issue has been addressed (and proved with the way the votes are currently going).

People who trot out this tired old argument are running out of arguments.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

79. This Makes No Sense At All, Buddhamama

It's apparent to me that for many people, specifically the lunatic fringe, there has been a disconnect between reality and logic about how our government actually works.

-- Allen

Note that Bush* had to wait until NOW to sneak Pryor in the back door. I guess all the "enabling" we've been doing took the challenge out of being so furtive for him.

[buddhamama]

84. the lunatic fringe

aren't the only ones experiencing a disconnect between reality and logic in how our government works.

"Note that Bush* had to wait until NOW to sneak Pryor in the back door. I guess all the "enabling" we've been doing took the challenge out of being so furtive for him."

Note that Bush* got War Powers, The Patriot Act, an obscene Medicare Bill- an equally obscene and dangerous Energy Bill will soon be passed- etc.,etc., with the enabling Senate.

[arwalden]

86. The Lunatic Fringe Has Not Been Paying Attention

and hasn't a clue about how government works. These canards have been addressed and debunked thoroughly in many other treads.

Yawn. Been there, debunked that. -- NE-e-e-eXT!

Yet, there is still a disconnect. Facts mean nothing to them. Logic and reason do not exist in their world.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

89. you've debunked them???

where have i been?

did you really debunk them, or it is more appropriate to say that you dismissed them? cause i fail to see how it you could have debunked them, since they exist as facts. the Senate has approved the above Acts/Bills. And, more importantly, Democrats went along. do you deny this?

[arwalden]

96. Been There, Debunked That. -- Next!

[ulysses]

106. "LALALALALALALA" in other words

He can't hear you, 'mama.

[buddhamama]

110. hmmm, ok. but telling yourself

something over and over doesn't make it so. tell me Allen, what is the ratio of DEMs to repubs in the Senate?
there's one independent.

How many DEMs voted for the War, The Patriot Act,etc.,etc?
How many Repubs voted against any of the above?

A different outcome was possible. deny that statement if you can- debate it even- but you can't, not convincingly anyway. The current crop of DEMs in the Senate have enabled Bush*.

[arwalden]

115. Yawn. --- In An Alternate Universe, Perhaps.

But not in this universe. The lunatic fringe clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of how our government works.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

117. incorrect.

i'm sorry Allen, but a different outcome was possible.
Thank You for clearly avoiding any factual arguments.
Yawn-- Indeed.

[Guaranteed]

126. Even if it wasn't, there are TONS of reasons they should have voted

their conscience, including, but not limited to, maintaining leadership of the party, influencing public opinion through opposition, and more than ANYTHING maintaining their INTEGRITY in order to INCREASE THEIR ELECTABILITY.

[buddhamama]

129. oh i agree.

my post below kind of expresses this same sentiment.

[buddhamama]

124. some lack fundamental understanding of who our Reps work for

every argument made by Bush* before the War began was debunked.
Why weren't the Reps doing their job; investing the "evidence".

funny how i knew the aluminum tube story was false
by my Reps didn't,hmmm. interesting don't ya think?
wouldn't 'knowing' and educating the Public they were Hired to represent be included in their job description?

and the Patriot Act, most of them didn't bother to read it.
were they doing their job then?

[edzontar]

90. Which lunatic fringe?

The one that posts personal threats on public boards?

"All you have to do--is SPOT THE LOONEY"!!!!

[Guaranteed]

92. The FACT is that Kerry and Edwards voted to support most of

Bush's policies. You can't get around that.

[arwalden]

95. Been There, Debunked That. -- Next!

[edzontar]

97. Well THAT sure convinces ME!!!!!

nt.

[arwalden]

103. I Told You Already... I'm Not Here To Convince The Lunatic Fringe

their minds are already made up. Anyone who thinks that about me is sorely mistaken.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

104. Why ARE you here? nt

[arwalden]

145. To Yank Your Chain

[edzontar]

156. HAHA HAHA HA HA!!!! This is too funny.

ABB ABB ABB--say it over and over...

