|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2003 : 10:39:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Ya know what? Screw integrity! We need to get rid of Bush and voting for candidates who cannot win is not the way to get the job done. While all of those who voted libertarian or for Nadar can pat themselves on the back for not having voted for Bush, and not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is you who gave us Bush.
Let's please get rid of this psycho. Be pragmatic. After Bush is gone you can go back to being idealistic...
We did NOT give you Bush! People who voted for Bush gave him to you. Gore did not deserve my vote by default, simply he was the other "viable" candidate. If the Democrats are going to keep offering us such choices, they can go straight to Hell.
Actually, I pat myself on the back for voting for the best man for the job, which is what EVERYONE should do. And, yes, it may be idealistic, but the only way for such an ideal to become reality is for someone to take the first step. I'm happy to see that, in 2000, a few million of us did.
Having said that, what many folks fail to understand is that our support for Nader is MORE than just idealism - our vote, and our continued support, is also quite pragmatic. We're trying to solve a problem much larger than merely getting rid of Bush. He's only one symptom of a much larger problem.
My main reason for supporting Nader, other than his obvious progressive qualities, is his steadfast support for political and campaign finance reform. The corruption of our political system with mountains of special influence cash has as much to do with the erosion of our freedom as anything John Ashcroft can conjure up. I want to do whatever I can to fix it. And it's obvious to me that, currently, neither the Repugnicans nor the Democraps don't.
|
Paladin |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2003 : 11:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Paladin:
My main reason for supporting Nader, other than his obvious progressive qualities, is his steadfast support for political and campaign finance reform. The corruption of our political system with mountains of special influence cash has as much to do with the erosion of our freedom as anything John Ashcroft can conjure up. I want to do whatever I can to fix it. And it's obvious to me that, currently, neither the Repugnicans nor the Democraps don't.
I see. So what you are saying is that you will vote for the best man. Do you actually believe that the democrats would have pursued the same foreign policy as Bush? While campaign reform is high on my list of things that need to be done, I am not willing to see this country pursue a policy of Pax Americana any longer than it is being thrust down our throats. Bush is the worst president we have had in my life time. And I have been around awhile. Guess what? I like Nadar too. But right now, that is not the point. We need to get rid of Bush. We need to get rid of him at the next election. That means voting for the candidate with the best chance of beating him. To vote for anyone ells is not the least bit pragmatic. It's a vote that will not be counted in any meaningful way as a vote against Bush. It's pure idealism. And while your intentions may be noble, at this time, they are counter productive.
And yes, If those who had voted for Nadar in the last election had cast their ballot for Gore, it might have been business as usual, but at least we wouldn't have had to endure a nit wit psycho as a president. How crazy does it have to get before you realize what we have here? This is not the usual Democrats vs. Republican same ol. We are in trouble!
If Nadar runs I will be very disappointed in him. He couldn't know what would happen last time if Bush was elected. Now he does. I will remember him fondly for the good things that he did. But I will loose all respect for him in the present. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2003 : 12:12:47 [Permalink]
|
Count me with the Anybody-But-Bush crowd. And please, please don't lump decent, caring Democrats in with Republicans. Democrats and Republicans are NOT the same; they do not offer the same ideology nor the same policy nor the same values.
I agree with Kil. It's time to do whatever we can, including keeping Nader and other unlikely candidates out of the race, to get Bush OUT. The Green, Libertarian, and other parties are the teenagers of the political scene: rebelling against 'the establishment' but offering no viable, practical alternatives.
Bush is systematically dismantling the Great Society programs which made life profoundly better for the poor and middle class Americans. (and yes, I can quote you figures if you like.) The ones he can't dismantle, he'll starve by creating a false budget crisis--hence the ridiculous federal deficit coupled with an $87 billion manufactured war.
Vote for Nader and see your guaranteed overtime disappear, your streams polluted by corporate interests, your media shrink to a handful of owners, your right to abortion seriously threatened, more God-Family-and-Country shit shoveled up as 'mainstream values'...
