An idea to balance the "Green party cut-out"

[NoSocialGroup]

Assuming that racist groups such as the KKK vote more Republican (which makes idealogical sense) and that you agree more "Green party" voters are liberal and would otherwise vote Democrat if only they couldn't put down their damn specific differences on issues, we could balance this "cut-out" that weakens the Democratic party by just enough. It's simple, us liberals need to create a political party that advocates racism and garnish enough extreme conservative (at least in the civil liberties department) to take enough Republican vote.

Now I know I've probably pissed off enough people with the previous paragraph, so I will start making my pre-emptive arguments.

A. The point that more racists are Republican. It makes sense, and if it's not the case then there are sure plenty of racists on the wrong party. Racism as demonstrated by many groups would be limiting and/or denying many minority groups civil liberties, something that conservatives usually go for more as to insure people's security. (In essence, racists != civil liberties, and Republicans-Democrats::Security-Liberty).

B. Green party voters weaken Democrat support. Honestly, I feel for Green party voters, as I agree with them more than Democrats, however it's arrogant to allow a party that you completely disagree with to win just so you can "voice" your opinion rather than to help a party that you slightly disagree with to win and work towards gaining more of your ideas later. Most of America is pretty moderate on the political scale, so even if ALL people were to voice their opinions, it'd still be stuck in the two main political parties, and the Green Party would not currently win anyway. However you should vote for what could possibly/probably put programs into place that closest resemble the one's you want.

[shermanology]

First off, you must be a programer, seeing the != and all those.

Second, you make some good generalizations (wait, those can be good?) But i dont think there are enough racists who are politically active to really change the vote that much, unless the various liberal 3rd parties joined and voted democrat. Which totally defeats the purpose of being in a third party in the first place. I think ive confused myself now.

[splitsecond]

Assuming that racist groups such as the KKK vote more Republican (which makes idealogical sense) and that you agree more "Green party" voters are liberal and would otherwise vote Democrat if only they couldn't put down their damn specific differences on issues, we could balance this "cut-out" that weakens the Democratic party by just enough. It's simple, us liberals need to create a political party that advocates racism and garnish enough extreme conservative (at least in the civil liberties department) to take enough Republican vote.

Now I know I've probably pissed off enough people with the previous paragraph, so I will start making my pre-emptive arguments.

A. The point that more racists are Republican. It makes sense, and if it's not the case then there are sure plenty of racists on the wrong party. Racism as demonstrated by many groups would be limiting and/or denying many minority groups civil liberties, something that conservatives usually go for more as to insure people's security. (In essence, racists != civil liberties, and Republicans-Democrats::Security-Liberty).

B. Green party voters weaken Democrat support. Honestly, I feel for Green party voters, as I agree with them more than Democrats, however it's arrogant to allow a party that you completely disagree with to win just so you can "voice" your opinion rather than to help a party that you slightly disagree with to win and work towards gaining more of your ideas later. Most of America is pretty moderate on the political scale, so even if ALL people were to voice their opinions, it'd still be stuck in the two main political parties, and the Green Party would not currently win anyway. However you should vote for what could possibly/probably put programs into place that closest resemble the one's you want.

You are pretty much an idiot.

[NoSocialGroup]

I know. It isn't a completely serious idea but I think it could spawn something good. Any arguments or do you just like calling people idiots?

[splitsecond]

I know. It isn't a completely serious idea but I think it could spawn something good. Any arguments or do you just like calling people idiots?

Dropping the race card makes you and idiot. Period.

[NoSocialGroup]

Dropping the race card makes you and idiot. Period.
Yea, God forbid I acknowlege racism and it's political facets.

[Justin_stacy]

I've forgotten that the KKK, the almost nonexistent group, was still the sole earthly example of "racism" in America. And we can all tell from the attacks on Rice, oh i mean "Aunt Jemima," that “racism” is completely a Republican institution (i was unaware that people like Corrine Brown or Ted Rall, just to name two, were Republicans.....someone should probably break this to them).

I'd advise you to look again at the body that makes up the DNC if you don't think "racism," in some form or another, plays a pivotal role in defining who they are and what their belief system is. Being a closet "racist" (or institutionalized racist) is no less evil then one who wears their sheets out in the open.

When advocating a thesis it tends to work better if there is some logic behind it, rather then baseless, puppet produced, partisanship.


And with your example, is it not possible that the Green Party is a concoction of the Republican Party to splinter off the most deranged portion of the Democratic/Liberal party, and therefore weaken their chances at winning elections......?

Could it not work both ways?

[NetNerdsRevenge]

If im not mistaken, doesn't the current Republican administration hold most minority cabinet members?

or something along those lines.

