Kerry.

Wouldnt a poll have been better? Are you gonna manually count?


Kerry

Fred.

Mickey Mouse.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
Mickey Mouse.

you missed you font and font colour.

Originally posted by Enzed


you missed you font and font colour.

HTML is turned off on this forum.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


HTML is turned off on this forum.

Sorry sir. Carry on.

Nader, if he stops trying to appeal to conservatives and Kerry by running an unapologetic left-wing campaign.

Layton.

Bush :p

I will be voting for Kerry, even though he's one of my least-favorite Dems. I wish Dean would have won just to spite everyone.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel
Nader

I like what Arianna Huffington said on the Daily Show the other day concerning Nader: "You have to put the fire out before you can think about remodeling."

Kerry

Originally posted by Meursault
Layton.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
I like what Arianna Huffington said on the Daily Show the other day concerning Nader: "You have to put the fire out before you can think about remodeling."

I can certainly understand where people are coming from when they say that we need to do everything possible to get Bush out of office.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if electing Kerry were viewed as simply a step toward a larger goal. Unfortunately, for the Democrats, voting out Bush is never presented in the context of working toward the achievement of larger tasks. The end result of their plan seems to be only that a Democrat assumes office and carries out essentially the same policies as Bush to benefit himself and his benefactors, albeit in a milder and less conspicuous way.

nader.

my state will vote for bush, so theres no point in me voting for kerry, a nominee who im not impressed with.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

Originally posted by tootsie
nader.

my state will vote for bush, so theres no point in me voting for kerry, a nominee who im not impressed with. But that takes votes away from Kerry and makes Bush more likely to win...

nooo....because my state will vote republican, my vote for kerry is null, since a popular election doesn't decide who is president. so i'm voting for who represents me and my views best.

Originally posted by tootsie
nooo....because my state will vote republican, my vote for kerry is null, since a popular election doesn't decide who is president. so i'm voting for who represents me and my views best. Meh... I see your point.

Originally posted by tootsie
i'm voting for who represents me and my views best. This is how everyone should vote. If they did, we wouldn't have the "two party morass."

i hate the 2 party system. and honestly even if i wasnt living where i was i would still vote for nader.

Originally posted by Nimrod
This is how everyone should vote. If they did, we wouldn't have the "two party morass." That's nice thinking and all, but third party candidates have never represented the views of any significant number of voters. And, as in Nader's case, he is more likely to take votes away from the Democrat, so it almost guarantees a Repulblican victory, especially if everyone voted the way they felt, assuming that more people would vote for Nader, but not enough to win.

Not that I agree with it, but that's just the way it is...

Well, I say "never", but there were some back in the very early years of America that weren't of either of the two major parties... but politics was quite a bit different back then.

and as long as people think the way you do, nothing will ever change and we'll be stuck with retarded presidents who pander to the swing voters

Originally posted by tootsie
and as long as people think the way you do, nothing will ever change and we'll be stuck with retarded presidents who pander to the swing voters *shrug* alrighty...

Originally posted by Alfredo!
That's nice thinking and all, but third party candidates have never represented the views of any significant number of voters. And, as in Nader's case, he is more likely to take votes away from the Democrat, so it almost guarantees a Repulblican victory, especially if everyone voted the way they felt, assuming that more people would vote for Nader, but not enough to win.

Not that I agree with it, but that's just the way it is...

I think you're just perpetuating this myth that the two main parties would like us to believe; that is, that voting for a third party 'steals' votes from them.

First, the belief that one possesses the votes of a portion of the population is ridiculous, if not altogether arrogant. Don't tell me that voting for Nader will hurt Kerry. I have no obligation to Kerry whatsoever; he's not losing anything, he's just not gaining anything.

Second, if we viewed it in terms of positives only (plus votes going toward other candidates, as opposed to votes being removed from candidates), we'd see the two main parties as more accountable for the jobs they did appealing to voters.

Originally posted by Alfredo!
That's nice thinking and all, but third party candidates have never represented the views of any significant number of voters. And, as in Nader's case, he is more likely to take votes away from the Democrat, so it almost guarantees a Repulblican victory, especially if everyone voted the way they felt, assuming that more people would vote for Nader, but not enough to win.