Ach. Never mind. 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2003 : 12:13:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
Why do we need to get rid of Bush just to have another Republican like Clinton hang on to NAFTA, criminal foreign policy and rising unemployment and imprisonment? Screw integrity? Can I make a bumper sticker out of that with your name on it?
Sure, if you include the context... And speaking of criminal foreign policy, Pax Americana? Bush makes Clinton look like a boy scout by comparison... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2003 : 12:24:18 [Permalink]
|
One of the most common saying around here around election time is "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't!" We all have to face facts and realise that nearly all politicians will lie and cheat to hold their jobs. However, as Kil so eloquently put,
I am not willing to see this country pursue a policy of Pax Americana any longer than it is being thrust down our throats. Bush is the worst president we have had in my lifetime. And I have been around awhile.
It is time to say, “Any devil has to be better than the one we know”
This guy IS out of control, his cronies as well. They continue to use paper-thin arguments to justify their cause and are quick to pass blame when things don't work out. I've noticed that even a yet un-named Democrat leads Bush in some polls so it may not be too hopeful to expect the American public (maybe not down Tim's way) to follow Kil's wishes.
As an interesting side note, the poll numbers are in after Dubya's visit down here.
Liberal Party (in power) +7
Labor Party (opposition) –4
Greens (the hecklers) up from 4% to 9%
How our Prime Minister with his head so far up the Presidents arse gets an increase in polls when the worlds most dangerous man is here is beyond me? London and Washington are taking a hammering for the war; Canberra is still riding on the crest of the wave. Maybe, just maybe it is because we lost no troops and pulled our meagre forces out as soon as Dubya strode off the USS Abraham Lincoln in that ridiculous flight suit..images of hundreds of your dead soldiers cant do too much for poll numbers.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2003 : 18:17:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Guess what? I like Nadar too. But right now, that is not the point. We need to get rid of Bush. We need to get rid of him at the next election. That means voting for the candidate with the best chance of beating him. To vote for anyone ells is not the least bit pragmatic. It's a vote that will not be counted in any meaningful way as a vote against Bush. It's pure idealism. And while your intentions may be noble, at this time, they are counter productive.
Kil, the reason my support for Nader appears to be unpragmatic and unproductive to you is that you and I appear to have clearly different priorities. Yours is one of an immediate, short-term nature: to get rid of George W. Bush. And as long as you continue to see the political picture within those narrow parameters, you'll likely never be able to perceive support for a third party candidate as anything other than idealistic.
But my priorities lie in the longer term: to remedy the corruption that allows assholes like George W. Bush to flourish in the first place. And you don't accomplish such a remedy by simply crying or whining about it. And you don't accomplish it by accommodating the complacency of the major political parties and voting for the "lesser of the two evils," to borrow a well-worn phrase. You do it by speaking to them in the only language they understand: votes.
As I suggested before, neither the Democratic nor the Republican party is ever going to embrace political reform unless they're forced to, or they're convinced it's in their best interest. Thus, we supporters of reform must continue to be PRAGMATIC, rejecting candidates - both Republican and Democrat - who don't support reform, and supporting those who do. In time, perhaps after many, many losses at the polls, they will begin to get the message. This is how the political system works.
And, Renae, I completely disagree with your characterization of third parties as "rebelling against 'the establishment' but offering no viable, practical alternatives. Clearly, political and campaign finance reform are both "viable" and "practical" alternatives. They sure as hell beat the status quo.
For those of you who insist that now is the time to abandon all other concerns and vote for whomever the Democrats throw against Bush in 2004, I'm curious as to what impact you believe such a vote will truly have.
First, assuming that the Democrat actually does win (and this is certainly in question), do you truly believe that this is the last time you'll ever be forced to make such a compromise? Given the obvious stranglehold neo-conservatives have on the Republican party and the demonstrated ability of that party to raise astronomical sums of cash, do you really expect that you won't be forced into the same compromise again, and again, and again, in perpetuity?