[GhostsDaddy]

Plain and simple, it wouldn't work.

The Democratic party is finally getting the right idea if they're hoping for their own advancement.

Instead of being anti-Republican, like they've been able to succeed with in the preceding years, they've never really had a common good that they've all worked toward.

Once the Dems finalize a party platform that isn't "This is what the Republicans say and here's why they're retarded" they might actually get somewhere.

For the record, I'm an independent, with Libertarian leanings, though I know the Libertarian party is destined to fail.

[NoSocialGroup]

Listen, I know I threw a butt-load of generalizations in my original post. I also recognize that most of the KKK was in fact Democrat back when most of the Southern population was Democrat (I'm not going to infer the correlation, that's just the time period it occured), however I think if you read my original post again it still accounts for everything. Of course Green Party votes take from the Republican party too, and without question is there probably in great number a bunch of racists who vote Democratic, but I just mean the technical majority, which should follow the logic I've posed.

[MidniteVulture]

HUH?????

[WasteMyTime]

im racist

I hate all races

[Cal Smith]

HUH?????


i was thinking the same thing :thumbsup:

[NoSocialGroup]

What's the question?

[splitsecond]

What's the question?

Well my questions are:


1. Where are the facts to back up your theory?

2. When are you going to star typing in sentences and paragraphs that make sense?

Here is a hint for number 2. Start your paragraph with a thesis, you know, your point. Then follow that sentence with more sentences that make your point. Follow it all up with a conclusion that ties it together and restates your thesis. Voila!

[NoSocialGroup]

Sorry, I didn't realize that you can only read things based on how you'd write them. This isn't a place to just dump your essays, it's a place to exchange ideas, so I'll do it in a more interactive manner.

And as I said it's not a wholly serious thought. You want facts? What you mean like statistics I piss away hours of my time looking up? Sorry, I don't have them, but I feel that I provided enough logic to at least make a reasonable guess (oh god, a guess) to prove something was either over/under 50%. I feel it's pretty reasonable too, you want me to restate the racial thing?

Racists Group "A" believes in limiting and/or denying civil liberties of Racial Group "B" because of feelings of insecurities. Group "A" is more likely to vote for the political party (Republicans) that would limit civil liberties in order to provide more security.



I can understand if I was being very unclear, but I think it's stupid if you basically knew what I was talking about and just wanted me to be able to spoon-feed it to you in hopes that I couldn't and you could discredit my point. I don't know which one it was, and frankly I don't care.

And I realize on the whole political spectrum that both Republicans and Democrats are actually more on the securities side, however Republicans are still somewhat further.

[splitsecond]

Sorry, I didn't realize that you can only read things based on how you'd write them. This isn't a place to just dump your essays, it's a place to exchange ideas, so I'll do it in a more interactive manner.

And as I said it's not a wholly serious thought. You want facts? What you mean like statistics I piss away hours of my time looking up? Sorry, I don't have them, but I feel that I provided enough logic to at least make a reasonable guess (oh god, a guess) to prove something was either over/under 50%. I feel it's pretty reasonable too, you want me to restate the racial thing?

Racists Group "A" believes in limiting and/or denying civil liberties of Racial Group "B" because of feelings of insecurities. Group "A" is more likely to vote for the political party (Republicans) that would limit civil liberties in order to provide more security.



I can understand if I was being very unclear, but I think it's stupid if you basically knew what I was talking about and just wanted me to be able to spoon-feed it to you in hopes that I couldn't and you could discredit my point. I don't know which one it was, and frankly I don't care.

And I realize on the whole political spectrum that both Republicans and Democrats are actually more on the securities side, however Republicans are still somewhat further.

But you still havent proven a link between the emphasis of denying "civil liberties" in general to racism. I see what you are getting at, but it doesnt prove that Republicans are more racist thant Democrats.


In fact, here is an interesting thought: It is a pretty good generalization (since we are dealing with generalizations here) that as an individual becomes more wealthy and independent, he is more likely to think and vote as a conservative.

Now then, look at liberals who are supposedly the "champions of the poor". They pander to the lower class historically. Now let me ask you this: what interest do the liberals have in helping the poor if the wealthier and more independent they become, the more likely they are to vote conservatively? Do you really think that they have the best interest of the poor in mind?

[youcomebeforeyo]

Demopublicans are almost the same party. Other the last few years the Democrats have lost their spine and are too scared to stick to principal. Both parties are in the pockets of special interests.

The point of voting Green is that Democrat or Republican little will change and to send a message.

[Nick Lopez]

i think this idea sounds reasonable.