I don't make enough money to vote for Nader

I can't live with another 4 years of this Bush. Some of us don't have the luxury of New Age self-discovery by voting for Leftist fringe candidates. We have to live with the consequences.

There is a reason why Nader polled poorly among women, non-whites and the working classes. They all knew that they would be the ones to suffer the most in a Bush Administration. They understood the consequences.

Most of the Nader voters I knew in 2000 were either hopelessly idealistic 18-21 year olds who had never really lived in the real world. The others were always well-to-do, upper crust people. Tenured professors, who never have to worry about unemployment; young people with big trust funds waiting for them. Indeed, these folks got nice taxcuts over the last 3 years. It's not like they are living with the consequences of the Bush Administration. It's not like they or their kids are in Iraq right now, nor would they be at risk if the draft comes back next year.

Voting for Nader or the Greens is a luxury I just can't afford. I can't exercise such an act of "voting my conscience" because I and millions of others will have to live with the consequences.

good to know

but I voted for Nader last time. Despite not being a Gore fan and that he didn't run much of a campaign, I NEVER thought $hrub could win. (And technically he did not) So it seemed like a rather safe election to cast that vote of dissent.

I'm voting Dem this time not because I am the least bit excited about the front running candidates, but for practical purposes. I hate the $hrub. He's killing off our country and our world at an unprecedented rate.

However, if a dem gets into the Oval OFfice I fully expect some major election reform to take place (as is listed on my website.) If it doesn't happen, then my vote is back up for grabs in '08.

You have nailed the essence of Nader voters and the Green party. This is why I call Greens the enemy. Many Greenies have never felt any remorse for the possibly irreparable unthinkable harm they have done to working people all across the county. To be fair, I believe most Nader voters have a lot of guilt about what they caused in 2000 and will not vote to put Bush in office again. They are good people and were dangerously misled.

But for the real Greens including Dean supporters that have publicly proclaimed their vote is not transferable and intend to vote third party if Dean is not the nominee, they are the enemy.

I have no more use for Greens than I do a puke. They are one and the same, the enemy.

but hey, you hate all whoever you want...I'm sure it will help

This place is about electing Democrats. You look painfully out of place.

I thought liberality was about more than sheeplike fear.

OnEdit: Not so much fear, as lack of conviction.

This one has me scratching my head. NAFTA and GATT were both passed by the Clinton administration with the enthusiastic support of Al Gore.

If Gore was president we'd still be shipping manufacturing jobs to China and tech jobs to India.

They get to retain their elitist, radical left political philosophy, knowing full well that they are really supporting the status quo. They really kinda like the way things are, but a Nader vote gives them an out to say "I'm for real change".

Luckily, quite a few have woken up since 2000 and understand that they cannot afford to make the same mistake this time.

so we can put the issue of spolied elections behind us already. :)

Do you think that the democratic party is any good? If you voted for Clinton, you are in part responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians by sanctions, as well as a very large number in Cuba too. You are responsible for the pain brought upon the working class by NAFTA. You are responsible for US support of reactionary paramillitaries in South America. You are responsible for the support of right wing dictatorships, such as those in Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. The blood is on your hands. The democratic party is a bunch of pigs who are a little more subtle about being pricks than the republicans. I have no more use for a democrat than I do for a republican, and therefore puke. The current system, and all those who gladly participate in and support it are my enemy.

I will not vote for my enemy. Can you tell me why I should? The democratic party WILL either merge with the republicans, are be crushed and fall into obscurity. It's just a matter of how long, and who will replace them.

Maybe you can use the money for some other exercise in New Age "self-discovery", like maybe backpacking through Europe and staying in hostels along the way :eyes:

The rest of us have to live in the real world where most people do not partake in your far-Left utopia.

...and you can live in you imaginary world pretending that your vote makes a difference, and that the democrats are God. The truth is, in this country the minority, no matter how large, is a slave to the majority. The democrats and republicans both have the same goals, that being a corporate police state; the republicans just take the Orwellian approach, and admit their hypocrisy until nobody sees that it exists anymore.

A vote for a democrat will be one added to millions of others. It will be seen as encouragement to move farther to the right. A vote for the green party shows the major parties that they are losing potential voters, and enourages them to move farther to the left.

I'd like to pose a hypothetical question. If Hitler and Stalin were the two major candidates, would you still try to find the lesser of the two evils, and encourage them, or would you finally vote a third party? That's kinda the direction we're heading in.

That being said, Tweedledum in '04.