And, worse, what if the Democratic candidate doesn't win? What of the lost opportunity to vote in support of the cause of reform, cast instead out of fear of a Republican victory? And at a time when the Democrats, perceiving themselves to be in need of a progressive coalition, may have been most receptive to the idea?
Kil and Renae, I respect that you have your own particular priorities, and I even empathize with them. I'd like to get rid of that arrogant stumblebum, too. But I hope you understand that there are others who have different priorities, who take those priorities just as seriously, and consider them just as critical to the well-being of our nation. In my personal view, the very survival of our democracy depends upon it.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2003 : 22:14:59 [Permalink]
|
| The sanctions were just as criminal as this part of the war and no Bush would have got NAFTA through. Wages have gone down for twenty years. No. We need to change the system, not recycle the same old crap with different slogans. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 00:35:59 [Permalink]
|
Paladin, I agree with you, mostly. But much of my idealistic interest in reforming "the system" was lost when I learned that the phrase "my colleague on the other side of the aisle" meant that most people in this country assume that the two major parties that exist are the only parties that exist. If I remember correctly, every vote within my lifetime which has been for an "independent" candidate really has been a vote "thrown away."
So, despite my admittedly tongue-in-cheek addition of Bob Park to this poll, it seems to me that the most effective way to encourage "reform" on any level is to side with whomever in the two major parties who most coincides with your particular ideals. Right now, if you're generally Republican but despise Bush, this would mean a moral quandry for you, picking the least-nasty Democrat, and hoping he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, there's always Bush to fall back on.
On the other hand, was Bush the best choice for Republican nominee when Gore was the obvious Democratic "bad guy"? Don't know, myself.
But, such is politics... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 01:20:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Ya know what? Screw integrity! We need to get rid of Bush and voting for candidates who cannot win is not the way to get the job done. While all of those who voted libertarian or for Nadar can pat themselves on the back for not having voted for Bush, and not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is you who gave us Bush.
Let's please get rid of this psycho. Be pragmatic. After Bush is gone you can go back to being idealistic...
We did NOT give you Bush! People who voted for Bush gave him to you. Gore did not deserve my vote by default, simply he was the other "viable" candidate. If the Democrats are going to keep offering us such choices, they can go straight to Hell.
Actually, I pat myself on the back for voting for the best man for the job, which is what EVERYONE should do. And, yes, it may be idealistic, but the only way for such an ideal to become reality is for someone to take the first step. I'm happy to see that, in 2000, a few million of us did.
Having said that, what many folks fail to understand is that our support for Nader is MORE than just idealism - our vote, and our continued support, is also quite pragmatic. We're trying to solve a problem much larger than merely getting rid of Bush. He's only one symptom of a much larger problem.
Bully for you Paladin. Right on, and all that stuff.
Don't let them get you down. Please note the quote at the bottom of my post.
I agree with you. Although they think I'm mad don't let that stop you.
Keep telling it like it is. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 01:36:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Guess what? I like Nadar too. But right now, that is not the point. We need to get rid of Bush. We need to get rid of him at the next election. That means voting for the candidate with the best chance of beating him. To vote for anyone ells is not the least bit pragmatic. It's a vote that will not be counted in any meaningful way as a vote against Bush. It's pure idealism. And while your intentions may be noble, at this time, they are counter productive.
Kil, the reason my support for Nader appears to be unpragmatic and unproductive to you is that you and I appear to have clearly different priorities. Yours is one of an immediate, short-term nature: to get rid of George W. Bush. And as long as you continue to see the political picture within those narrow parameters, you'll likely never be able to perceive support for a third party candidate as anything other than idealistic.
But my priorities lie in the longer term: to remedy the corruption that allows assholes like George W. Bush to flourish in the first place. And you don't accomplish such a remedy by simply crying or whining about it. And you don't accomplish it by accommodating the complacency of the major political parties and voting for the "lesser of the two evils," to borrow a well-worn phrase. You do it by speaking to them in the only language they understand: votes.