Not that I agree with it, but that's just the way it is... 3rd part candidates, or Nader and Perot?

My guess is that if we had an open full debate and equal campaign fund, a Libertarian would win easily.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
3rd part candidates, or Nader and Perot?

My guess is that if we had an open full debate and equal campaign fund, a Libertarian would win easily.

It's possible, especially if young people turned out to vote. I know that most of my friends who consider themselves conservative aren't very supportive of social regulation.

The Greens, who are in a similar situation to the Libertarians, are pushing for Instant Runoff Voting, free air time to qualifying candidates, and publicly funded campaigns to make sure candidates are on equal footing and therefore more likely to be elected based on merit. Publicly funded elections and restrictions on campaign spending, though, seem contrary to the Libertarian doctrine. How are they hoping to even the field?

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


I think you're just perpetuating this myth that the two main parties would like us to believe; that is, that voting for a third party 'steals' votes from them.

First, the belief that one possesses the votes of a portion of the population is ridiculous, if not altogether arrogant. Don't tell me that voting for Nader will hurt Kerry. I have no obligation to Kerry whatsoever; he's not losing anything, he's just not gaining anything.

Second, if we viewed it in terms of positives only (plus votes going toward other candidates, as opposed to votes being removed from candidates), we'd see the two main parties as more accountable for the jobs they did appealing to voters. Well, considering I'd rather have anyone than Bush in office, my theory stands. But not everyone thinks the way I do, so in that respect, I agree with you.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel
The Greens, who are in a similar situation to the Libertarians, are pushing for Instant Runoff Voting, free air time to qualifying candidates, and publicly funded campaigns to make sure candidates are on equal footing and therefore more likely to be elected based on merit. Publicly funded elections and restrictions on campaign spending, though, seem contrary to the Libertarian doctrine. How are they hoping to even the field?

This would be an awesome thing and it would really help us get out of this two party cycle were stuck in, but then again it would take politicians who love that shit to get us out of it, the idea is way to socialist for them and would probably be as unattractive to them as universal health care. Democrats and Republicans are far too similar if you ask me, it's like a one party system, just choose what color you like better for the next four years.

I don't know how the fuck Kerry got the presidential nomination, what a horrible fucking runner against G-Dub. He's not that great of a speaker (Clark, Kucinich, Dean, and Edwards could all blow GW out of the water in a debate, i fear that Kerry will just respectfully hold his ground), he has absolutely no carisma (sp?) or depth. I really don't know how different his office would be from Bush's administration, if you don't support gay people you have no right calling yourself Liberal or Left, but who would want to call themselves liberal in the US, its like calling yourself a Communist in the 50s/60s, or a Terrorist now, its the same thing just another facade over and over again.

Originally posted by Quiet CD
This would be an awesome thing and it would really help us get out of this two party cycle were stuck in, but then again it would take politicians who love that shit to get us out of it, the idea is way to socialist for them and would probably be as unattractive to them as universal health care.

Free air time and publicly funded elections may be, but what about IRV?

If you've not heard a lot about it before, it's a system in which you rank the candidates on the ballot from the one you want most to the one you want least. Once all the #1 votes are counted, if there's no person with the majority, the person who came in last has all of his or her votes go to whichever candidates his/her voters put in second place. If there's still no majority, it's repeated. Therefore it assures voters that anyone who wins will be ranked highly by the majority of voters. Under IRV, there is no such thing as a spoiler candidate or a wasted vote.

If the Democrats are so concerned about Nader spoiling the election for them, they would have implemented this sometime since 2000, and in most states there's still time to get legislation on it through. The problem, however, is that they'd rather frighten people into sticking with the two main parties and not question whether there are candidates who could be doing a better job.

kerry. and not as an "anything but" vote. i genuinely like and respect the guy. i'm tired of media trying to tell me who is or isn't "cool" and "hip". many u.s. presidents aren't people you'd find in a frat party. i don't care about that crap either way.

the flip flop stuff is nonesense too. he's a SENATOR. if he always voted his own way each time, then he'd be a sham. he listens to the changing views of his constituents. rutting down into one view and never changing is dangerous and narrow. the world isn't static, so why should a politician be?

