Political Cartoons

Nonsense. I am not one of those people who chooses not to participate. Third parties are in the business of engaging and invigorating all those disillusioned voters.

From:

At this point there are no legitimate third parties that are either engaging or invigorating all the disillusioned voters out there. The ones on the right are all anti-federal government, gun-toting wackos and racists, and the ones on the left? You never hear about them. They don't get the press the wackos get.

We need a Social Democrat party--with Bernie Sanders as its presidential candidate. The social democracies in the world are the most successful. Just look at Sweden, Norway, Denmark.

From:

"The ones on the right are all anti-federal government, gun-toting wackos and racists . . ."

Not all of them.

". . . and the ones on the left? You never hear about them. They don't get the press the wackos get."

Depends where you live. I live in a magical place where office-holding Democrats talk of secession, Greens are invited to debates with Dems and are treated fairly by the media, and Reps don't even bother running candidates in half the races because the Dems' lawyers keep getting the Reps knocked off the ballot, giving the Greens as much as 30% of the vote.

From:

What "magical" place is that?

the Dems' lawyers keep getting the Reps knocked off the ballot

That's utter bullshit. Please provide links to stories on standard daily newspaper websites (right-wing wacko conspiracy-theorist blogs are not acceptable) describing in detail how the Democrats have managed to get the Repugnicans "knocked off" the ballot. If you aren''t able to provide links detailing each and every incident, then you're definitely lying.

If the Repugnicans keep getting "knocked off" the ballot, you must be living in a state where the two candidates with the highest number of votes in the primary move forward to the general election, regardless of party. In those circumstances, it's entirely possible for the Repugnicans to get "knocked off" the ballot. That's a far cry from the sort of corruption we saw on the part of the Repugnicans in their attempts to restrict the voting rights of minorities and the poor in the last election.

From:

"If you aren''t able to provide links detailing each and every incident, then you're definitely lying."

LOL, that's not even remotely logical. But here are a couple for you:

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/06/02/democrats-want-to-knock-gop-mayoral-candidate-mcclusky-off-the-ballot

http://ivn.us/2011/06/29/greens-well-positioned-after-democratic-party-ballot-purge-in-tuscon/

About half the Tucson and Pima County races on the 2012 ballot were either uncontested Dems or Dems vs. Greens. I don't know if the Reps didn't bother fielding candidates or the Dems got them knocked off the ballot. I suspect that it was a little of both.

From:

I've read both links, and there's nothing to indicate that the Democrats did anything untoward in having the Republican challenger "knocked off" the ballot--he submitted 600 invalid signatures out of the required 1,060, so he didn't meet the threshold of eligibility. If anything, the Republicans actually have an advantage in Pima County; they're only required to get 1,060 signatures. Democrats are required to get 1,642 signatures, and Independent candidates must get 2,596.

So if the Republicans couldn't get enough legitimate signatures when they're required to submit significantly less than anyone else, you can't blame the Democrats and the Greens for this. They had to get more legitimate signatures, and they managed to do so. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Democrats did anything corrupt in challenging the legitimacy of certain signatures, which were found illegitimate in a court of law.

Another Republican candidate couldn't get on the ballot because he didn't meet the residency requirements. No Democratic corruption there.

Like I said, the Republicans were the source of corruption in the last election in their attempts limit access to voting for the poor and people of color. In each case the jurisdictions in question were forced by the courts to overturn or stay the laws they'd put in place. It is the Republicans who have proved themselves the most corrupt of all. A Republican operative in Pennsylvania even publicly proclaimed that the laws had been put in place to ensure the election of Mitt Romney. Those laws were overturned.

You've supplied two sources that give no indication whatsoever that the Democrats somehow "knocked off" Republican candidates in Pima County. The Republicans did it themselves, by not meeting the requirements.

Considering what a horrific governor Arizona has, I'm delighted to hear that both Tucson and Pima County are moving towards the Democrats and the Greens. Of course it was bound to happen within the next twenty years in both Arizona and Texas, whose Hispanic populations continue to rise. Mark my words, in 20 years both those states will be blue.

From:

I never said the Dems did anything untoward or corrupt, and I didn't "blame" the Dems or the Greens. I just said that the situation benefits the Greens.

"You've supplied two sources that give no indication whatsoever that the Democrats somehow 'knocked off' Republican candidates in Pima County."

Yeah, no indication whatsoever except the titles and text of the goddamn articles. Jesus. And yes, the Democrats did it. The election committee doesn't challenge ballot eligibility; rival parties do.

From:

Yeah, no indication whatsoever except the titles and text of the goddamn articles.
Titles are written to catch attention. The articles themselves pointed out exactly what happened, that the Democrats brought legal challenges that were found valid by the courts, and that's why those republicans weren't on the ballot. The Republicans have done the same. Both parties bring such challenges in every election.

yes, the Democrats did it. The election committee doesn't challenge ballot eligibility; rival parties do.