As I suggested before, neither the Democratic nor the Republican party is ever going to embrace political reform unless they're forced to, or they're convinced it's in their best interest. Thus, we supporters of reform must continue to be PRAGMATIC, rejecting candidates - both Republican and Democrat - who don't support reform, and supporting those who do. In time, perhaps after many, many losses at the polls, they will begin to get the message. This is how the political system works.
And, Renae, I completely disagree with your characterization of third parties as "rebelling against 'the establishment' but offering no viable, practical alternatives. Clearly, political and campaign finance reform are both "viable" and "practical" alternatives. They sure as hell beat the status quo.
For those of you who insist that now is the time to abandon all other concerns and vote for whomever the Democrats throw against Bush in 2004, I'm curious as to what impact you believe such a vote will truly have.
First, assuming that the Democrat actually does win (and this is certainly in question), do you truly believe that this is the last time you'll ever be forced to make such a compromise? Given the obvious stranglehold neo-conservatives have on the Republican party and the demonstrated ability of that party to raise astronomical sums of cash, do you really expect that you won't be forced into the same compromise again, and again, and again, in perpetuity?
And, worse, what if the Democratic candidate doesn't win? What of the lost opportunity to vote in support of the cause of reform, cast instead out of fear of a Republican victory? And at a time when the Democrats, perceiving themselves to be in need of a progressive coalition, may have been most receptive to the idea?
Kil and Renae, I respect that you have your own particular priorities, and I even empathize with them. I'd like to get rid of that arrogant stumblebum, too. But I hope you understand that there are others who have different priorities, who take those priorities just as seriously, and consider them just as critical to the well-being of our nation. In my personal view, the very survival of our democracy depends upon it.
Brilliant Paladin, just brilliant.
One comment to you though, why is it that such a well thought out plan and wise person that you are wouldn't consider joining the Libertarian party? IMO they are the ones who will reform the system.
The Demopublicans are all one in the same and I don't either feel my vote was wasted, if one or the other is going to win, it's all the same to me. I'd like to see a truly different man win, one who does have clear ideas for a better USA.
If it's Nadar, so be it. Anything to shake things up and send a message to the two parties that they need to get their act together. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 05:34:01 [Permalink]
|
YES!!! Clinton was murdering Iraqis while Bush was in an alcoholic stupor. Bush was bombing and attacking countries like there was no tomorrow. Where have you been?
quote:
So what you are saying is that you will vote for the best man. Do you actually believe that the democrats would have pursued the same foreign policy as Bush?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 06:17:52 [Permalink]
|
Okay.
quote:
Ach. Never mind.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 07:24:19 [Permalink]
|
Paladin, it isn't you or me who elects the president. It's the middle-American swing vote--the voters who can be convinced that either the Republican or the Democrat best serves THEIR interest. What, honestly, are the chances that they're going to be convinced that Ralph Nader (who even I don't like) or *snicker* Lyndon LaRouche is Their Man? Hell, Senator Kerry is too far left of most of America right now. Do you honestly think that middle America will ever elect someone remotely radical?
Do I think we need campaign finance reform? Of course. We have the best government money can buy. How is voting for a random candidate--and essentially wasting your vote--going to further that cause? The two main political parties care little about token opposition; a small % doesn't 'send a message'. The vote is rendered essentially meaningless.
And BTW--I don't see the Democratic party as a lost cause; I still believe strongly in them. I don't have a generalized anger toward The System and I don't see all politicians as corrupt. All that is, to me, the thinking of a teenager, not an adult.
When I said the fringe political parties offer no viable, electable, practical alternative, I was correct. They don't. Have you read the Libertarian platform? It's laughable. I have no idea what the Green party stands for, but if they are an environmental party, the neo-cons would make toast of them in ten minutes flat. Middle America, by and large, embraces environmentalism only in a moderate way.
If you want to work for campaign and political reform--go for it. It's a great cause, if an unlikely one. But I refuse to stand by and let my country be ruined further for four more years.
All of the above is my opinion and my perspective only. (disclaimer added) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 07:47:17 [Permalink]
|
| If Republicans like Kerry are too far left, then the U.S. deserves extreme right wing criminals like Bush and Clinton. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
