NationStates Jolt Archive

The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Florida was lost to us last election by only 500 or so votes. Nader won about 70,000-80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. If only a tiny FRACTION of those people had voted for Al Gore, the entire history of the country would have changed. The Bushites are stronger this time, having entrenched themselves in the interim of four years. They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy. I urge you to seriously consider the math behind the Nader candidacy, as well as your ultimate aims. Nader is leading us towards another four years of Bush's corporate sell-outs and repressive conservatism, not by design but by coincidence. But the ultimate result will be the same. Please, seriously consider abandoning him, but not his ideals.

The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Florida was lost to us last election by only 500 or so votes. Nader won about 70,000-80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. If only a tiny FRACTION of those people had voted for Al Gore, the entire history of the country would have changed. The Bushites are stronger this time, having entrenched themselves in the interim of four years. They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy. I urge you to seriously consider the math behind the Nader candidacy, as well as your ultimate aims. Nader is leading us towards another four years of Bush's corporate sell-outs and repressive conservatism, not by design but by coincidence. But the ultimate result will be the same. Please, seriously consider abandoning him, but not his ideals.


As a Libertarian....yes I would. Kerry is not a viable alternative.

You would have people go against their democratic rights (voting for whom they want to)? Just to further you own view of how things should be?

Wow. *That's* arrogance.

WHY is he not a viable alternative? Man's a war hero, an intellectual. He may not be a good speaker, but that does not matter. What I value is the quality of Kerry's thoughts. I believe that he -does- have concerns about the average joe on the street.

Nader is a viable candidate and anyone who gets on the ballot in a state deserves a fair shot. Its really a shame to see the democratic party act in such a non-democracy fashion. :(

I'm voting for him in IL as he represents a message both parties need to hear loud and clear. Stop going to your fringes or you'll lose more votes.

If you have an issue with the system and Nader then help by creating more State level primary reform so we can get real bonafide candidates that do not pull the country in two pieces.

You would have people go against their democratic rights (voting for whom they want to)? Just to further you own view of how things should be?

Wow. *That's* arrogance.

No, I did not say that. But I can see that Nader drew votes off of Gore in 2000. It is not a great jump of logic to assume it will happen again. I am merely throwing up a red flag in the hopes that you will consider the ramifications of what may happen if you DO vote for Nader.

I agree with almost all of Nader's platform. I agree with him more than I agree with Kerry. But I have made a value judgement that I prefer to side with a candidate who espouses some of my views and can win as opposed to a candidate who espouses more of my views and cannot.

As a Libertarian....yes I would. Kerry is not a viable alternative.
Is the Libertarian party on all fifty states ballots? (I honestly don't know) If it is, then I believe it's a different issue. I don't regret neccisarily voting for Nader in 2000 because he was on all the ballots and it would have (had more people done it) gotten the Green Party a seat at a bigger table. Also, the 'waste your vote on a third party' mentality is self-selecting. If everyone who was compelled to vote for a major party because of that didn't, the third party might actually become viable.

However, Nader is not capable of winning because he is not on enough ballots. He is independent and will not help any third party. He cannot win, so voting for him is a waste without the burden of self-selection.

This is a nuance that I was never able to get across to Brian's Room (what happened to that guy) when he was trying to guilt the vote against Bush. The argument being if I don't agree completely with Kerry I shouldn't vote for him, the flaw being that of the candidates available he is the one I agree with the most.

Nader is a viable candidate and anyone who gets on the ballot in a state deserves a fair shot. Its really a shame to see the democratic party act in such a non-democracy fashion. :(

I'm voting for him in IL as he represents a message both parties need to hear loud and clear. Stop going to your fringes or you'll lose more votes.

If you have an issue with the system and Nader then help by creating more State level primary reform so we can get real bonafide candidates that do not pull the country in two pieces.

He is NOT a viable candidate! He is -not- going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. You must concede to the reality of the system...this is an entirely Bush/Kerry race. And right now, your political opposites (who happen to be more united than us) are winning.

As a side note, the Democratic Party did NOT attempt to keep Nader off the ballots in 2000 out of principle. After losing in part because of that, it got a little tougher...especially considering that the Bush Campaign has been aiding the Nader campaign. The intent, apparently, is to use the Nader campaign as an unwitting proxy to siphon votes away from Kerry.

[I]n reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush.

And a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for Nader!

I agree on the message as a whole; third parties have no chance.

I edited my message above, please reread

It's not about winning or losing. It's about voting your conscience when the major party candidates don't pass the smell test.

We actually need another party to loosen the chains of government from around the people's necks. Only by MORE people voting for what they believe in instead of voting AGAINST the major party candidate they hate most, will a third party become viable. Americans want it, America needs it.

Personally, I'm tired of the two-party protagonists calling for votes Against an issue or person. Vote For your heart, vote For your country as You want it to be. Disregard all rhetoric and vote your conscience, or your vote has truly been wasted!

Be informed, vote what you believe, and disregard those who harangue you.
It's YOUR vote, YOU vote it!

Originally Posted by Cleptostan
I'm voting for him in IL as he represents a message both parties need to hear loud and clear.

Amen!

The problem with Shalrirorchia's position is that the two-party system in the U.S. will not change (ignoring options like violent revolution or corporate takeover for now) unless people start voting for other parties.
In the U.K. (my country of birth and current residence), we have a number of parties, but for many years, the choice was Conservative (traditional, capitalist) or Labour (socialist). A party called the Social Democratic Party formed in 1981, as a centrist split-off from Labour. It allied with the existing, yet small, Liberal party, and did fairly well in the '83 elections, but less well in '87.
After a formal meger in 1989, the Liberal Democrat party was formed. It has consistently increased both its vote share and it's representation in Parliament since then, and could well come second in the coming election in 2005. It might even win the following one. I don't support the Lib Dems any more, but they're a real example of the rise of a third party in a two-party system. We now effectively have a three-party system (none of which I like!).
If you agree to accept a political system that does not represent you the way you want to be represented, your system will not change.

He is NOT a viable candidate! He is -not- going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. You must concede to the reality of the system...this is an entirely Bush/Kerry race. And right now, your political opposites (who happen to be more united than us) are winning.

As a side note, the Democratic Party did NOT attempt to keep Nader off the ballots in 2000 out of principle. After losing in part because of that, it got a little tougher...especially considering that the Bush Campaign has been aiding the Nader campaign. The intent, apparently, is to use the Nader campaign as an unwitting proxy to siphon votes away from Kerry.

by Shalrirorchia : Today at 8:13 PM.