Sure beats trying to THINK or put a coherent sentence together.

Why not try to persuade?

Could it be because you have no good arguments?

You are SO not yaking my chain.

I think this whole panic and freak out in the Kerry Kamp is hilarious!!

I may not vote for Nader, but i just might donate some money just to keep you guys SQUEALING!!!!!

[Guaranteed]

102. NooooOOOo! YOU'RE debunked!

Case closed! :thumbsdown:

[arwalden]

105. I Told You Already... I'm Not Here To Convince The Lunatic Fringe

logic and reason and fact do not exist in their reality.

-- Allen

[Guaranteed]

107. We've been OVER the facts, Arwalden.

You're just being argumentative.

[arwalden]

113. This Is Not About ME, Mr. Loony.

[Guaranteed]

121. And "this" is what? nt

[arwalden]

143. Your Vanity Thread, Obviously.

[Guaranteed]

144. Lemme guess...you want my thread? nt

[janx]

50. Traitors?

They can vote for whomever they want to vote for--or is that not how democracy is supposed to work?

[arwalden]

60. Certainly They May Vote For Whomever They Please...

I have not suggested that the voting laws of this country be changed.

In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate.

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. Some people have difficulty in understanding or accepting this simple fact, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

As the Republican Party today represents the worst elements in our government. For anyone to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our government. It is, for all practical purposes, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee.

Such effective co-operation with the worst elements in our government is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

[janx]

98. You are making one hell of a lot of assumptions here.

I plan on voting for Dean in our caucuses, which will take place in April.

Are you actually suggesting that this will be due to my demonstration of "the zeal" of my "attachment to left and progressive principles" at the expense of the outcome of the upcoming general election?

[arwalden]

118. I Think That There Has Been A Misunderstanding.

Voting for Dean or Kucinich in the primaries is to be encouraged. I have no problems with that. If I've said anything to make you believe that I do, then I am sorry. That is NOT how I feel.

My disagreement is with those who have pledged NOT to vote for the Democratic nominee NO MATTER WHO it ends up being. And at this point, the likely nominee will be Kerry or Edwards.

If I have misunderstood you, I hope you'll explain here (or send me a PM.)

-- Allen

[edzontar]

157. I think we understand completely

nt.

[arwalden]

158. Must You Interrupt The Only Civil Discussion Within This Thread

with pot-stirring messages like that? -- Rediculous!

-- Allen

[janx]

48. Yep, the primaries are over. Our candidate has been chosen.

And if you don't vote for him, you are voting for Hitler.

:eyes:

[arwalden]

74. More Absurdity!

No... certainly the primaries are not over, but only the unrealistic people are refusing to see that the Democratic nomination belongs to one of two remaining candidates. Kerry or Edwards... and it's likely to be Kerry.

People may be upset about it... but in their hearts they know that this is true. They may not like it, it may be a disappointment... but that's how it is. The nominee will not be Dean, Kucinich, Clark, or Sharpton.

This primary is not over... but it's over.

-- Allen

And yes... anyone who does not vote for the Democratic nominee (whoever it ends up being) is indeed choosing to benefit Bush... the Great Satan.

[janx]

108. I believe that's what I just said.

But it is not true that people who are not voting for either Kerry or Edwards in the primaries are somehow voting for Bush.

That's a non sequitur.

[Indiana Democrat]

49. You're right about one thing...

Kucinich has no chance of beating Bush.

But...

That shouldn't stop his supporters from expressing their preference.

[Guaranteed]

54. But what if in some fluke Kucinich actually WINS the nomination?

We can't tolerate this recklessness!

[Indiana Democrat]

59. If Kucinich wins the nomination (He won't, and you know it)...

We lose 50 states plus D.C., the repukes get at LEAST a 60 vote margin in the Senate and they will control the Supreme Court for the next 50 years.

[DemBones DemBones]

65. BULLGooseLoony, that's just

BULLGooseLOONY. :silly: :crazy:

[Guaranteed]

69. I know BullGooseLoony...and you're right...

That's BullGooseLoony.