he elected to defend this country, on two tours, and he came back to say that after BEING THERE he questioned what the point was? he saw men his age blasted to death, so he came home and tried to bring the rest of them safely home. he knows what it means to fight for his country, and what it means to have men return home and wait months for adequate healthcare. he wouldn't cut budgets for veteran care.

he reads, he's knowledgeable about the world without the reliance of assistants telling him what to know. his kids support his run for the white house and they work in his campaign because they respect and admire their father. he talks about things that affect me, like the economy. he has worked to keep malden mills from falling prey to competitors who leave american shores.

he has a good voting record towards our environment.

he is rich, but he doesn't support special tax cuts for himself and his rich buddies. he recognizes the middle class, the working poor, and tries to do what he can with the limited power he has. he could have let money spare him from vietnam, but he didn't. he doesn't pretend to be some sham "regular folk" and pretend he isn't a millionaire.

i think he's a decent man. i'd be proud to call him president.

As of right now, Bush.

Have you guys heard about some states losing electoral votes and some gaining for this election year? It may be common knowledge, but I didn't realize it until about a week ago. I believe the traditionally red states have gained seven votes and the blues ones have lost seven, due to population shifts. Just one more hurdle for the Dems.

Originally posted by Meursault
Layton.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


Free air time and publicly funded elections may be, but what about IRV?

If you've not heard a lot about it before, it's a system in which you rank the candidates on the ballot from the one you want most to the one you want least. Once all the #1 votes are counted, if there's no person with the majority, the person who came in last has all of his or her votes go to whichever candidates his/her voters put in second place. If there's still no majority, it's repeated. Therefore it assures voters that anyone who wins will be ranked highly by the majority of voters. Under IRV, there is no such thing as a spoiler candidate or a wasted vote.

If the Democrats are so concerned about Nader spoiling the election for them, they would have implemented this sometime since 2000, and in most states there's still time to get legislation on it through. The problem, however, is that they'd rather frighten people into sticking with the two main parties and not question whether there are candidates who could be doing a better job.

that's an interesting system. i like how it kinda pulls the chairs out from underneath the dems and reps.

oh and is buchanan running? it'd almost be worth the four years of him to light a fucking fire under the democratic party's ass.

Originally posted by BlueStar
Kerry I would have voted for Edwards if he wasn't a loser shitbag.

Bush to the max. I hope he kills everyone in Canada.

Bush.

Oh and this forum isn't as good as the old War Forum.

Originally posted by Jaggie
Oh and this forum isn't as good as the old War Forum. Agreed. I most likely will be voting Libertarian since there's no way a southern Republican wins California anyway.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Agreed. I most likely will be voting Libertarian since there's no way a southern Republican wins California anyway.

Yeah, the Libertarian candidate's really going to make some noise in the general election!

Originally posted by sppunk


Yeah, the Libertarian candidate's really going to make some noise in the general election! No, there's no chance of that, but California's electoral votes are already signed and delivered to Kerry, so I would at least be voting my conscience.

dub bush is a piece of shite. . i have been lucky enough to be in Canada going to school for most of his presidency. if you vote for nader you take away the votes for kerry and no matter who it is we have to get bush out of office. the same thing happened with gore vs bush many people voted for nader which just took votes away from gore and in the end we have mr clusterfuck face. so at any cost vote for kerry get bush out. republicans and democrats are extremely similar but with this election the most important thing is to get a new president. so kerry it is. ..

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

Originally posted by eye-am
if you vote for nader you take away the votes for kerry and no matter who it is we have to get bush out of office. the same thing happened with gore vs bush many people voted for nader which just took votes away from gore and in the end we have mr clusterfuck face.


Thanks for the cutting edge insight!

Originally posted by eye-am
if you vote for nader you take away the votes for kerry

Explain how.

Listen, this is a very simple and easy argument. Yes, Nader did bring out a lot of people who would not have voted for Gore in the first place. While that may be true, it is still abundantly clear that had at least 600 of those 97,000 votes that went to Nader in Florida gone to Gore instead, or with similar results in NH, the joke election would never have been at issue.