____________

Nader is viable and I'll tell you exactly why.

He defines the national debate.

A third party actually winning in a fiorst past the post republic is unlikely. A third party in the US is about defining the issues and Nader has helped focus the debate on how corrupt the two main parties are. Also, how indebted they are to their fringes: left and right.

A vote for Nader is a vote for change and shame on you and the dems for beating the drum against him in so many states. The dems are anti-choice in this democratic society when they force him off of ballots as they are doing in many states.

Why be content with the system that continues to offer mediocre candidates? Work at the State level for election reform to allow more candidates on the ballot.

And a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for Nader!

no no no, it goes like this:

a vote for nader is a vote for bush, but a vote for bush is a vote for kerry, and a vote for kerry is a vote for cobb. therefore you should vote truly independent - vote for nobody!

Well it all depends on where you're voting. If you're in a non swing state, then you should probably vote whatever third party you normally vote for, because if they get 5%, then they get some sort of government funding. On the other hand, in a swing state, it's best to go with the lesser of two "evils" and vote for your preferred candidate of Bush and Kerry.

Since I'm not in a battle ground state, my vote won't count as far as Presidential elections go.

See sig ...

I'll be doing a write-in.

However, there's a hell of a lot more to vote on November 2nd than just President.

Nader, isn't he like, anti-everything? Also, on a side note, I'm glad he took votes away from Gore. Im glad Bush was president during the terrorist attacks. Now, maybe it's time for a change. I don't really care. But Im glad that moron lost the election to Bush.

The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Florida was lost to us last election by only 500 or so votes. Nader won about 70,000-80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. If only a tiny FRACTION of those people had voted for Al Gore, the entire history of the country would have changed. The Bushites are stronger this time, having entrenched themselves in the interim of four years. They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy. I urge you to seriously consider the math behind the Nader candidacy, as well as your ultimate aims. Nader is leading us towards another four years of Bush's corporate sell-outs and repressive conservatism, not by design but by coincidence. But the ultimate result will be the same. Please, seriously consider abandoning him, but not his ideals.

Only what i've been saying for the past few months, but does anyone ever listen to me? noooooooooooooo

I might have missed it... But didn't deserters from the democratic party dump like 900,000 more votes for Bush than Nader which was 9 times the votes that deserters dumped into Nader?

It was some ridiculous statistic that only proves Gore was at fault for his loss in 2000. No one else.

This could only potentially make a difference in a swing state like Florida. If you are like me and live in a state that is undoubtedly going to go to Bush you might as well use your vote on a third party candidate, because your vote is going to waste regardless.

I live in Texas, and Texas's electoral votes are going to Bush unless he goes on network TV and starts chopping up babies with a hatchet.

If you are in a similar situation to me, (that is, *not* in a swing state,) then you might as well vote third party, because it will insure that the third parties are on the ballot the next time around. (I think in Texas a party has to have at least 1% of the vote in the prior election to be listed on the ballot.)

I vote third party because it is a way of flipping off the Democrats and the Republicans! Fvck 'em both!


Vote Libertarian!
http://www.lp.org/

Vote Guns and Dope Party!
http://www.gunsanddope.com/

or

Vote Green!
http://www.gp.org/




The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

:headbang:

Don't listen to the quacks. Vote how you want to and the hell with everybody else. Opinions are like........(fill in the blank).............everybody has one. If you want to make a statement vote your what you feel is right whoever the candidate. Oh and one other thing, don't gripe if you don't vote
(wisdom from my grandmother).

TXAGMAN

I live in Texas, and Texas's electoral votes are going to Bush unless he goes on network TV and starts chopping up babies with a hatchet.

and even then, if falwell and robertson and the like come out and 'verify' that jesus told him to do it...

As a Libertarian....yes I would. Kerry is not a viable alternative.

Then being the man of conviction that you have asserted time and again on this forum , I trust you will be voting for the Libertarian candidate?

no no no, it goes like this:

a vote for nader is a vote for bush, but a vote for bush is a vote for kerry, and a vote for kerry is a vote for cobb. therefore you should vote truly independent - vote for nobody!
That is quite stupid. Vote for who you belive is right, not for who is cool, or uncool. i for one am giving my vote to Bush.

Let me ask a silly question(my favorite kind);

Who the hell do I vote for if I want NADER to win?!?

That is quite stupid. Vote for who you belive is right, not for who is cool, or uncool. i for one am giving my vote to Bush.

what makes you think that i don't believe that nobody is the right choice for president?

what makes you think that i don't believe that nobody is the right choice for president?

You are telling me that you can think of NOBODY who would be a good president in your opinion?

Let me ask a silly question(my favorite kind);

Who the hell do I vote for if I want NADER to win?!?

badnarik, i think

Is the Libertarian party on all fifty states ballots? (I honestly don't know) If it is, then I believe it's a different issue. I don't regret neccisarily voting for Nader in 2000 because he was on all the ballots and it would have (had more people done it) gotten the Green Party a seat at a bigger table. Also, the 'waste your vote on a third party' mentality is self-selecting. If everyone who was compelled to vote for a major party because of that didn't, the third party might actually become viable.

However, Nader is not capable of winning because he is not on enough ballots. He is independent and will not help any third party. He cannot win, so voting for him is a waste without the burden of self-selection.

This is a nuance that I was never able to get across to Brian's Room (what happened to that guy) when he was trying to guilt the vote against Bush. The argument being if I don't agree completely with Kerry I shouldn't vote for him, the flaw being that of the candidates available he is the one I agree with the most.Badnarik is on the ballot in 49 states. I also happen to think he'll be the third place candidate this year, because he's an alternative to Bush who isn't Kerry.

You are telling me that you can think of NOBODY who would be a good president in your opinion?

i'm telling you that i would prefer that nobody be the president. that's why nobody is my candidate of choice.

though if david cobb asks nicely, i still might vote for him.

i'm telling you that i would prefer that nobody be the president. that's why nobody is my candidate of choice.

though if david cobb asks nicely, i still might vote for him.

Well, unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't allow for No president. A vote for Nobody is a vote for Congress choosing your president. :(

In my opinion, voting for Nader is much better then voting for Kerry just because he isn't Bush. And before everyone gets upset, I hear this reason alot and if I ask them if thats the only reason they say yes. Thats irresponsible voting. Putting someone in the white house when the only thing you know about them is they are running against the current president is just not living up to your duties as an American. For those of you who are voting him for other reasons more power to ya. I'll never agree with you on it but, its your choice. Just like voting for Nader is some peoples choice.

