I know it's unpopular to support a man who is multi-faceted v single-minded, an intellectual v an illiterate, a senator v a drunk,


....but as a wise ketchup lady said, "There is a value in taking a stand, whether or not anybody may be noticing it, and whether or not it is a risky thing to do".

....and as a wise man from a place called Hope said, "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values."


....a Chicagoan, "Let no one be discouraged by the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills - against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence"

....and a real American Hero, "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president,''

Kerry, I think a lot of people finally got to see what they will gain with a leader like you restoring a sense of honor and trust to the White House.

I'm voting for Nader.

why are you voting for nader?

Originally posted by Mayfuck
I'm voting for Nader.

I like how he has no party to support him.

Originally posted by sppunk


I like how he has no party to support him.

Ya know, theres a funny little reason for that.. hes an independant!

edit: uh, I think i get what your trying to say now. Hehe.

I think John Kerry is a nice man, but I don't want him to be my President.

Originally posted by homechicago
why are you voting for nader?

Supporting Nader contributes to building a political movement independent of the Democratic Party, a band whose primary purpose is to systematically swallow and then cripple any remotely progressive movements.

Originally posted by homechicago
why are you voting for nader?

His platform is more aligned to my beliefs than Kerry's. Also, as Ghetto Squirrel pointed out, to get an independent party on the map. It's important to me as a Californian to get this movement going. A few smaller towns in California have green party council members and San Francisco almost elected a Green mayor. I just want mainstream America to pay more attention to independent platforms.

Kerry is going to win CA anyway.

Originally posted by Mayfuck


His platform is more aligned to my beliefs than Kerry's. Also, as Ghetto Squirrel pointed out, to get an independent party on the map. It's important to me as a Californian to get this movement going. A few smaller towns in California have green party council members and San Francisco almost elected a Green mayor. I just want mainstream America to pay more attention to independent platforms.

Kerry is going to win CA anyway.

But Nader's not a party of the Green Party, and no party would endorse him.

I'm all about third parties and the like, but Nader brings absolutely nothing to the political table. He has some OK domestic policies, but he doesn't even have any foreign policies.

I said 'independent' The greenies are an example. Nader is another example. And his platform is still pretty much Green.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


Supporting Nader contributes to building a political movement independent of the Democratic Party, a band whose primary purpose is to systematically swallow and then cripple any remotely progressive movements. That's both main party's MO. The Democrats would rather lose to the Rebulicans than to the Greens, and the Republicans would rather lose to the Democrats than to the Reform party.

It's all about status quo.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The Democrats would rather lose to the Rebulicans than to the Greens, and the Republicans would rather lose to the Democrats than to the Reform party.

In Illinois, there was a technicality in which Bush wasn't supposed to be on the ballot due to that his nomination was after a state deadline. The state Democratic Party passed special legislation that allowed him to bypass the rule and be placed on the ballot. However, the same party is also running a Nader smear effort and working tirelessly to throw out signatures that the Nader campaign collected.

This, even considering that in 2000, twelve times as many registered Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader. Not that it would matter in Illinois.

I'm voting for Michael Badnarik.

Originally posted by Mayfuck


His platform is more aligned to my beliefs than Kerry's. Also, as Ghetto Squirrel pointed out, to get an independent party on the map. It's important to me as a Californian to get this movement going. A few smaller towns in California have green party council members and San Francisco almost elected a Green mayor. I just want mainstream America to pay more attention to independent platforms.

Kerry is going to win CA anyway.

fair enough. thanks.

I just wonder why there isn't someone with more impact, like a perot, who can represent a third choice. nader's numbers have dwindled since the last election, and people won't go for a third party led by a guy who doesn't have enough of a foreign policy platform (again, like Perot, who I didn't think was half bad. In fact, I was excited the first time he ran, but then he dropped out, and came back, and he lost me. Stockdale belonged in a nursing home and not the veep position, but regardless, Perot really made the most impact as a third party in my lifetime. Nader, well, he's just past his point. Why didn't he support a newer, fresher candidate? )

but i do understand your logic.


cheers.

Originally posted by homechicago
I just wonder why there isn't someone with more impact, like a perot, who can represent a third choice.

Perot's numbers certainly weren't hurt by his inclusion in the presidential debates.

That and the media treated him like an actual candidate as opposed to prefacing every mention of him with the tag '2000 spoiler.'

Originally posted by Irrelevant
I'm voting for Michael Badnarik.
i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I was actually thinking of him, too...although, it seems i'd be throwing away a vote.

Originally posted by Irrelevant
I'm voting for Michael Badnarik.

He is more likely to get my vote than Bush or Kerry.

Too bad he won't be on the Texas ballot, goddamn Republicans.

Originally posted by David

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I was actually thinking of him, too...although, it seems i'd be throwing away a vote.

i'm a registered Libertarian. i mean, Badnarik is a little bit too gun-focused for me, there are way bigger issues, but he's still the best candidate i know of. if you're voting for the candidate you believe in you're never throwing away your vote.

you're voting in Missouri though, right? i can vote for whoever, it doesn't matter, Bush will win Kansas. Missouri will be closer, i suppose. but even if i was in a battleground state i'd be voting for Badnarik.