No, the Democrats didn't do it--the courts did. While it's true that the Democrats did rightfully and legally bring the challenges, if they were not valid challenges those Republicans would have been allowed on the ballot. The courts found the challenges valid, and that's why they were "knocked off."

I'm sure that if the Republicans or Libertarians had brought valid challenges to the courts that resulted in Democratic or Green Party Candidates being knocked off the ballot, you'd be cheering, and decrying the corruption of the Democrats and Greens.

From:

"The articles themselves pointed out exactly what happened, that the Democrats brought legal challenges that were found valid by the courts . . ."

Which is a long way of saying they were knocked off the ballot.

"I'm sure that if the Republicans or Libertarians had brought valid challenges to the courts that resulted in Democratic or Green Party Candidates being knocked off the ballot, you'd be cheering"

Holy shit, do you pay attention to anything? (No, of course you don't.) Let me spell it out for you: I do not support Republicans. I don't even vote for Democrats because they're too fucking conservative. You're replying to a thread in which I've cheered the success of Greens that was handed to them on a silver platter by all the Rep and Dem legal wrangling. So where do you get... oh, nevermind. Why do I even bother?

Edited Date: 2012-12-27 04:11 am (UTC)

From:

Oh, for goodness' sakes, calm down.

This posting of yours only indicates your ridiculous assertion that the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with each other and essentially exactly the same, which is utter bullshit. They're markedly different in their policies.

In the past you've come out for some rather wacky libertarian ideas, so it wasn't difficult to picture you as libertarian, i.e., conservative. I guess you're proof of the claim that the far left and the far right somehow always manage to meet in the middle of the political circle.

Do I wish the Democrats were more liberal and less conservative? I've been wishing that for probably more years than you've been alive. If the Greens are gaining power in Pima County and Tucson, more power to them. If they gain enough power to become a major third party, I might support them--but only if doing so would not have the strong possibility of resulting in a Republican victory. We lost the 2000 election in no small part due to Ralph Nader being in the race; I'm glad I don't have those 8 years of Bush hanging on my conscience.

From:

Reps and Dems aren't exactly the same, but they're closer to each other than either of them is to acceptable. And "libertarian" is not equivalent to "conservative". Conservative libertarians are a subset of libertarians.

"We lost the 2000 election in no small part due to Ralph Nader being in the race"

That old trope again? Fact is, every one of the dozen or so fringe candidates on Florida's ballot had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. It was a one-in-a-million freak occurrence that any of them mattered. If you're going to argue that Nader shouldn't have run because he split the vote, then it's fair to say that none of the others should have, either. And if they hadn't, Gore still would have lost because most of Florida's fronge candidates drew votes from the right.

From:

Reps and Dems aren't exactly the same, but they're closer to each other than either of them is to acceptable.
Absolute bullshit. You must be blind as a bat and deaf as a post. Dems support a woman's right to choose, gay marriage and national healthcare; the Reps do not. Dems favor lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes and making defense cuts while raising taxes on the wealthy; the Reps roundly refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy under the illusion that they create jobs, when 30 years of supply-side economics has proven the opposite. The Reps claim they will not raise taxes on anyone, but every one of their tax plans calls for raising taxes on the middle and lower classes, refusing cuts to defense, and making massive cuts to federal programs that serve those in need just to support the cuts on the wealthy. If you are unable to recognize these clear differences in policy, you're a prize idiot. Do your fucking homework bfore you make such a stupid claim.

"libertarian" is not equivalent to "conservative". Conservative libertarians are a subset of libertarians.
When libertarians are running around screaming that their right to own multiple automatic assault weapons supercedes the safety of children and that the federal government should be eliminated entirely and everything privatized, they are right-wing kooks. If they supported that racist pig Ron Paul because he supports legalizing pot, they are left-wing kooks. The fact of the matter is that most libertarians are right-leaning, and very selective in their libertarianism. For example, most of them are against abortion, which is a basic right that should be supported in libertarian philosophy. The fact of the matter is that it isn't. If you ally youself with libertarians, you've allied yourself with a party that is made up predomiantly of right-wing kooks.

Fact is, every one of the dozen or so fringe candidates on Florida's ballot had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.
You should know better. That several of the votes went to to fringe candidates had more to do with the confusion over the butterfly ballot than any actual support for those candidates. I can guarantee you that none of the retired Jews in Florida would have intentionally voted for Buchanan. So to claim that support for the fringe candidates split the Florida vote is ridiculous.

And if they hadn't, Gore still would have lost because most of Florida's fronge candidates drew votes from the right.
Actually, you're dead wrong. several independent recounts after the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that Gore would have won the election. And then there were thousands of votes found in the trash that weren't counted, and several people of color were refused the right to vote. The role of fringe candidates was relatively minor; Nader's role in the election as a whole was much more significant. He recognized this himself, and that's why he hasn't run since.