Can anyone prove at least 600 of those 97,000 votes would've got to Gore. No. But, c'mon, are you expecting anyone to believe that many or more wouldn't have?

Originally posted by tweedyburd
While that may be true, it is still abundantly clear that had at least 600 of those 97,000 votes that went to Nader in Florida gone to Gore instead, or with similar results in NH, the joke election would never have been at issue.

Those votes never at any point belonged to Gore. It was Gore's job to earn them, and he didn't. Aside from the Supreme Court, Gore holds the entire remainder of the blame.

Yeah, I know that's the official Nader party line, and Gore may not have earned them over Nader, but that's only because Nader was in the race to begin with. Had he not have been, you have to allow that Gore would've "earned" at least 600 of those votes just by people settling on a vote.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Yeah, I know that's the official Nader party line, and Gore may not have earned them over Nader, but that's only because Nader was in the race to begin with. Had he not have been, you have to allow that Gore would've "earned" at least 600 of those votes just by people settling on a vote.

Using that logic, Bush also spoiled the race for Gore by stealing some of his votes.

Maybe the solution should be to only run one candidate to make sure no vote-stealing goes on.

If we deprive people of any choice, the ones who are so goddamned dumb that they would vote for the wrong guy won't have the opportunity to fuck things up by pulling the lever for someone they actually agree with.

You're analogy would be appropriate if Gore and Bush were the exact same, ideologically (I know you believe the are, but any objective look at their voting record will find plenty of differences).

You Naderites are persuasive in theory with your arguments, but in reality you're also in complete and total denial. If half the things you guys complain about in this world were really that important to you, you would realize idealism should not take the place of acheiving some immediate lesser degree of how things are now and just vote for Kerry. It really is like Arianna said: you can't think about remodeling when the house is on fire. It's not a realistic time to vote for someone like Nader, and you cannot expect the sea change to happen on a whim like that, after coming out of one of the most divisive administrations in history.

Baby steps is the message liberals should be preaching nowadays, if they ever want to get anywhere with progressive politics. Because if Nader spoils another election it will just continue to alienate the left from the mainstream liberal body politic for years to come, effectively worsening the situation you claim to hate and diminishing what little power you have.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
You're analogy would be appropriate if Gore and Bush were the exact same, ideologically (I know you believe the are, but any objective look at their voting record will find plenty of differences).

You Naderites are persuasive in theory with your arguments, but in reality you're also in complete and total denial. If half the things you guys complain about in this world were really that important to you, you would realize idealism should not take the place of acheiving some immediate lesser degree of how things are now and just vote for Kerry. It really is like Arianna said: you can't think about remodeling when the house is on fire. It's not a realistic time to vote for someone like Nader, and you cannot expect the sea change to happen on a whim like that, after coming out of one of the most divisive administrations in history.

Baby steps is the message liberals should be preaching nowadays, if they ever want to get anywhere with progressive politics. Because if Nader spoils another election it will just continue to alienate the left from the mainstream liberal body politic for years to come, effectively worsening the situation you claim to hate and diminishing what little power you have.

First, I do not believe Gore/Kerry and Bush are the same ideologically. I don't know anyone else on the Left who thinks that. The 'there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans' quote is one invented by liberals to discredit primarily Nader. The argument they're trying to overlook is that the two parties have virtually merged and the issues that distinguish the two are becoming fewer.

So when you say that we're overlooking short term gains, I agree. If we wanted to settle for what we could get at the moment, then we'd certainly go with Kerry. Are we willing to make a concession to candidate who intends to perpetuate the polarisation of held wealth on the planet as long as he's not so aggressive on something like a constitutional amendment against gay marriage? Are we willing to vote for a candidate who will boost the miliatary budget to continue operations around the globe as long as he's milder than Bush when it comes to destroying public schools? I don't see those things as 'baby steps' that are working toward a larger goal. There's the 'winning the battle but losing the war' cliche, and I'm sorry for aiding its overuse here.