Besides telling people to not vote for Nader because it will take votes from Kerry is arrogant and undemocratic. How do you know that these people who are voting for Nader wouldn't choose Bush instead of Kerry?....you don't....

For fuck's sake, let people vote the way they want to vote.

The premise of this entire thread is pure shit.

You would have people go against their democratic rights (voting for whom they want to)? Just to further you own view of how things should be?

Wow. *That's* arrogance.

No it's not. That's politics. It's not about having people go against their democratic right to vote for whom they want, it's about attempting to convince people that their interests will be better served by voting for another candidate (in this case, one that has more than an ice cube's chance in hell of winning). The OP isn't advocating chopping off limbs, for God's sake, merely trying to appeal to people's pragmatism. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Using your logic, we can conclude that any attempt at debate is similarly "outrageous", after all, how DARE anyone go against someone's democratic right to have an opinion. :rolleyes:

It's not arrogance. Your position, however, seems to be one of extreme "fake outrage", and I find that kind of bullshit particularly infuriating.

The problem with Shalrirorchia's position is that the two-party system in the U.S. will not change (ignoring options like violent revolution or corporate takeover for now) unless people start voting for other parties.
In the U.K. (my country of birth and current residence), we have a number of parties, but for many years, the choice was Conservative (traditional, capitalist) or Labour (socialist). A party called the Social Democratic Party formed in 1981, as a centrist split-off from Labour. It allied with the existing, yet small, Liberal party, and did fairly well in the '83 elections, but less well in '87.
After a formal meger in 1989, the Liberal Democrat party was formed. It has consistently increased both its vote share and it's representation in Parliament since then, and could well come second in the coming election in 2005. It might even win the following one. I don't support the Lib Dems any more, but they're a real example of the rise of a third party in a two-party system. We now effectively have a three-party system (none of which I like!).
If you agree to accept a political system that does not represent you the way you want to be represented, your system will not change.

Today, the Labour Party is about as Socialist as the Conservatives. A sad state of affairs.

Last week I was intent on voting for Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez. Now I'll be voting for Yousef Islam.

A vote for Nader is a vote for idealism. A vote for Utopia. A vote for everything that makes sense. A vote for government that serves its people perfectly.

The problem? There will never be a Utopia. Nothing will make sense to everyone. The Government, as an entity, can only serve one part of the population, while exploiting another.

Nader is an irrational candidate. I love his ideas, but that is all they will ever remain! Idealism is causing the failure of the left. Our Conservative enemies are cold, heartless realists! They are taking advantage of the fact that Nader is an idealist! Well fuck idealism. We need to save the left, not dream of our perfect world! Our perfect world can only be realized if we throw this fucker Bush out of office!

Whether we do it peacefully, with you Naderites' support, or violent, without your support, we will get Bush out of office. We are going to save the left, with or without you. :mp5:

A vote for Nader is a vote for idealism. A vote for Utopia. A vote for everything that makes sense. A vote for government that serves its people perfectly.

The problem? There will never be a Utopia. Nothing will make sense to everyone. The Government, as an entity, can only serve one part of the population, while exploiting another.

Nader is an irrational candidate. I love his ideas, but that is all they will ever remain! Idealism is causing the failure of the left. Our Conservative enemies are cold, heartless realists! They are taking advantage of the fact that Nader is an idealist! Well fuck idealism. We need to save the left, not dream of our perfect world! Our perfect world can only be realized if we throw this fucker Bush out of office!

Whether we do it peacefully, with you Naderites' support, or violent, without your support, we will get Bush out of office. We are going to save the left, with or without you. :mp5:

I see. Were you aware that the government is not a single entity, but an almost all-encompassing bureaucracy?

No it's not. That's politics. It's not about having people go against their democratic right to vote for whom they want, it's about attempting to convince people that their interests will be better served by voting for another candidate (in this case, one that has more than an ice cube's chance in hell of winning). The OP isn't advocating chopping off limbs, for God's sake, merely trying to appeal to people's pragmatism. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Using your logic, we can conclude that any attempt at debate is similarly "outrageous", after all, how DARE anyone go against someone's democratic right to have an opinion. :rolleyes:

It's not arrogance. Your position, however, seems to be one of extreme "fake outrage", and I find that kind of bullshit particularly infuriating.

That *is* the point! Every citizen has the right to vote their conscience. This thread is an entreat to do otherwise, which directly undermines the electoral process at it's *most basic* level!

I (believe it or not) have not decided who to vote for. I want to see the debates first. I abhore punditry on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Fake outrage? That I find patently offensive. I vote in every election, and try to get my family and friends (and others I meet) to do so likewise. The strength of a democracy/republic is in an aware and active citizenry.

So turn off Fox or CNN or Franken or Limbaugh or whatever you usually do. Go read/watch/listen to other points of view and CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF what you believe.

That *is* the point! Every citizen has the right to vote their conscience. This thread is an entreat to do otherwise, which directly undermines the electoral process at it's *most basic* level!

I (believe it or not) have not decided who to vote for. I want to see the debates first. I abhore punditry on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Fake outrage? That I find patently offensive. I vote in every election, and try to get my family and friends (and others I meet) to do so likewise. The strength of a democracy/republic is in an aware and active citizenry.

So turn off Fox or CNN or Franken or Limbaugh or whatever you usually do. Go read/watch/listen to other points of view and CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF what you believe.
Nothing personal, but how can you really be undecided this late in the game? Have you been paying attention at all? I mean, I could understand back in 2000 how someone could be unsure between the picture the media painted of Gore and of Bush--they really made it look like there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference between them, even though there were huge differences.

But that just isn't the case this year. Bush is a known quantity and Kerry is a known quantity, and there are vast, gaping divides between them, and if you don't like either of them, there's a panoply of third party candidates who will all lose pretty much equally badly that you can choose from. So please explain to me how, this late in the game, with the record the sitting president has, how you're still undecided. I'm not attacking, and I promise not to try to convert you (on this thread :D)--I really want to know how you're torn.

No, I did not say that. But I can see that Nader drew votes off of Gore in 2000. It is not a great jump of logic to assume it will happen again. I am merely throwing up a red flag in the hopes that you will consider the ramifications of what may happen if you DO vote for Nader.

I agree with almost all of Nader's platform. I agree with him more than I agree with Kerry. But I have made a value judgement that I prefer to side with a candidate who espouses some of my views and can win as opposed to a candidate who espouses more of my views and cannot.