[LWolf]

70. Well, your title ought to keep this on the front page!

For days. I popped in, saw that the rules have been revised, and this was the first thread title I saw. I was a hair away from the little box with the x when I looked to see who posted it, and was intrigued enough to come on in.

Be careful there. Before the day is out, some will have picked up a few of your lines to use as debating points, and the mantra will begin.

Or, perhaps Hitler will come back in fashion this year; McCarthy seems to have made a successful comeback.

ABB, a weapon to whip us all into submission, marching in step in the same line before we even get to vote. Anyone out of step is a traitor and/or a fool.

I've always been the fool.

The Fool steps out into the unknown without fear or caution. He isn't brave, but he has no fear. She is the universal innocent but she is also wise. He is the rule-breaker, the person who lives without rules.
The power of the Fool is not the power of the establishment; it is the power of the iconoclast, the rebel, the civil disobedient, the revolutionary, the protester, the comic, the mocker, the prankster. The Fool thumbs his nose at the rules.

Perhaps that should be my new avatar...food for thought.

[Eloriel]

146. Call me the Fool too

ABB, a weapon to whip us all into submission, marching in step in the same line before we even get to vote. Anyone out of step is a traitor and/or a fool. I've always been the fool.

You just gave me a great idea. This should go over very well with the ABBers. Since we are all required to vote for the nominee -- ABB, remember!! ABB above all!!! -- in November, we can all just stay home and let ONE person from our state go vote for us en masse, or tell us who we Democrats voted for (past tense).

I know that one of the few really GOOD things for me with Dean out is that I don't need to pay attention to the rest of the primaries. It doesn't matter to me. Edwards probably can't win the nomination, and Kerry probably can't win the general. And between the two of them, who cares anyway? I don't.

So maybe my vote doesn't have to be cast either. We have a chance to do something completely different here -- revolutionary! Freeing, liberating, not to mention time-saving and efficient. Who says we need a national holiday for the general election. Bah! Just have one person vote for all of us. Works for me.

[kiahzero]

93. Please, using some sort of formalism

demonstrate how this is logically equivalent to:

Nader has an insignificant chance of winning the General Election, due to resource and platform issues. Therefore, voting for Nader, which necessarily involves not voting for the Democratic nominee, increases the probability of Bush winning a second term.

You say it's the same line of logic: prove it.

[Guaranteed]

99. The ABB line of logic centers around getting Bush out of office.

We have to do whatever it takes to get Bush out, and that means we're not allowed to vote for Nader. Right?

That ALSO means that we're not allowed to vote in the primary for a candidate that has no chance of beating Bush. It's the same thing.

[kiahzero]

111. No, it's not

The Green Party has almost no resources compared with the Democratic Party. The same exact candidate has a significantly higher probability of winning the GE as a Democratic Party candidate than as a Green Party candidate. Not only this, but the issue with supporting the Green Party candidate is that you are splitting the liberal vote between two candidates.

You're wrong about the ABB 'line of logic'... you also seem to be misusing the idea of a 'line of logic'.

The actual logical argument goes something like this:

Bush is horrible in office. (A)
The Green Party has less resources than the Democratic
Party (B)
Nader has even less resources, since he is not running as a
Green. (C)
More resources increases the likelyhood of winning an
election (D)
The further left the country is, the better (E)
Given these axioms:
By (A) and (E), replacing Bush with someone to the left of Bush politically is a positive choice. (I)
By (B), (C), and (D), the Democratic Party is more likely to win an election against Bush than the Green Party, and much more likely to win an election against Bush than Nader. (II)
By (I) and (II), since the Democratic Party has a greater probability of a positive result, albeit a less positive result, voting for whomever the Democratic Party nominates is the best choice. (III)

Therefore, by (III), ABB.

[Guaranteed]

112. Both Nader and Kucinich have the SAME probability of beating

Bush: -ZERO-.

