|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2004 : 18:25:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush in this election.
No. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Still, if a vote for Nader is supposedly a vote for Bush, then I wonder who a Bush vote is for. Kerry? It makes about as much sense...
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Ralphy (whom I voted for myself in 2000) needs to sit this one out entirely. He will only help Bush get back in the office for another 4 years.
We obviously disagree. I'm glad he's in the race. His is a much-needed voice of reason, especially this year, given a choice between two main corporate-sponsored pro-war candidates.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Oh... and you can BITE my ass.
Taken offense, have you? Now, perhaps you have an inkling of how we Nader supporters feel when you slander one the greatest living Americans.
|
Paladin |
 |
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2004 : 18:27:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
I literally stood up and cheered...
You want Bush to win that badly?
No. I want Ralph's voice to be heard, and for the American people to have the option of voting for him. I always get revved when democracy wins.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2004 : 18:35:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Paladin is not considering the consequences of a vote for Nader in this election. Personally I like Nader, which is more than I can say about either Kerry or Bush.
Dude, your powers of telepathy are amazing, since you seem to know what I am and am not considering. I only wish I could claim the same abilities in regard to you, for you have me completely perplexed. First you refer to Ralph Nader as a "toad," then you say you like him.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
However, I am aware that the consequence of voting for Nader again will only increase the chance that Bush gets elected again.
At least, this makes a bit more sense than the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" rubbish that you offered earlier. I agree that, given the efforts of the Kerry campaign to appeal to voters on the right and his abandonment of his traditional liberal base, Ralph will offer a more attractive alternative to progressive voters. Which is the way it SHOULD work: If you don't earn the votes, you don't get them. The (anti-)Democrats would prefer people have NO alternative other than to vote for them.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Actions should be driven by consequence, not intention, if you know the consequence in advance. My vote this year will be driven by the consequences. If I vote for Nader I know the consequence will be a higher probability for Bush winning.
Why can't actions be driven by both intention AND possible consequence?
In any case, I've carefully considered the possible consequences of voting for Nader. But I've also considered the possible consequences of abandonding his campaign, joining the retreat of the progressives and NOT voting for him. If you're like many of the "anybody but Bush" crowd I've encountered thus far, I'd wager you've made no consideration of this at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
There is no circumstance under which Nader can win this election. Nader voters are so unlikely to vote for Bush (if Nader was not on the ballots) that the net effect of voting for Nader is a decrease in votes for Kerry, resulting in 4 more years of G.W. Bush.
Not a tolerable situation in my opinion.
While there technically ARE circumstances under which Ralph Nader could win this election, given the current political environment, I agree it's not very likely. But that doesn't mean Ralph still can't accomplish a few things with his candidacy.
Instead of trying to explain it for Ralph, I'll post an excerpt from some of his recent comments that summarizes some of his objectives:
"Well, we're trying to get as many votes as possible but more important, we're trying to enlist the younger generation in assuming the mantles of leadership and engaging them in politics and young people are dangerously turned off politics which is why politics is going to turn on them.
Second, we want to push the agenda. We want to show whether John Kerry and George W Bush will be willing to stand up for the American people instead of kneeling down before giant multinational businesses.
And third, we want to establish a model presidential campaign. The editorials and newspapers are always complaining about commercial corruption and dirty money in politics and insipid thirty second ads and mud slinging. Well, we're trying to do it the right way, and we hope those editorials will recognize that for future elections.
And finally, we're laying the groundwork for future political movements. Rome was not built in a day, and although we have an uphill fight, although we're the underdog candidate in this campaign, there are tens of millions of American underdogs who are being pushed around that need a voice.
We have all these other purposes, this is a no-lose campaign because we have all these other purposes. We've found leaders for the future, we've pushed the agenda, we've set a model campaign, in terms of clean politics we've laid the groundwork for future reform movements in America. We've done our bit, we've done our responsibility.
We can put all this before the American people, but we can't make them vote. It's up to them to decide whether their going to go for the least worst every four years and result in both parties getting worse every four years, or whether they're going to break ranks, stand tall and vote for candidates who fought for them and who they can believe in."
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2004 : 18:36:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If it were between two corporate candidates and Nader, you might have a point, Paladin. But this election is between one corporate candidate who started a war and one who protested the last really really bad war we were in. Idealistic Nader voters have a right to the candidate they want over the lesser of two evils, but the war, in this case, by far is a more important issue to protest with one's vote than any other issue.
Actually, this race is between two corporate candidates, Nader, and an assortment of other candidates that get none of the press that the major candidates do.
Beskeptigal, you make an excellent point concerning the war, but are you aware that Kerry is also for continuing the war in Iraq? Voting for either him or Bush isn't going to end the conflict, nor America's invovlement in it.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2004 : 18:39:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I agree that Nader should have the right to be on the ballots. He and others have the right to work to get Bush elected and I have the right to despise those people.
I sincerely hope you're not implying that Ralph Nader and his supporters are working to get Bush elected, because nothing could be further from the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
I guess the good guys DO win a few, every once in a while...
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Please explain! Which good guys won?