Actually, you are. The ramifications of a vote for Nader is... a vote for Nader. If I already don't like Kerry (for example), why vote for him? Just to get rid of Bush? I hate to tell you this, but not all people whom are unhappy with Bush like Kerry! And, as others have said, there will never be a third party if no one ever votes for it.

Nader had no effect in the 2000 elections. Nor did the "chads". Gore failed to win Tennesssee, HIS OWN STATE. Had that happened, Florida would not have been an issue. When it comes down to it, that election was probably the closest thing to a tie you could find when dealing with millions of voters...

Nothing personal, but how can you really be undecided this late in the game? Have you been paying attention at all? I mean, I could understand back in 2000 how someone could be unsure between the picture the media painted of Gore and of Bush--they really made it look like there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference between them, even though there were huge differences.

But that just isn't the case this year. Bush is a known quantity and Kerry is a known quantity, and there are vast, gaping divides between them, and if you don't like either of them, there's a panoply of third party candidates who will all lose pretty much equally badly that you can choose from. So please explain to me how, this late in the game, with the record the sitting president has, how you're still undecided. I'm not attacking, and I promise not to try to convert you (on this thread :D)--I really want to know how you're torn.

It isn't hard. I'm a centrist -- there are things I like and dislike about *both* candidates. I also believe that since the conventions are just rubber stamps these days that being open and considering events up to a week or two (or even up to!) the election is *critical*.

You state my case, sir. They are known qualities. Have you ever gone shopping for a new car or sofa? I don't know about you, but I tend to look around. Then wait a few weeks. Then shop a little more. Then come to a decision. That's my way. Right now I'm leaning a little towards Bush, if only because Kerry didn't parry the right-wing attacks well (if he won't defend himself effectively, how can he defend us?) and he keeps changing his story about Iraq. On most issues, though, there is maybe a quarter's worth of difference. I grant that's more than a nickel. :)

Today, the Labour Party is about as Socialist as the Conservatives. A sad state of affairs.

Yeah, all the main U.K. parties are pretty much the same these days, and I don't like any of them. I'm pretty bummed about U.K. politics, and democracy in general.
That's why watching the U.S. electoral campaign is such fun, because I get to watch two multi-millionaires, neither of which is fit to run a small paper mill, try to persuade hundreds of millions of Americans that the other guy is a bigger slimeball than they are, so that they can become de facto ruler of the world, only to find they can't change much when they get there.

Alan Greenspan is pretty cool though. God help the American economy when he dies.

Nader is an irrational candidate. I love his ideas, but that is all they will ever remain! Idealism is causing the failure of the left. Our Conservative enemies are cold, heartless realists! They are taking advantage of the fact that Nader is an idealist! Well fuck idealism. We need to save the left, not dream of our perfect world! Our perfect world can only be realized if we throw this fucker Bush out of office!

you do realize that 'realism' in dealing with representative politics in general and the two party system in particular is what got us into this mess in the first place, right? the republicans are always going to run a candidate who is slightly worse than that chosen by the democrats from the view of the left. which means the democrats know that they can always count on the vote of the non-revolutionary left - not because their platform is so much better or encorporates most of the left's ideas, but simply because it isn't quite as bad as that of the republicans. and for all their yapping about naderites costing them the election last time, did they adjust their platform at all in an effort to appeal to those 'defectors'? hell no. they know that they can count on most of them to return to the fold once they see what happens when you don't vote tactically in one election. and so nothing changes, except for maybe a few rhetorical flourishes, and the democrats get what they want and you get what the democrats want. why change your platform and actions when you know you can count on a group's support in a close election without doing so? in fact, why even bother keeping your actions from drifting even further rightward in attempt to take away support from the republicans? after all, you know you've still got support from the left no matter what.

if you want to influence an electoral system, especially a first-past-the-post one, you have to 'defect' in close elections and you have to get them to believe that you will continue to do so. only if they can't count on you when they need you will they even consider changing to actually apeal to you on some level.

of course, no matter who you vote for the orders still come from wall street. different parties, different factions of the ruling elite. not for me, thank you very much.

Well, unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't allow for No president. A vote for Nobody is a vote for Congress choosing your president. :(

meh, the constitution doesn't allow for a lot of things that actually happen currently. what's one more?

One serious problem with your message is this: Al Gore didn't even win his home state (Tennessee). In my opinion, any Presidential candidate that does not carry his own home state does not deserve the Presidency.

In addition, the Gore campaign did a horrible job of attacking Bush where he was ripe for the attacking. His choosing to "take the high road" instead of retaliating weakened his position in the eyes of many voters. As much as Joe Average Voter may say he hates negative campaigning and wish it away, candidates still use it because IT WORKS.

Secondly, Gore should have done a better job of distancing himself from Clinton's misbehaviors and running on his record since there was a fairly large sentiment from people I heard from that they would have voted for Clinton if he were eligible to run for a third term. Gore should have made a statement early on condemning the misconduct and not the record, and have that statement do the talking for him on the subject.

Thirdly, while Clinton showed genuine compassion (key word is "showed," I'm not saying that's what he really felt) when quizzed on his abortion views (by saying in essence that he realizes it's a very difficult decision, then advancing his pro-choice views), Gore sounded like he was gung-ho about abortion. This likely alienated voters.

Not only that, but Lieberman did some damage to the Gore cause. When he was debating Cheney and the former Defense Secretary was outlining problems with military morale (that anyone on either side of the aisle should be able to see is an issue that needs to be resolved), Lieberman said he didn't think there was a problem. Anyone with even a slight clue about the American military would have recognized a problem straight away. All Lieberman had to do was say, in essence, "I agree with my opponent on the problem. Here's how I would recommend fixing it." By not doing that, he likely alienated the military vote.

If Gore's campaign had done all of the above differently, or even one of the above, Florida might not have been an issue. Either it would have definitively gone to Gore or Gore would have won Tennessee, which would have given him enough electoral votes to overcome a loss in Florida.

In short, to sit here and claim that Nader cost Gore the election is absolutely false. GORE cost Gore the election. We'll see if John Kerry does the same to himself.

Yeah, all the main U.K. parties are pretty much the same these days, and I don't like any of them. I'm pretty bummed about U.K. politics, and democracy in general.
That's why watching the U.S. electoral campaign is such fun, because I get to watch two multi-millionaires, neither of which is fit to run a small paper mill, try to persuade hundreds of millions of Americans that the other guy is a bigger slimeball than they are, so that they can become de facto ruler of the world, only to find they can't change much when they get there.


