Do splinterists forfeit their right to complain about Republicans?

[LoZoccolo]

After all, putting Republicans in power is part of their plan, right?

[MadHound]

1. No, it makes them equal opportunity critics

And no, putting 'Pugs in power isn't part of their plan, taking this country back from the corporatistas is. Clear enough for you?

[LoZoccolo]

2. Yes it is.

If your whole plan is to threaten the Democrats, how are you going to change anything without letting Republicans win? If a Democrat wins and your splinter movement gets 2%, they'll be like well that's 2% that we're never gonna get, good thing we won. Letting Republicans win is the only way a splinter movement can change things.

[MadHound]

3. Read up on your history of the Whigs friend

Replaced within a span of four years by the Republicans who won the Presidency their first time out. It can, and has been done.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Read up on your history of Nader friend

Spoiled the state of Florida and brought Bush* to power. Look at what has been done:

http://images.google.com/images?q=iraq%20child&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi

[msgadget]

5. The Supreme Court, not Nader, spoiled Florida by halting the recount.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Thank you for the criticism/self-criticism, I am now on the shining path.

[msgadget]

7. You're welcome.

[MadHound]

8. Look friend, Nader didn't cost Gore a damn thing

First off, when all the ballots were counted in Florida, it turns out that Gore won. Gore, backed by his DLC handlers, didn't have the spine to fight for a full recount like he should of, instead he tried to cherry pick, a county here, a precinct there, and all of that dithering around cost him.

Secondly, Gore shot himself in the foot with his positions vis-a-vis drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, off shore of Florida. Despite many liberals and Democrats attempts to sway him, he was in favor of such drilling, after all, it was what his corporate masters at BP/Aamaco wished him to do.

Therefore, these selfsame self described liberals(398,000 of them) and registered Democrats(198,000 of them) all from Florida decided they didn't like Gore's lack of compromise on this position, so they decided to double screw him, they voted for Bush. Thus, by his very inflexibility, this supposed eviromental candidate lost the election.

So in the face of these 596,000 potential votes that Gore lost by towing the corporate line in Florida, you think that the votes Nader got were really that important? I think not friend, really.

Oh, and as for the sources of this, go read Greg Palast's "Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and Jim Hightower's "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates"

Gotta run, have fun with your poll:eyes:

[QC]

14. Yes, I'm sure environmentalists ran weeping with joy into the arms of Bush

because they believed he would be better on that issue than Gore. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.

Also, Florida does not have a legal provision for a statewide recount--that has to be done on the county level. Florida has 67 counties, which means 67 separate elections boards to deal with. So much for that Naderite talking point that hasn't been posted here more than a couple thousand times already.

[NoPasaran]

9. Read up on your history of the Whigs friend

The Republicans ran John Fremont for in 1856 and he lost.

[cestpaspossible]

12. Inconvenient facts are subject to discard.

[Warpy]

10. People who split from a main party

in any race do so because the party they would generally vote for has produced a candidate so disgustingly craven, so outrageously bad that no person in good conscience can possibly find a single reason to vote FOR him.

I have voted third party for this reason more than once, knowing full well that a pubbie will be elected to the office.

However, a large enough third party vote can and should send a message to the state Democratic party that they need to watch which candidates they choose to run a little more closely.

Yes, I do reserve the right to criticize the pubbie in such cases. After all, I didn't vote to elect him. I voted against an appallingly bad Democrat and against the pubbie candidate.

I know people who fail to get the nuances of this will continue to whinge about spoilers. The fact of the matter is that right wing Democrats, thieves, and lunatics are the true spoilers, along with a party that doesn't research them well enough before they are run.

[Cats Against Frist]

11. If this were a normal fucking situation

then I would say "yes" that they do give up their right. This is not. The neocon, corpo-fascist, theocratic nut ball of a fuckwad administration calls for unity of all sane people against them and their Rovebots.

I don't care what kind of criticism you lob at the 'crats, the extreme loonies who are the MAINSTREAM of the Republican party are far more dangerous, than on the Democrats' WORST fucking day.

I'm a libertarian, and I pretty much think all government seeks to protect the concentration of wealth and provides a nifty castle for the fascists to move into, when they get the chance: LIKE NOW. But I do, and would vote for the Democrats preeeeeety much no matter what.

It would really take a lot for me not to. Because my disdain for the conservative philosophy (not the limited government, low taxes -- but the patriarchal, Christian, nationalist superiority of the white man kind) far outstrips anything that I could say about the Democrats.

So, under normal circumstances, or if we had more balance, I'd say no -- free speech, vote your conscience, whatever. I fully believe this is different, though.

[KitchenWitch]

13. My opinion is

that if the splinterist in question did the following, they still have a right to complain:

1. They voted (regardless of whether their vote counted, or not). By voting they have, in a minimal way, participated in the process.

2. Volunteered for various GOTV efforts.

3. Have been in contact with their elected officials, letting them know what their thoughts are on upcoming legislation.

I will probably get flamed for this, but so be it. If the splinterists have participated in the process, they have an investment, therefore they do have the right to complain.

[GreenArrow]

15. yes, they still have a right to complain

let's say that in an hypothetical election in the Country of Hell, the Republicans are running Adolph Hitler, and the Democrats are running Joe Stalin. "Splinterists" on the left offer Mark Twain. I think I would have a right to complain, regardless of the winner in this race, and regardless of whether I voted or not (I voted for Twain, who got 1.3 percent. Hitler won, with 51 percent.) Let's say you drop Twain from the slate, I don't see how anyone refusing to vote for the other two has any less reason or right to complain. The situation is simply beyond their control. As it is with us.

The splinterists in the most recent US election, are, I assume roughly analogous to the those who were anti Iraq war. Wasn't that the same group whose criticsms of the war, its buildup and prosecution were utterly correct?

Abstaining from a vote is always a valid option.