I will agree that Kerry would be an improvement over Bush. However, I think putting a Democrat in office just slows (not stops) the progression of thinks like corporate domination and neoliberalism. I think someone said, 'If the Republicans will ruin the world in 20 years, it will take the Democrats 50.' If that's a cliche also, apologies.

There will always be another George Bush-type figure who will force us to settle for less and less, so if we repeatedly buy into the problem of lesser-evilism, we're basically just lowering our expectations each time around.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


The 'there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans' quote is one invented by liberals to discredit primarily Nader. .

Er... I believe it was Nader himself who said that. "Republicrats" ring a bell?

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel
I don't see those things as 'baby steps' that are working toward a larger goal. However, I think putting a Democrat in office just slows (not stops) the progression of thinks like corporate domination and neoliberalism.

With all due respect (cliche!), that's a foolish statement. Like I said, if you feel voting for Nader this time around is doing anything more than hurting the causes you stand for, then you might want to step back and think about what you're actually saying. Since you say putting a Democrat in office just slows the process, what is the realistic alternative to a Democrat at this point? Obviously, a Republican president. The only way candidates like Nader will ever make a wave is when relatively liberal policies are played out on a national scale by a Democratic president, effectively baby stepping the country toward those goals. I don't believe the electorate will ever fully endorse someone like Nader, but if that's the goal, shoving this down people's throats is not the way to get there. Minds are not changed easily, and they are not changed quickly, especially on the scale Naderites believe they should be. I have no idea how you can say a string of relatively liberal Democratic presidents slows down the process toward drastic change Naderites yearn for. That change is certainly not going to happen by continuing to indirectly give candidates like Bush more votes.

the most important thing is to get a new president. so kerry it is. ..

you guys are way of. geting rid of Bush isn't whats important.
don't get me wrong, i can't stand the guy but he is hell of a better leader than Kerry. Sen. John can't seem to make up his mind about anything. first he threw away his war medals, then all of a suden that never happened! then he voted for going into Araq, now he won't stop bitching about the bloody war! also he voted for military spending, next time he votes agianst it!

i would love to see ol' W out of office but at least he can make up his freakin' mind. but that doesn't mean i'm voting for him. i'll probubly go with Nadar because i hate both the other candidates.

Kerry, unfortunately.
There's no fucking way I'm voting for Nader again.
Did you guys see that piece on the Jon Stewart show about a guy who voted for Nader in 2000 trying to convince people voting for Nader in this election not to? It was comedy gold.

Originally posted by morning star


you guys are way of. geting rid of Bush isn't whats important.
don't get me wrong, i can't stand the guy but he is hell of a better leader than Kerry. Sen. John can't seem to make up his mind about anything. first he threw away his war medals, then all of a suden that never happened! then he voted for going into Araq, now he won't stop bitching about the bloody war! also he voted for military spending, next time he votes agianst it!


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I love how in politics, having a concience is a bad thing.

Kerry makes descisons. Like any intelligent individual he later questions his actions and holds them up to scrutiny. There aren't many cases of him waffling on anything, usually it takes him 12 years to reverse his original position. I think the only things he really switched on immediately was Vietnam (he originally volunteered for the war and then became the leader of the Veterans Against the War) and IRAQ because I think he realised too late that this was a bad situation, I don't think he realised that the Bush Administration would drag its feet so much setting up the government and getting out. I mean, I'm not surprised in the least but that's me.

Secondly, he voted against that war funding bill because it was 84 pages long and filled with pork.</font>

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Er... I believe it was Nader himself who said that. "Republicrats" ring a bell?



With all due respect (cliche!), that's a foolish statement. Like I said, if you feel voting for Nader this time around is doing anything more than hurting the causes you stand for, then you might want to step back and think about what you're actually saying. Since you say putting a Democrat in office just slows the process, what is the realistic alternative to a Democrat at this point? Obviously, a Republican president. The only way candidates like Nader will ever make a wave is when relatively liberal policies are played out on a national scale by a Democratic president, effectively baby stepping the country toward those goals. I don't believe the electorate will ever fully endorse someone like Nader, but if that's the goal, shoving this down people's throats is not the way to get there. Minds are not changed easily, and they are not changed quickly, especially on the scale Naderites believe they should be. I have no idea how you can say a string of relatively liberal Democratic presidents slows down the process toward drastic change Naderites yearn for. That change is certainly not going to happen by continuing to indirectly give candidates like Bush more votes.