Indeed, the RNC was hella funny. It was laugh-a-minute in this house. :D

[Shalrirorchia #1]
The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Florida was lost to us last election by only 500 or so votes. Nader won about 70,000-80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. If only a tiny FRACTION of those people had voted for Al Gore, the entire history of the country would have changed. The Bushites are stronger this time, having entrenched themselves in the interim of four years. They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy. I urge you to seriously consider the math behind the Nader candidacy, as well as your ultimate aims. Nader is leading us towards another four years of Bush's corporate sell-outs and repressive conservatism, not by design but by coincidence. But the ultimate result will be the same. Please, seriously consider abandoning him, but not his ideals.

.."They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy."..

You are democracy..?

Progressive..?

I think not.

VOTE NADER..!!

Stand up for your principles..!

The idea that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush is flawed. It assumes that a Nader vote would be a vote for Kerry if there was no Nader. MORE likely they would not vote at all if there were no third choice. People who vote third party candidates are not stupid. I'm sure they know the insanely huge odds against their candidate winning. Yet they do it anyway. They are not sheep, and not likely to be force fed the "lesser of two evils" idea. I admire these voters. If I only liked Nader at all... ah well not to be. :)

Gore lost in 2000 because he lost Democrat votes directly to Bush AND because he had ZERO cross party appeal to Republicans.

To those really concerned about Nader costing Kerry, take heart. Kerry has some, albeit not much, cross party appeal. Also there are Republicans and other political conservatives (as opposed to social or economic conservatives)out here who would vote for George Jetson if it meant getting the current team of Constitution shredders out of power.

The people you need to worry about are not the Nader voters but the people who buy into the idea that its better to be safe than free. :(

The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry

I am so sick of people (liberals!) espousing this ridiculous nonsense. Please STOP insulting my intelligence. Did you ever think that maybe it's Kerry who is taking votes away from Nader? Yes, I did just say that, so pop your eyeballs back in their sockets. Perhaps Nader, or any other alternative candidate just might become "viable" if people started thinking for themselves and not following one of only two political agendas.

Well, unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't allow for No president. A vote for Nobody is a vote for Congress choosing your president. :(

So? The Supreme Court basically chose the President in the last election.

Nothing personal, but how can you really be undecided this late in the game?

<--- Undecided in PA! And nobody try to sway me with your freakish party (il)logic. It's Badnarik and Nader between whom I can't decide. (The latter I would have to write-in I believe).

I will vote for Nader, because Geroge W. is an Idiot, and John Kerry is Lurch from the Munsters, they both will drive America into the ground or chaos, so i suport Ralph Nader :headbang:

Do vote for Nader if he's your guy. The Dem party has lost its way and until it reps you vote for the canadate that fits what you are looking for. If that is Nader don't let anyone stop you.

The fact remains, not only is Nader consciously and arrogantly taking votes away from Kerry, his campaign is being partially funded by former fundraisers for Bush. Bush's whole campaign is well aware of the presence Nader brings to the election, and that people who wouldn't vote for Nader would vote for Kerry. That's why Naderites should vote for Kerry. There's a time and place for fixing third party viability once the cokehead antichrist has left the Oval Office.

if you want to influence an electoral system, especially a first-past-the-post one, you have to 'defect' in close elections and you have to get them to believe that you will continue to do so. only if they can't count on you when they need you will they even consider changing to actually apeal to you on some level.

from Free Soviets

Hear Hear!

The main parties need to feel as if they need to sell to the center more. This will force them to choose more centrist candidates.

Vote for Nader! Esp in IL!

untill the democratic party gets some balls, I find it hard to support them. but the republican party, in my humble, ignorant opinion, needs a good swift kick in the balls. I can't agree with either of the multi-millionare "commoners" running for office, but I can't see this country being able to stand four more years of bush.
change in this country, will have to come slowly. The republicans are in power and leaning ever more right. The dem's are leaning every more right to try and pick up more voters...so far, everybody's neglected the left wing here in this country...I mean, the democrats wouldn't even let people attack the pres, and the RNC was nothing but a kerry haters gathering...Kudos to michael moore for having some balls.
In the end, I love what the third parties are doing...don't appeal to the "swing voters"...appeal to the half of the US population who are non-voters! 50% is a hell of a lot more than 26%. However, the third parties don't have the political or monetary power to put up a viable alternative for president...start grass-roots, start with the school board and commisioners...then mayors...work up to state representatives and senators...then US reps, governors, and senators...once you've got a good number of people in gov't making a positive name for a third party, then run a Pres. candidate.
Sure, progress is slow and an uphill battle...but you've got to start grass-roots and build support from the bottom.

Just my two cents. Yes, I'm probably wrong...but it's something to think about.

I miss my Dean. Can we just like...write him in in the margins? *Cries* I wanted Dean!!

There's a time and place for fixing third party viability once the cokehead antichrist has left the Oval Office.

you do realize, of course, that it will never be a 'proper time and place'. there is always some excuse for why now is not the right time. and there always will be.

The fact remains, not only is Nader consciously and arrogantly taking votes away from Kerry, his campaign is being partially funded by former fundraisers for Bush. Bush's whole campaign is well aware of the presence Nader brings to the election, and that people who wouldn't vote for Nader would vote for Kerry. That's why Naderites should vote for Kerry. There's a time and place for fixing third party viability once the cokehead antichrist has left the Oval Office.

Didn't we all have this same freaking arguement four years ago? "Nader is taking votes away from Gore. Wah. Wah. Wah." Well, what happened? I think it pretty much came out that Nader's candidacy had little, if anything, to do with his losing the election.

I have to ask, when exactly IS the "time and place for fixing third party viabilty?" Because in my opinion, that should have began around December 2000/January2001. But it didn't. Did the Democrats do anything to address the issues of all lose "election-swinging Nader voters?" No.
In fact the Democrats have done very little to gain the support of anyone except the card-carrying liberals who go into the voting booth and mindlessly hit the "Democrat straight ticket" without so much as knowing who the other candidates are, for state and local elections I mean. (Don't get me wrong, there are certainly conservatives who mindlessly and arrogantly hit the "Republican straight ticket).
Nobody cared in say, April of 2003, about those "fringe" people who voted for Nader or Browne or whoever wasn't Bush or Gore. Issues weren't addressed and questions weren't answered for myself and other free-thinkers like myself. Now all of a sudden, I'm a problem to you? You only care about my voting habits when they threaten you and your candidate? That's deplorable.
So listen, after Bush is re-elected (which WILL happen, and all because I in Pennsylvania will not have voted for Kerry), maybe the Democrats should start asking themselves some hard questions and re-defining their party platform. I would prefer people just start thinking for themselves, and leave both major parties in droves, then things might start getting done.

