Bullshit. You don't care to listen because you don't like what I have to say. Which is exhausting, to be honest, and I don't really need it in my life anymore.
I part with this. I have very little opinion on Ralph Nader because I was 9 years old during the 2000 election. But everything he says here is extremely spot on.
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25...the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/
I anticipate no one in this forum reading it because they don't like Ralph Nader due to 2000, or dismissing it because it doesn't line up with their established views. Which is hilarious, because that's like the whole point of this.
How quickly the so-called left wing party of this country has basically become Republicans Lite.
I read it. And I think there's a lot of good points raised here, points I'd agree with. I've said before that I fully agree that the Democratic Party needs to figure out how to better push its message and policies. I especially fully agree that they need to do more to visit the middle part of the country, especially the more conservative states. As I've said before, broadly speaking, the GOP's problem is assuming everyone in "middle America" is just as conservative as they are, and the Democratic Party's problem is assuming that there aren't near enough liberals in this part of the country.
I also tend to disagree with the more hawkish positions some Democrats have taken on things like foreign policy (Hillary's support for the Iraq War is one of my biggest critiques of her, after all). And I agree there are issues within the party leadership and the way they run things that are worth examining and fixing (especially the corporate influence, and the Citizens United ruling only further fucked that up). You will get absolutely no argument from me on that, and I honestly think most people here would agree with those beliefs as well.
Regarding the third party aspect in relation to Nader, I was 16 in 2000, so I wasn't able to vote in the election that year. All I mainly remember of it was, of course, the whole mess with Florida, and I think all the issues surrounding that craziness were obviously a much bigger factor in the end than whatever role Nader played in the outcome, if any. And while Gore would've no doubt been significantly more equipped for the job than Bush, I can also understand some Democrats not being very excited by him.
But I also think there are other factors that cause some of these problems as well, and we can discuss both the issues within the Democratic Party while also discussing those other issues. We can talk about the misogyny that's leveled at female candidates while also criticizing Hillary's policies. We can talk about the racist, ignorant, homophobic attitudes of Trump supporters while also discussing how the Democratic Party should properly deal with the economic struggles those very same people are dealing with, and which will be further exacerbated by the very guy they support. And so on. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And people just showing up in a presidential election and putting down a third party name-well, that's nice, but that alone won't suddenly make third party candidates become a thing. There's a lot more that needs to happen for that to be a reality.
The most important part of that article, though, was Nader talking about how dismissive people's political attitudes are, and how that harms the country in the long run. Yes, there are centrist liberals out there that shut down discussion among the Democrats. But it goes both ways. Some of the far left's attitude doesn't help matters, either. I am more than happy to listen to the Bernies of the world, or people like you, PhilsFan, because there are many ideas you guys support that I fully agree with.
But I'm also not going to insult or dismiss centrist liberals and their attitudes, because they have valid reasons for believing what they believe as well. And as angry as the right tends to make me nowadays, I still feel a desire to try and talk to them, too, when possible. Whatever one's political affiliation, I just like figuring out why they think the way they do. If I disagree with them, be they on the left or right, I want to try and argue my viewpoint and hope that they'll wind up agreeing with me. Sometimes it'll work, sometimes it won't. But at least I tried, which is a start.
That said, however, I also think that if I support a centrist liberal, and they win office, I'll be much more likely to convince them to support much more progressive policies over time than I would if a GOP candidate won. I do think there's a fair point to be made about how the left needs to focus on talking to each other before they even try and compromise with the right at this point and time.
Bottom line, if you (general "you") want people to listen to you, throwing insults at them is a bad way to do so. The only people who
will listen in those instances are those who also like to throw insults around (see Trump and his supporters), and that doesn't solve anything. And that goes for
all political affiliations.
And now I'm rambling and don't even know if I fully addressed PhilsFan's main complaint. But yeah.