Originally posted by Irrelevant


i'm a registered Libertarian. i mean, Badnarik is a little bit too gun-focused for me, there are way bigger issues, but he's still the best candidate i know of.

I would have rather had Nolan. Talk about the Libertarians acting like typical assholes and picking the biggest nutty asshat to run an ideologically driven elitist campaign. Either way, he's better than Bush and Kerry.

Originally posted by Irrelevant

but even if i was in a battleground state i'd be voting for Badnarik.

I am in a battleground state, and I am going to vote my best candidate, despite its ramifications for either major candidate.

Badnarik is a fucking lunatic.

as is obvious by my post, we know who i will vote for.

regarding the independent voters among you, honestly, i do respect and understand the logic behind voting for any person you want.

you've probably made up your minds one way or another, but i'd just like to offer my opinion (just my opinion) that while your candidates could very possibly be better than either of the big two, i think that at present, a vote for one of the 2 winnable candidates might warrant consideration.

yes, the vote does register a 3rd party voice, but that voice would be stronger in an election where there isn't a war drowning out the sound. when bush sr. lost to clinton, i think the country decided that a 70+ year old man will never be the answer. perot missed the boat there. america wants younger, and for a third party to have promise, i think they would have to present a more youthful, in-touch candidate. not a hollywood entertainer, but definately not nader. he's too bitter and his board makes no mention of foreign policy. that's unrealistic to think that shouldn' t be discussed, or that your supporters are ignorant to world issues. i'd never vote for that guy. but a dean type person for example, full of energy and ideas, i would.

Originally posted by homechicago
when bush sr. lost to clinton, i think the country decided that a 70+ year old man will never be the answer. america wants younger, and for a third party to have promise, i think they would have to present a more youthful, in-touch candidate. not a hollywood entertainer, but definately not nader. he's too bitter.

By making this painfully shallow argument, you're essentially relegating yourself to the regiment of voters who pick their candidates by which has the best hair, the more appealing accent, and seems generally like the type of person you'd hang out with on weekends. If you were picking drinking buddies and workout partners instead of elected officials, I'd consider these legitimate reasons.

Nader, a 70-year-old who's about the least charismatic speaker this side of Al Gore, is polling between 9-12% with the 18-29 age group. Clearly the issues he's speaking about are far more important to these young voters than whether or not he'd be fun to watch delivering a state of the union address.

Certainly someone who can invigorate the listening audience is a bonus, but to think that what's stunting the growth of political third parties is asinine.

My civics teacher told me that she, along with her friends, votes based on the candidates hair. yeah...

Originally posted by homechicago

yes, the vote does register a 3rd party voice, but that voice would be stronger in an election where there isn't a war drowning out the sound.

a war that the current president led us into, but the challenger gave the go-ahead vote. and there's the patriot act, another awful piece of legislation this administration pushed that kerry voted for. and now he wants to reverse his decision? i call too little, too late, and i call bullshit politician with no backbone.

Originally posted by Irrelevant


i'm a registered Libertarian. i mean, Badnarik is a little bit too gun-focused for me, there are way bigger issues, but he's still the best candidate i know of. if you're voting for the candidate you believe in you're never throwing away your vote.
yeah, i guess you're right. i just meant the lesser of two evils thing. i don't want to take away from kerry if it means the difference of him winning, y'know?


you're voting in Missouri though, right? i can vote for whoever, it doesn't matter, Bush will win Kansas. Missouri will be closer, i suppose. but even if i was in a battleground state i'd be voting for Badnarik.
yeah, kansas seems like a lost cause and every kc debate i watch or whatever, it seems missouri is split between liberal and conservative.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


By making this painfully shallow argument, you're essentially relegating yourself to the regiment of voters who pick their candidates by which has the best hair, the more appealing accent, and seems generally like the type of person you'd hang out with on weekends. If you were picking drinking buddies and workout partners instead of elected officials, I'd consider these legitimate reasons.
You don't think that's a big part of how a large number of Americans think?

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
You don't think that's a big part of how a large number of Americans think?

see, nimrod's son, i think, knows where i'm coming from.

do I think that the country should base opinions on hair, drinking buddy ability (i know for a FACT that no president, regardless of COOL factor, will ever sit down with me and drink water, much less a beer, absolutely not, but i do think it's rather naieve to credit the general voting base's opinions as being all about issues and deeper meaning when bush falling of a bicycle or a wife saying "shove it" to a reporter is spun as a factor determining an outcome.

i used to be idealistic and part of the nader type glow, but the reality is that current american culture won't join me in choosing an ideal, and until a third party person emerges that can write off wasting time on image because they have it, and they can make people listen to them, i personally, cannot waste time with nader. from election to election, a third party has to DO something to gain momentum. that's why they lost me now. money aside, the two big parties have campaigns 24/7. dumb or not, a third party has to make the EFFORT to compete for that, otherwise, to me, it's like hoping to see a unicorn.

i'm a little tired, but i think i might have explained myself a little better.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
You don't think that's a big part of how a large number of Americans think?

I'll not dispute that. I just said it was shallow and unusual to find in a political debate.