Didn't we all have this same freaking arguement four years ago? "Nader is taking votes away from Gore. Wah. Wah. Wah." Well, what happened? I think it pretty much came out that Nader's candidacy had little, if anything, to do with his losing the election.
Didnt the democrats attempt to use Nadar to increase Gores chances of winning?
Didnt they use "vote trading", asking Nadar voters in battle ground states to "trade" votes with democrats in decidedly republican states? A Nadar voter would vote for Gore in say Florida, if he had a Gore supporter vote for Nadar in say Texas.

Nader is viable and I'll tell you exactly why.

He defines the national debate.

A vote for Nader is a vote for change and shame on you and the dems for beating the drum against him in so many states. The dems are anti-choice in this democratic society when they force him off of ballots as they are doing in many states.

Why be content with the system that continues to offer mediocre candidates? Work at the State level for election reform to allow more candidates on the ballot.
Clepto, I agree with you totally. People whould vote for who they want and if that means the Democrats losing (much as I would love to see Bush defeated) then so be it.

And right now, your political opposites (who happen to be more united than us) are winning.
There is always the temptation to see your opposition as a unified mass. However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left. Nader will probably only get about 1% this year, with Kerry taking the rest of the left vote.

The American right is split into Bushites, socially moderate Republicans who don't like Bush, especially his theocratic flair, libertarians, and paleoconservatives who are anti-war and against Bush's big-government initiatives.

[Siljhouettes #61]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalrirorchia
And right now, your political opposites (who happen to be more united than us) are winning.

There is always the temptation to see your opposition as a unified mass. However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left. Nader will probably only get about 1% this year, with Kerry taking the rest of the left vote.

The American right is split into Bushites, socially moderate Republicans who don't like Bush, especially his theocratic flair, libertarians, and paleoconservatives who are anti-war and against Bush's big-government initiatives.


.."However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left."..

For once,.. we agree..! Astounding. :)

Once Bush is re-elected, thanks in very small part to Nader, the cleavages of the "right" will be shown.

Yes,.. the Bush twins WILL do soft-core porn.

They're really not fit for much else....

Personally, I voted for Nader in 2000 in the liberal state of California, now Nader isn't even on the ballot in a state where he got the most votes in 2000. Unfotunately, I wouldn't want to support any really extreme third parties. I mean to say Nader was running on the green ticket in 2000. He was there to end this awful american tradition of a bilateral party system. It's an aligarchy PEOPLE!!! I just don't care if someone votes for Cobb, Nader, Kerry, or Bush. One side you'll support the goverment that's been in the pockets of the Oil Industry (and time is running low on that econimic asset), or vote for extreme left or right wingers who have radical agendas. In any case I believe Bush should be out of office, even if you hate his policies, the man was a raging alcholic and did a lot of cocaine. The man would rarely show up for classes at Harvard. How can you trust a man who got into office on daddy and friends' money? Even if you are an extreme evangelical christian, the truth is Bush has his own agenda far departed from your own. Please don't vote :headbang: Bush!!! :sniper:

[Siljhouettes #61]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalrirorchia
And right now, your political opposites (who happen to be more united than us) are winning.

There is always the temptation to see your opposition as a unified mass. However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left. Nader will probably only get about 1% this year, with Kerry taking the rest of the left vote.

The American right is split into Bushites, socially moderate Republicans who don't like Bush, especially his theocratic flair, libertarians, and paleoconservatives who are anti-war and against Bush's big-government initiatives.


.."However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left."..

For once,.. we agree..! Astounding. :)

Once Bush is re-elected, thanks in very small part to Nader, the cleavages of the "right" will be shown.

Yes,.. the Bush twins WILL do soft-core porn.

They're really not fit for much else....

Then you're a fool. If Bush is re-elected, you will see MUCH worse than he's given you the past four years.

The Right is not divided. Just look at them. The Republican Party has traditionally been smaller, but better organized and better funded than the Democrats. Unless we band together, they WILL bury us.

This is not me preaching doom. Just LOOK at what George has done to this country! He turned the Clinton surpluses into record debts. He's gotten America involved in an apparently unjustified war in Iraq (regarding the WMDs). He's written off huge portions of public policy to industry. Halliburton alone has made BILLIONS from the Bush presidency.

John Kerry has a history of listening to his political opposites, even when he does not agree with them. Bush merely crushes those who speak out against him. He has an internation reputation for getting revenge on those who cross him, for being simple-minded, and by all accounts none-too-bright.

I've MET the man (Kerry, not Bush) at a impromptu rally he had on the side of a highway. He wasn't scheduled to stop at my town, but when he saw how many of us there were, he told the bus driver to stop. And he got off the bus, came over and shook our hands. He went down the entire LINE of people, a line of about 1,500 people in a Republican-dominated county, and shook all our hands. We had Bush-backers there, but they were allowed to protest. Their voices were heard. I have a hard time imagine George Bush wading through tall grass along the side of a highway like that. When his father visited many years ago, H.W. Bush just sped through in a limo. Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. distance themselves from the concerns of the common man. Kerry is down in the thick of it, trying to show some connection to us. By all accounts I've heard, he's a decent man, a smart man. And he can WIN, if only we have the will to make it so. Nader ought to be out there advising him, rabblerousing for him, working with him. The two of them working together could instill a sense of urgency in the progressive movement. We could really change things for the better.

Instead, your man Nader is obeying an ego trip, and he's risking plunging this nation into another 4 years of the dark ages. This is not merely an esoteric threat...people are DYING because Bush sent them into Iraq. People are DYING because he's bowed to his Christian fundamentalist backers and banned stem-cell research. People are suffering from coast to coast because of George Bush's poor decisions. You'll excuse me, then, when I scoff at Nader for creating a situation which makes Bush more likely to get four more years to continue this rampage. Four more years of arrogance like that which came out of the mouth of Pat Robertson's mouth when he said "God told him Bush would win in 2004".

It may seem harsh for me to cast the Nader campaign in this light, but I think Nader's supporters have taken flight of their senses. This is a HARSH reality! How likely do you think it is that, if Bush wins, he'll get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice? Maybe more than one! Do you even understand what that will do to legal precedent? What that might do to life in this country? Every day that Bush remains in office, he is appointing neo-cons to powerful government positions. Logically, the longer he remains in government, the more it will come to reflect his views. STUPID views. I see the results of another 4 years under Bush as being -incredibly- negative. I therefore advocate doing the most logical things to get him out, since a President Kerry is likely to be a lot more receptive to Nader ideas than a President Bush.

In short, Nader clearly has not had any more luck in learning the following lesson than Bush:

There is a time and a place for everything.

THIS is not the time! The Republicans control all branches of government. We MUST retake at least one of them. The White House is our best shot for stopping this runaway train of right-wing nut jobs. Stop fighting us for once and help us!

The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Florida was lost to us last election by only 500 or so votes. Nader won about 70,000-80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. If only a tiny FRACTION of those people had voted for Al Gore, the entire history of the country would have changed. The Bushites are stronger this time, having entrenched themselves in the interim of four years. They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy. I urge you to seriously consider the math behind the Nader candidacy, as well as your ultimate aims. Nader is leading us towards another four years of Bush's corporate sell-outs and repressive conservatism, not by design but by coincidence. But the ultimate result will be the same. Please, seriously consider abandoning him, but not his ideals.

What makees you so sure Nader supporters would rather Kerry than Bush? Don't you think the decision should be left for them to decide themselves?

Oh wait, you are a Democrat. Your party apparently believes it is ok to pay lawyers to limit choices on the ballot box rather than leave the choice to American voters.

What the Nader voters could be asking you is why liberals, when Democrats are obviously going to lose, don't band together and send the Democratic party a message with this vote.

Then maybe the Nader supporters could get their lawers to take Kerry off the ballot in states that he has no chance of winning.

Is that the same kind of warm-fuzzy feeling you would like the Nader supporters to give you? That is exactly how you treat them.

Great...ANOTHER Democrat whining about how my choice for president stole 'their' vote. :rolleyes: As if my vote belonged to them before he took it.

Listen, Kerry supporter: just because, out of some twist of fate, John Kerry is not George Bush is NOT a valid reason to vote for him. You know why? Guess what: Ralph Nader is ALSO not George Bush. And so is every other person in the world (except George Bush, of course). And don't give me your 'but Nader can't win' bullshit. Ralph Nader can't win because he hasn't sold out to the trial lawyers and labor unions like your party did and use the money in legally dubious 527 groups for essentially unlimited advertising. And since I live in a small state with a homogeneous ideological base (thanks for making my vote count, Electoral College! :rolleyes: ) my vote is worthless. So if you don't mind, I'm going to pretend that the United States is a healthy democracy and vote for whom I choose. F*** off.

In short, Nader clearly has not had any more luck in learning the following lesson than Bush:

There is a time and a place for everything.

THIS is not the time! The Republicans control all branches of government. We MUST retake at least one of them. The White House is our best shot for stopping this runaway train of right-wing nut jobs. Stop fighting us for once and help us!

why don't you guys stop fighting them first? seriously, if democrats are worried about losing votes to people farther to the left of them, then perhaps they should try the crazy strategies of "not alienating them" and "actually doing things to appeal to them" instead of the current "treat them like shit and still expect them to vote for you" plan.

the only time the left has any power over the corporate democrats is in close election. defect away guys.

I'll bet money you're a Republican. They are using you.

Besides, if Nader were NOT running, who would you vote for then?

Seriously, Bush has the liberal movement on the ropes. Do you WANT him to win? The Democratic Party has to remain near the center. If it moves over to the left, it will lose all the elections, because this is a nation that is trending towards serious conservatism. The Democratic Party includes many camps including blacks, unions, gays, exc. You HAVE to adopt a centrist tone in order to keep such a diverse party together.

I'll bet money you're a Republican.

i'll take that bet.

Hey, you know what's some funny ass shit?

Nader is running on the REFORM ticket in Florida.

Now who sold out?



btw, where the hell is Ross Perot? Dammit we need that guy! He handed it to Clinton in 92, he can do it again! :D

Besides, if Nader were NOT running, who would you vote for then?

Seriously, Bush has the liberal movement on the ropes. Do you WANT him to win? The Democratic Party has to remain near the center. If it moves over to the left, it will lose all the elections, because this is a nation that is trending towards serious conservatism. The Democratic Party includes many camps including blacks, unions, gays, exc. You HAVE to adopt a centrist tone in order to keep such a diverse party together.

i'm not voting nader. i'm probably writing in 'nobody', but still might vote cobb.

if you guys can get enough votes moving to the right to win, good for you. not good for me though, or most people in the world, or even most americans (who would know this if they weren't so caught up in a ridiculous reactionary version of fundamentalist christianity). but if you can't, perhaps its time to take a look at your tactics and policies. sorry man, i'm fighting to win, and the democrats just aren't anywhere near the path to freedom and equality.

the real power and the real fight is not in the ballot box but in the streets. maybe i'll see you there someday.

[Anticarnivoria #56]
I miss my Dean. Can we just like...write him in in the margins? *Cries* I wanted Dean!!

WRITE IN DEAN..!

DO IT,... DO IT..!

DEANIACS UNITE..!

WRITE IN DEAN..!

The third parties, unfortunately, have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Florida was lost to us last election by only 500 or so votes. Nader won about 70,000-80,000 votes in Florida in 2000. If only a tiny FRACTION of those people had voted for Al Gore, the entire history of the country would have changed. The Bushites are stronger this time, having entrenched themselves in the interim of four years. They are stacking the deck against us, against democracy. I urge you to seriously consider the math behind the Nader candidacy, as well as your ultimate aims. Nader is leading us towards another four years of Bush's corporate sell-outs and repressive conservatism, not by design but by coincidence. But the ultimate result will be the same. Please, seriously consider abandoning him, but not his ideals.

How sad are the people that support John Kerry that they have to tell others how to vote. Vote for who you want to people. Don't listen to mindless dribble.

Hey, you know what's some funny ass shit?

Nader is running on the REFORM ticket in Florida.

Now who sold out?

the non-buchanan reform party isn't all that far off of nader's views actually. sorta like the idea of a tactical open alliance between greens and libertarians

[Shalrirorchia #64]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Siljhouettes #61]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalrirorchia
And right now, your political opposites (who happen to be more united than us) are winning.

There is always the temptation to see your opposition as a unified mass. However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left. Nader will probably only get about 1% this year, with Kerry taking the rest of the left vote.

The American right is split into Bushites, socially moderate Republicans who don't like Bush, especially his theocratic flair, libertarians, and paleoconservatives who are anti-war and against Bush's big-government initiatives.


.."However, I would say that the right in America is way more divided than the left."..

For once,.. we agree..! Astounding.

Once Bush is re-elected, thanks in very small part to Nader, the cleavages of the "right" will be shown.

Yes,.. the Bush twins WILL do soft-core porn.

They're really not fit for much else....