I'm familiar with the word 'Republicrat.' But the point is that people left of the Democrats (and probably those right of the Republicans) feel there is very little difference between the parties, not none. Scour speech and press conference transcripts, archived interviews, etc., and you'll find that the phrase, 'there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats' was never uttered by Nader.

You seem to think that my opposition to the Democrats is that they're moving in the right direction too slowly. Therefore, you think it would be reasonable to elect a string of Democrats in order to make steady progress and eventually achieve our long-term goals.

To clarify, the point of disagreement is not the speed in which we plan to achieve goals but the goals which each group plans to achieve. The Greens, socialists, and other left-wingers are not more extreme versions of the Democrats; they're working in opposing directions. In general the Dems are pursuing the same things as the Republicans (ie. free markets, pro-corporation, pro-globalisation, widening of the income gap, etc.), albeit less aggressively and while making a few half-hearted concessions on issues like abortion rights. If elected, Kerry may patch up some issues which he feels Bush pushed too far, but the things Bush wants tomorrow are the things the Democratic Party will be wanting to achieve in 10 years.

Also, I don't feel that running a candidate is shoving anything down people's throats. If you don't agree with third parties, you don't have to vote for them; however, it's not particularly democratic to prevent people who do agree with them from doing so if they feel that's the right decision.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel



In general the Dems are pursuing the same things as the Republicans (ie. free markets, pro-corporation, pro-globalisation, widening of the income gap, etc.),

Sort of off topic, but a stat you may not be aware of: Now, just 8% of humankind lives in nations with insufficient average calorie intakes. According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, that represents the lowest such percentage in human history. Why do you think less people are hungry today than ever before? It is obviously because markets have opened up and goods have become more attainable and affordable to a larger percentage of the earth's population. Yet, according to you, it's our modern trade practices which harm rather than pull many out of daily hunger. Tell me, if modern trade is so evil, why are less people hungry today than they ever were before our current international trade policies were put into motion?

Originally posted by morning star
Araq

you lose the right to vote

I'm voting for Kodos!

http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pictures/others/kangkodos1.gif

a great leader doesn't dig his heels into quicksand declaring he's 100% right all the time.

his "flip flop" image is a joke at best. he makes decisions based on timely information. a person who changes their mind on changing information is WORTHY of my vote.

when w ran the first time, how was he more qualified than kerry is now? he didn't do much for texas yet he got the hot seat.

kerry can work with ideologies that aren't totally in sync with his own to make things work. he has appreciation for a different perspective and that's what will make him a great leader. i'm not voting because i dislike the current pres i'm voting because he is a person who's actions and words are close to what i think.

if i could vote, it would be for Bush

Originally posted by homechicago
a great leader doesn't dig his heels into quicksand declaring he's 100% right all the time.

his "flip flop" image is a joke at best. he makes decisions based on timely information. a person who changes their mind on changing information is WORTHY of my vote.

when w ran the first time, how was he more qualified than kerry is now? he didn't do much for texas yet he got the hot seat.

kerry can work with ideologies that aren't totally in sync with his own to make things work. he has appreciation for a different perspective and that's what will make him a great leader. i'm not voting because i dislike the current pres i'm voting because he is a person who's actions and words are close to what i think. Usually, Governors make better presidents early on in their terms than Senators. A governor is used to leading, delegating, and being the focus of an administration.

Senators just legislate.

I'll vote for Kerry and any other Democrats I can put into Congress.

Kerry

I URGE you all to not vote for Nader......a vote for Nader is a vote for George Bush and I know that you dont want that.

If I could vote, I would vote for Kerry. I think it's really terrible what Bush has done to the country financially. It's his fault people are paying 3 bucks for gas. And what about that "tax cut"? Turns out it wasn't really a cut at all. My family got the refund, only for the IRS to demand it back later on. It was then we found out that the refund only had "temporary effects", under the direction of the President. Honestly, a temporary tax refund? What is this? AND he totally screwed up the Iraqi reconstruction. He's a stupid moron and he should be shot for all the Americans we're losing because of his idiocy.