[kiahzero]

114. Um...

If you believe that, why would you vote for them?

On edit: One other thing - That's only theoretically possible. Zero probability is assymptotic; you can approach it, but you can't reach it. It's one of the vagueries of statistics.

[Guaranteed]

116. I'm not voting for either of them...most likely...however, in any case

I vote for whoever would do the best job for the country. Voters abandoning principle is what got us into this position in the first place.

[kiahzero]

120. No, voters blindly following "principles" that were more important

than real people got us into this position. Had 600 of those people that voted for Nader in Florida seen through the lie of "no difference", the fix still wouldn't have been enough to keep Gore from winning.

Principles are selfish when they're more important than real people.

[Guaranteed]

122. The voters putting cowards in the Senate is what got us here.

On edit: AND the House.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. Why are you putting words in other people's mouths?

[Guaranteed]

109. I'm not. Just following the logic line. nt

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. No, you're making up offensive views and ascribing them to others.

[Guaranteed]

123. This is ABB. If you're offended by it, you should rethink

your position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

125. I don't care how many times you tell me what I think -YOU ARE WRONG

Why not argue your own position? Is it so weak that you have to pretend your debate opponents think something different than they do?

[Guaranteed]

130. I'm not saying you really believe this. I'm sure you don't- it's

totally unreasonable.

However, this thinking is consistent with, and mandated by, the push to get Bush out of office *at all costs.*

[kiahzero]

127. No you aren't, as I demonstrated above (n/t)

[Guaranteed]

131. Yes, I am- neither of them would have a snowball's chance in hell.

You know that.

FURTHER, even IF Kucinich's chance of beating Bush was SLIGHTLY better than Nader's (which it isn't), following the ABB line it is STILL reckless to vote for him in the primary because his chance would be only a small fraction of the chance that Kerry or Edwards would have.

If getting Bush out of office is all that matters, then it follows that all that matters is who has the best chance to beat him. So, to be consistent, you HAVE to vote for that candidate.

[West Coast Democrat]

132. That's not our logic; You can vote for anyone in the primary

We're concerned about the General Election. I am a ABB Clark supporter who is leaning toward Kucinich.

[Guaranteed]

133. If all that matters is getting Bush out of office, don't you HAVE

to vote for the candidate most likely to beat him?

[West Coast Democrat]

135. ABB isn't about the candidate most likely to beat Bush

It's about getting strongly behind the eventual nominee. Most voters, even Democrats, aren't going to vote for Kucinich because he's more liberal than what this country is used to...they like his ideas, but they know he won't be able to carry them out in the current environment; plus he's not very presidential, you have to admit.

But Kucinich IS a Democrat. I like what Kucinich has to say, and I may vote for him because my state has a very late primary...and I do want to show support for his ideas.

[Guaranteed]

136. And why should I get strongly behind the eventual Dem nominee?

Because we HAVE to beat Bush. Right?

[West Coast Democrat]

137. Because the US is a two-party system

we're not a parliamentary system; we're winner takes all.

[buddhamama]

149. the U.S. is not a parliamentary system

is correct. i would disagree/argue though, on whether or not we are a strict two-party system. our current system can support a third party.

electoral numbers/facts:
only 50% of the electorate voted in 2000.
think about that a minute. votes cast for either DEM, repub or third party during the last election only accounted for 50% of the electorate.
so it could be reasonably argued that, if a third party could attract the other 35-50% of the electorate, they'd win.

[West Coast Democrat]

153. It would be nice if we could attract more voters....

but we still have a winner takes all system, and getting more people to vote would not necessarily bolster any one party.

[youngred]

148. That makes no sense whatsoever

Its actually rather ridiculous, but it is something seen around here far too often as some posts on this thread indiciate

Edit:Clarification

[ButterflyBlood]

167. stupid load of flamebait

and a strawman so moronic it doesn't even deserve a response.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

168. What makes this a particularly brain-dead notion

is the fact that the poster is ridiculing this idea, and can't seem to see that it's his idea and his only.