Then you're a fool. If Bush is re-elected, you will see MUCH worse than he's given you the past four years.

The Right is not divided. Just look at them. The Republican Party has traditionally been smaller, but better organized and better funded than the Democrats. Unless we band together, they WILL bury us.

This is not me preaching doom. Just LOOK at what George has done to this country! He turned the Clinton surpluses into record debts. He's gotten America involved in an apparently unjustified war in Iraq (regarding the WMDs). He's written off huge portions of public policy to industry. Halliburton alone has made BILLIONS from the Bush presidency.

John Kerry has a history of listening to his political opposites, even when he does not agree with them. Bush merely crushes those who speak out against him. He has an internation reputation for getting revenge on those who cross him, for being simple-minded, and by all accounts none-too-bright.

I've MET the man (Kerry, not Bush) at a impromptu rally he had on the side of a highway. He wasn't scheduled to stop at my town, but when he saw how many of us there were, he told the bus driver to stop. And he got off the bus, came over and shook our hands. He went down the entire LINE of people, a line of about 1,500 people in a Republican-dominated county, and shook all our hands. We had Bush-backers there, but they were allowed to protest. Their voices were heard. I have a hard time imagine George Bush wading through tall grass along the side of a highway like that. When his father visited many years ago, H.W. Bush just sped through in a limo. Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. distance themselves from the concerns of the common man. Kerry is down in the thick of it, trying to show some connection to us. By all accounts I've heard, he's a decent man, a smart man. And he can WIN, if only we have the will to make it so. Nader ought to be out there advising him, rabblerousing for him, working with him. The two of them working together could instill a sense of urgency in the progressive movement. We could really change things for the better.

Instead, your man Nader is obeying an ego trip, and he's risking plunging this nation into another 4 years of the dark ages. This is not merely an esoteric threat...people are DYING because Bush sent them into Iraq. People are DYING because he's bowed to his Christian fundamentalist backers and banned stem-cell research. People are suffering from coast to coast because of George Bush's poor decisions. You'll excuse me, then, when I scoff at Nader for creating a situation which makes Bush more likely to get four more years to continue this rampage. Four more years of arrogance like that which came out of the mouth of Pat Robertson's mouth when he said "God told him Bush would win in 2004".

It may seem harsh for me to cast the Nader campaign in this light, but I think Nader's supporters have taken flight of their senses. This is a HARSH reality! How likely do you think it is that, if Bush wins, he'll get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice? Maybe more than one! Do you even understand what that will do to legal precedent? What that might do to life in this country? Every day that Bush remains in office, he is appointing neo-cons to powerful government positions. Logically, the longer he remains in government, the more it will come to reflect his views. STUPID views. I see the results of another 4 years under Bush as being -incredibly- negative. I therefore advocate doing the most logical things to get him out, since a President Kerry is likely to be a lot more receptive to Nader ideas than a President Bush.

Quite a response to a joke posting..! :)

But I must reiterate:

Go NADER..!

:)

Besides, if Nader were NOT running, who would you vote for then?

Seriously, Bush has the liberal movement on the ropes. Do you WANT him to win? The Democratic Party has to remain near the center. If it moves over to the left, it will lose all the elections, because this is a nation that is trending towards serious conservatism. The Democratic Party includes many camps including blacks, unions, gays, exc. You HAVE to adopt a centrist tone in order to keep such a diverse party together.
Where I come from changing your political views to appeal to more people is called SELLING OUT

*Bump*

For the sake of Planet Earth I hope all you US Nader supporters are listening to the arguments here! The most important thing isn't protesting against the two party system, it's getting G W Bu$h out of office!

*Bump*

For the sake of Planet Earth I hope all you US Nader supporters are listening to the arguments here! The most important thing isn't protesting against the two party system, it's getting G W Bu$h out of office!
You ask them to sell out their political beliefs to support someone they do not agree with. May as well ask them to vote for Bush to stop Kerry. It is obvious that they do not like either candidate - youare grossly arrogant to assume otherwise.

Now that it is obvious that Kerry will lose it would make more sense to send a painful message to the DNC and vote for Nader to protest their centrist policies.

Now that it is obvious that Kerry will lose

how do you get an obvious loss out of the longest running tie i've ever heard of?

how do you get an obvious loss out of the longest running tie i've ever heard of?
I would bet on it. Kerry's only hope now is to convince everyone that they should be ashamed of their country - not an enviable platform. I have been considering starting a thread betting authourship of my tag line against anyone willing to bet against me with the same. Just haven't yet figured out the details of how to make it work yet.

Where I come from changing your political views to appeal to more people is called SELLING OUT
Which brings us back to the topic of John Kerry and his flip-flopping.

*Bump*

For the sake of Planet Earth I hope all you US Nader supporters are listening to the arguments here! The most important thing isn't protesting against the two party system, it's getting G W Bu$h out of office!
I just love the smell of Democrat desperation.

Desperate, yes! We're desperate to prevent you right-wing nut cases from destroying America.

Fair enough, but people can vote for who they want. Nader voters are angry about getting blamed for handing Florida to Bush - what have the Democrats done to attract Nader voters for 2004?

Fair enough, but people can vote for who they want. Nader voters are angry about getting blamed for handing Florida to Bush - what have the Democrats done to attract Nader voters for 2004?That's easy! They were NOT George W. Bush! They ain't got nothing else!

That *is* the point! Every citizen has the right to vote their conscience. This thread is an entreat to do otherwise, which directly undermines the electoral process at it's *most basic* level!

No more than paid political advertisements. :rolleyes: Or people that put out signs, or wear buttons, or walk around trying to get people to vote, etc...

This is a fact of life. Stop the pretend-outrage.

I (believe it or not) have not decided who to vote for. I want to see the debates first. I abhore punditry on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Do you also ABHORE political bumper stickers? It's the same damn thing. Everyone's trying to get you to join their side; welcome to politics.

Fake outrage? That I find patently offensive.

And I don't care.

I vote in every election, and try to get my family and friends (and others I meet) to do so likewise.

A-HA! So you're just as bad as the person who started this thread! How DARE you try and influence your family and friends to vote? What if their conscience tells them NOT to?!!! Don't you realize you're undermining their fundamental right to be apathetic? :rolleyes:

So turn off Fox or CNN or Franken or Limbaugh or whatever you usually do. Go read/watch/listen to other points of view and CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF what you believe.

This thread IS urging you to choose for yourself (to vote a specific way). It, like virtually every other piece of information out there, is geared towards influencing your decision one way or another.

Welcome to earth.