From:

Dems shoved Republican national healthcare plan down our throats. They've been lukewarm at best on gay rights; Obama's grudging, half-assed repeal of DADT and his scheme to of prevent SCOTUS from ruling on DOMA were strategic setbacks. When the Reps were whining about Obama cutting defense spending, it was a typical Rep lie and typical Dem spin. Obama didn't cut defense spending; he cut the rate at which it is increasing. That's not even close to acceptable when what we really need is a 80% cut. Obama made no attempt whatsoever to alter Bush's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and failed to close Gitmo. Like a store that marks up prices before a sale, he increased our troop strength in Afghanistan before trumpeting a "drawdown" that left more troops there than when he started. And of course all the stupid liberals cheered.

"That several of the votes went to to fringe candidates had more to do with the confusion over the butterfly ballot than any actual support for those candidates."

Nope. It was actually a really small and totally unremarkable number of votes. The only thing that was unusual was that Bush and Gore were that close.

"several independent recounts after the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that Gore would have won the election"

Name one.

"And then there were thousands of votes found in the trash that weren't counted, and several people of color were refused the right to vote."

Now that I agree with. Vote suppression was several orders of magnitude a larger factor than Nader's candidacy. But go on, keep blaming Nader.

From:

You can go on and on all you like about all of Obama's failures. I completely agree with you on every account. In my 54 years on earth I have never seen a president, Democratic or Republican keep all his promises. It's one thing to say it on the campaign trail; it's another thing to make it happen with a Repubican dominated House. However, that doesn't in the least change the facts regarding the clear policy differences between the two parties. Had Obama not been elected, there would be no repeal of DADT, abortion would probably have been outlawed, there would be no health care reform guaranteeing coverage despite pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps, and more tax cuts would have been given to the rich. You can scream about Obama and the Dems until the cows come home, but that's not gonna make me vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, and will only guarantee a Republican victory.

Name one.

Here you go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-11/politics/palmbeach.recount_1_gore-buchanan-gore-and-reform-party-butterfly-ballot?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0111a/copyright/bushlostrecount.html

http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount_Official.htm

I'll add to this that the controversy continues, for the very reasons pointed out in the second and third links. So we can never be completely sure who won.

But go on, keep blaming Nader.
After I mentioned several other factors that led to Gore losing the election, you're still claiming that I I solely blame Nader for the loss. Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I do believe he played an important part in drawing votes away from Gore, but I by no means believe he was the only factor in Gore's loss, as you suggest.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

you obviously dont live in ny or ct.

in the city of hartford, the city council has ZERO repubs.
democrats and WF. so the dems are the conservatives and the working families party are the progressives

From:

That sounds great to me.

From:

I haven't seen any examples of third parties "engaging" or "invigorating" anyone. Disillusioned voters are not likely to vote for anyone, if those third parties were really inspiring people who don't care to start caring their numbers would have been higher in the last election since there are plenty of people who have stopped caring.

Not participating is silly and doesn't serve to accomplish anything. Neither party really cares if you don't vote and, by not voting, you just ensure that your voice is even less important than those of us who do vote.

The problem with third parties is that they think they can get someone elected President without doing any of the ground work required. If they really wanted to make a lasting difference, they'd be running for local office and setting up local offices everywhere. Even the Greens, who do this sort of thing much more than other third parties, don't do it nearly enough to make a difference. They think they can compete with the Dems and the Republicans when they haven't done the decades of work the Dems and the GOP did to get where they are today.

From:

"Not participating is silly and doesn't serve to accomplish anything."

No disagreement there. Again, I am not one of those people.

'The problem with third parties is that they think they can get someone elected President . . ."

That is not what they think at all.

"They think they can compete with the Dems and the Republicans when they haven't done the decades of work the Dems and the GOP did to get where they are today."

Oh, please. You sound like an apologist for capitalism. The two-party oligopoly is not something the Reps and Dems earned with their hard work. It's just the status quo they inherited.

From:

No disagreement there. Again, I am not one of those people.

And yet you suggest the equivalent. Voting for a third party that you know can only serve to peel off one or two percentage points from the party that is most ideologically aligned with you is functionally indistinguishable from not participating. You'd be doing yourself a far greater favor, if you want to shake things up in American politics, if you helped one of those third parties get involved in local politics. Voting for them just serves to encourage those who you disagree with more.

That is not what they think at all.

Then why do they continue to run for President, often at the exclusion of more attainable elected offices?

Oh, please. You sound like an apologist for capitalism.

No, I'm an apologist for logic.

The two-party oligopoly is not something the Reps and Dems earned with their hard work. It's just the status quo they inherited.

Neither the Democrats or the Republicans existed when this country began. They may seem dominant now but that wasn't always the case. It is undeniable that they possess a significant head start, which may seem insurmountable to those attempting to join them at the top, but they undoubtedly did earn it.

From:

You're just parroting the insipid lies that preserve the status quo.

From:

And you appear to be engaging in a futile exercise designed solely to allow you to feel superior to status quo parrots like myself.

From: