Subject:
|
Re: Is Nader really a threat to Democracy?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:04:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
310 times
|
| |
|
|
> > Get real. You're deluding yourself. A vote for Nader at this point is *a • vote
> > for Bush*.
>
> Yeah, and...
>
> ...a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for Bush...
> ...a vote for the Socialist Worker Party candidate is a vote for Bush...
> ...a vote for the Communist Party candidate is a vote for Bush...
> ...a vote for nobody is a vote for Bush.
None of those got millions of votes last election. That level of votes truly
*is* a vote for Bush.
> Everything but a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Bush to a Democrat.
Or to anyone that doesn't want Bush in power again, regardless of their party or
non-party affiliation.
> Bush should be easy to beat - everyone I know thinks he's an idiot and hates
> him. Only the Democrats - or the Chicago Cubs - could manage to lose to
> Bush again.
He should have been easy to beat last time. Oh wait, he was, it was bro's and
daddy's judges that handed him the title, not the people.
> If you think blaming it all on Nader will help, go ahead Mr. "You're
> deluding yourself".
I'm not blaming ALL of it on him. But he is the only independent that *probably
will* take millions of votes from whatever Dem candidate runs, which is the same
or worse than handing those votes to Bush.
> > I don't like the 2-party system either. I'm independent, I don't consider
> > myself a member of *any* party out there.
>
> What kind of "independent" are you?
>
> http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
>
> When most people say "I'm independent" it really means "I can't be bothered
> to give careful consideration to what I am". Nobody agrees with
> *everything* any party says, so we're all Independent.
I'm a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative, using standard terms,
depending on the issue. I'm probably more Libertarian than anything else, but
Dem is much more palatable than Rep, though I don't like either very much in
practice.
By that page, I'm:
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 60%.
Not a very useful page, though, as it is *very* lacking in depth/breadth of
questions.
> > But I also am not going to bury my
> > head in the sand and say a vote for a candidate that will *NEVER* make it
> > into office is a vote against both parties. It's not, it's a vote against • the
> > Dem candidate, and FOR GWB.
>
> Ok, so who do you suggest I vote for if I want to vote against them both?
Voting against both doesn't help in this coming election. Choose the lesser of
2 evils.
If you don't, you have absolutely ZERO right to complain about who won, since
you threw away your vote. You might as well not vote at all.
If the Demopublican candidates were so close in likeness, I'd say vote for
whoever you wish. But in *this* election, you are either voting for or against
allowing Bush to continue dragging the US down the toilet. He just too frelling
stubborn/stupid/ignorant to realize what he is doing, whereas most of the
Democratic candidates realize just how insane his mix of policies are, and
getting into power and continuing in his path would NOT get them re-elected. So
I seriously doubt any of them would continue on his path of insanity.
> > Unless the Dem candidate is as bad as GWB (I can't imagine them finding
> > someone *that* bad), I will make a *realistic* vote for changing the
> > leadership of this country, and vote Dem.
>
> So far the only candidates left are as bad as GWB IMHO.
I doubt any of them will continue to drag the country further and further into
debt, dragging us into more and more conflicts that we can afford less and less,
paying off his oil buddies with "Hydrogen Fool Cell" programs, etc.
Sure, they'll porkbarrel, like any other politician. But if you think they'll
do at at the level of GWB, you're insane. The guy sticks to his convictions,
sure, but he's got some pretty wacky convictions. Luckily enough people are
starting to realize that. Hopefully enough of them will realize it soon enough.
> > Independents don't have the pull yet. Maybe in the future. But I'm more
> > interested in getting GWB out of office than throwing away the country's
> > near/far future on making a statement.
>
> If I vote for Bush, I get a more fascist government (TSA) - if I vote for
> the Dem candidate, I get a more socialist government. Kind of sucks if
> you're not into authoritarian regimes.
Vote for Bush, and the country goes broke. Vote Dem, and it MAY go broke, but
it's much less likely. And you'll be free to complain, leave, or protest about
it, unlike the way Bush is pushing us (Patriot Act 3, anyone? It's only a
matter of time...).
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is Nader really a threat to Democracy?
|
| "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:40405999.BF54E7...faq.com... (...) truly (...) How many Electoral votes did Nader get? Those are the ones that really matter. I don't think he got "millions of votes". He only got (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is Nader really a threat to Democracy?
|
| "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:403FA430.A8B67C...faq.com... (...) really (...) haven't (...) a (...) vote (...) Yeah, and... ...a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for Bush... ...a vote for the Socialist (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