Originally posted by ZephZero33
Kerry

I URGE you all to not vote for Nader......a vote for Nader is a vote for George Bush and I know that you dont want that.

why should i vote for a candidate who doesnt represent my views? did you read this thread?

Because sometimes self expression has to take a back seat to logic. You KNOW Nader isn't going to win, so why not support someone who could? Even if he doesn't represent your views, at least he's not going to choke to death on a pretzel.

what is so hard to understand about my voting for the candidate i believe in? democrats seem to think that theyre automatically entitled to my vote simply because im left-leaning.

Originally posted by Alfredo!
That's nice thinking and all, but third party candidates have never represented the views of any significant number of voters. And, as in Nader's case, he is more likely to take votes away from the Democrat, so it almost guarantees a Repulblican victory, especially if everyone voted the way they felt, assuming that more people would vote for Nader, but not enough to win.

Not that I agree with it, but that's just the way it is...

what people fail to understand is that Nader drew support from Republicans too, not just Democrats. so you can't just assume that ALL Nader votes are from disappointed Democrats/liberals.

that's why i wish the U.S. Presidential election(and Illinois) had run-off voting, like Louisiana has. i've always envied(and admired) that state, because of that system(and the fact that it tends to help Democrats win elections there). that said, i'm voting for Kerry, although there's something about Kerry that doesn't make me very impressed about him(and i'd vote for Nader if run-off voting existed for presidential elections).

i really wish Wesley Clark(or Edwards) had won the Dem primary, and i'm still disappointed to this day that Clark didn't win.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Yeah, I know that's the official Nader party line, and Gore may not have earned them over Nader, but that's only because Nader was in the race to begin with. Had he not have been, you have to allow that Gore would've "earned" at least 600 of those votes just by people settling on a vote.

i think its stupid to blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000. i remember researching the Florida election in early 2001, and i found out that Gore would've won by about 235 votes, if every vote had been counted. you have to remember, it was the fault of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, and the fault of then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris that cost Gore the election, not Nader(can't believe that stupid bitch actually got elected to Congress in 2002). and also, i blame Jeb Bush, since he hired a private company to deny ex-felons the right to vote, thus disenfranchising many blacks of their right to vote(and this private company even took people who were never felons off the list of eligible voters, too!).

i don't think anyone should fear Nader in the '04 election, especially since he's running as an independent this time around(although yes, i'm aware he was endorsed by the Reform Party).

Originally posted by professional wannabe


i think its stupid to blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000. i remember researching the Florida election in early 2001, and i found out that Gore would've won by about 235 votes, if every vote had been counted. you have to remember, it was the fault of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision

I don't think anyone's really "blaming" him, just assigning responsibility. Even if you subscribe to what you just said, those 235 votes would've been irrelevant if Nader wasn't in the race to begin with.

Originally posted by professional wannabe


i don't think anyone should fear Nader in the '04 election, especially since he's running as an independent this time around(although yes, i'm aware he was endorsed by the Reform Party).

Well, Nader is currently polling higher right now than he was in 2000. In national polls, Nader is getting 5%. In polls of key target states, he is getting as high as 9%. He is also well on his way to raising more money than he did in 2000. When Nader is not *******d in the national polls, Kerry beats Bush and is outside of the margin of error. When Nader is *******d in the polls, Kerry barely beats Bush and is within the margin of error. Now, yeah, these are just polls. But, when there are numerous polls showing the same thing, that trend is noticed and has to be taken into consideration. There are even anti-Nader organizations forming now...one of which is even going to be running ads featuring people who voted fro Nader last time around and having them urge people not to make the same mistake. Maybe Nader will hurt Kerry, maybe he won't. But, in an election this close (which is insanely odd since, in re-election years, the incumbent usually either wins big or loses big...there are hardly ever any close presidential re-elections), no one wants to take that chance.

Originally posted by ZephZero33
Kerry

I URGE you all to not vote for Nader......a vote for Nader is a vote for George Bush and I know that you dont want that.

I urge you to give yourself a dirty sanchez.