By "good guys," I'm referring to the people who were fighting the efforts of the (anti-)Democratic Party to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot. The "good guys" are the people who wanted to ensure that Florida voters had one more choice in November, instead of one fewer. I find it both sad and ironic that the party which for nearly four years has decried the Republican shenanigans in Florida has so shamelessly and effortlessly adopted the same manner in regard to Ralph Nader's candidacy.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2004 : 23:03:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
Beskeptigal, you make an excellent point concerning the war, but are you aware that Kerry is also for continuing the war in Iraq? Voting for either him or Bush isn't going to end the conflict, nor America's invovlement in it.
America started the war. Now, America must bloody well see it through.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 21:04:36 [Permalink]
|
I almost voted for Nader in 2000. I like Nader a lot but ultimately my decision was that he would have a lot of trouble working with the two major parties. It was never anything against Nader. Nader is one man who's vote will not be bought. He should be able to get on the ballot. This is a democracy right? The Democrats and the GOP do not own the ballots. That's a scary thought.
Now that we have ruined Iraq over 13 years of bombing, more bombing and inept invasion and occupation we have an obligation to put things as right as we can before getting out. I have no idea how this can be done and maybe it can't. I do know that the crew in charge now has shown they can't handle such a big job. If we just up and pulled out we'd have something even scarier with all the major powers in the region trying to influence Iraq or worse. And don't pretend we don't want the oil. We need it badly. Hands up everyone that wants gas to be $5 a gallon! I only live 2 miles from work but most of America seems to be moving further and further into the sticks with some delusion that a 40 mile commute won't cost them much when they're older.
But Kerry did vote to give Bush the power to start this war. He voted to give that fool a power that belongs to Congress. In a way he pussed out twice. It's so much easier to let the President take the political risk and then bitch about it after campaigning in a sort of "war neutral" stance. No, Kerry is not perfect but at least he isn't strutting around like Hitler in 1937. I don't see Kerry going forward with secret tribunals and the patriot Act but if he does I would turn and vote for a Republican if that's what it takes to get America American again.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 21:46:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I think whats even more scary is it being really easy for people to run for president and having 10,000 Americans (basically, a lot) running for president. If he doesn't have any backing what so ever, whats the point?
So I guess this wouldn't be a good time to announce my own candidacy?  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 22:02:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude, your powers of telepathy are amazing, since you seem to know what I am and am not considering. I only wish I could claim the same abilities in regard to you, for you have me completely perplexed. First you refer to Ralph Nader as a "toad," then you say you like him.
The guy looks like a toad.
Edited to remove stupid insults posted while cranky and tired, apologies.
quote:
In any case, I've carefully considered the possible consequences of voting for Nader.
Oh... my bad. So you DO realize that voting Nader in 2004 will help Bush win the election. Well. why didn't you just say so in the first place? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/21/2004 07:34:56 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 22:49:15 [Permalink]
|
What would really be nice is for Democrats to act like liberals and stop acting like pussies. The Bush administration is ripe for defeat. It would seem to make sense that the opposition acted like an opposition in more than one or two meager issues and actually stand for something different. Nader would gladly go into retirement if this happened. And no matter how you slice it it's the people that vote for Bush that may or may not see him re-elected. Nader only has support because Kerry doesn't represent many liberals. Like I said, if Kerry was more liberal Nader wouldn't have much support at all.
Candidates have to earn votes. I didn't realize people were obligated to vote a certain way. Shoot, why even bother.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 23:52:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Hands up everyone that wants gas to be $5 a gallon! I only live 2 miles from work ....
I pay $5 a gallon!
But not for long, thanks to new taxes the price will soon go up.
(I get to work by bike)
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 02:39:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
Beskeptigal, you make an excellent point concerning the war, but are you aware that Kerry is also for continuing the war in Iraq? Voting for either him or Bush isn't going to end the conflict, nor America's invovlement in it.
Kerry will get us out sooner and Bush could easily get us involved in many more wars. Iran could easily be next on the agenda.
I haven't heard anything directly from Kerry that says he thinks the war was a good decision. Only the spin that somehow Kerry's for the war but if he were president Saddam would still be in power. Kerry got pinned down by one of the news guys, Tim Russert or Chris Mathews, into saying he'd still have gone into Iraq knowing what we know now. Then they used the quote over and over. I don't think he meant it and today his speech made it clear he thinks Bush made a stupid mistake.
I just can't see that we can let Bush have another 4 years. It could be a catastrophe. If I voted for Nader and Bush won then started more wars, that would just not be worth the risk to make a statement. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 04:07:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Candidates have to earn votes. I didn't realize people were obligated to vote a certain way. Shoot, why even bother.
The responsibility to elect your government is yours.
If you think that Bush and Kerry are equally good or bad you are in luck, the gargantuan inconvenience of casting your vote is unnecessary.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 05:41:06 [Permalink]
|
My mom caucused for Kucinich because she believed the very liberal wing of the party needed a voice. I caucused for Edwards because I felt he had the greatest chance of defeating Bush.
I consider Kerry a moderate Democrat. I think he's more liberal than he's campaigning as (operating on the "campaign from the center and run to the left when elected" strategy). The term "liberal" has been sufficiently demeaned and ridiculed by right-wing radio and others to the point where "liberal" is now a dirty word. Disgusting, but true, I think.
The Democrats in my precinct (and virtually all the Democrats I know and read of) are united in their desire to defeat Bush. Either you see this as the overarching goal of this election, or you don't. Nader supporters don't. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