The fact that you would compare a Bush-Kerry (or other Democrat) race to a Hitler-Stallin race shows just how out of touch you are with the real world. That's a lovely analogy for a Howard Zinn reader, or a gradaute seminar on the works of Noam Chomsky, or poetry night at the local independently owned coffee house, but now back to the real world:

Bush opposes abortion rights. All the Democratic candidates support it.

Bush took us into war with Iraq. Gore would not have done so. John Kerry would have allowed the inspections to work, revealing no weapons, and there would have been no war.

Bush is screwing workers by opposing a minimum wage increase, instituting new overtime rules and abolishing ergonomic standards. None of the Dem. candidates would have done so.

Bush opposes civil rights for gays. All Democratic candidates support marriages or civil unions.

Bush gave big tax giveaways to the wealthy. All Democratic candidates will repeal them.

That's all I have time for for now, but by all means if you want more examples just ask and I'll provide them. BRING IT ON!

Bush opposes civil rights for gays. All Democratic candidates support marriages or civil unions.

Blatant, unequivocal lie or misstatement.

Bush gave big tax giveaways to the wealthy. All Democratic candidates will repeal them.

Democrats helped pass the tax cuts, and none of them outside of Dean said they would all be rolled back. Dean was attacked mercilessly for saying that. Were you here for that?

Bush opposes abortion rights. All the Democratic candidates support it.

Oooo...litmus issue?

Bush took us into war with Iraq. Gore would not have done so. John Kerry would have allowed the inspections to work, revealing no weapons, and there would have been no war.

You hope that all that is true, but you really don't have any idea.

"Bush opposes civil rights for gays. All Democratic candidates support marriages or civil unions."

Blatant, unequivocal lie or misstatement.

Dean:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_lgbt

As governor of Vermont, I have demonstrated my leadership in this area by signing the first law in the country granting same-gender couples the right to enter into civil unions.

Kerry:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

Clark:

http://www.clark04.com/glbt/

The right wing says that the LGBT community wants special rights. But that is not true. Gay Americans want the same rights that all Americans enjoy Ð rights to form personal, legal relationships that confer benefits and obligations. It is high time for the LGBT community to enjoy these rights as well.

Edwards:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/civil-rights.asp

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=370

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

Edwards has sponsored legislation to strengthen America's anti-discrimination laws including the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would bar workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"As I have long said, I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision.

Q: President Bush said in the State of the Union address that the Defense of Marriage Act is not strong enough to protect the institution of marriage. Would you have voted against it in 1996?

Yes, because what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues. Massachusetts has just made a decision that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states.


Kucinich:

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

Today, Congressman Kucinich proudly endorses a comprehensive non-discrimination policy, including non-discrimination based on gender identity. His overriding philosophy is that same sex couples and opposite sex couples should be equal in the eyes of the law, including in marriage. All benefits and legal entitlements available to heterosexual couples should be available to homosexual couples.

Sharpton:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Al_Sharpton_Civil_Rights.htm

"Are we prepared to say gays and lesbians are less than human? If we're not prepared to say that, then how do we say that they should not have the same rights and human choices of anyone else?"

"Bush opposes civil rights for gays. All Democratic candidates support marriages or civil unions."

Bush opposes civil rights? Easily torn down.

"All Democratic candidates..." Kucinich and Sharpton (no chance in any hell of winning anything) have called for the legalization of gay marriage. No other Democrat has. "Civil unions" are a cop-out.

"Civil unions" are a cop-out.

That would be news to Howard Dean (who evidently is still insufficiently leftist for you), who risked his political career to enact civil unions into law in Vermont. He received death threats from all around the nation; county clerks resigned en mass rather than administer the program; Democrats lost many seats in the legislature, and Dean was only narrowly re-elected. Nor has he apologized for or muddled his stance on the issue.

Kerry was one of only 16 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage act in 1996, the same year he was up for re-election against a tough opponent.

the way out for Democrats who cant stand up for anything

This is from an article written by our own William Rivers Pitt, who now works for Dennis Kucinich.

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for...The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake." History defends this explanation.

more

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1210b.html

he's horribly inconsistent

That doesn't suggest the assertion you made in your aboove post. Kerry could have just as easily initiated a war against Saddam Hussein. He might have even have cut-off the UN if they didn't step and fetchit in time.

I claimed the following "Bush gave big tax giveaways to the wealthy. All Democratic candidates will repeal them."

You said, Democrats helped pass the tax cuts, and none of them outside of Dean said they would all be rolled back. Dean was attacked mercilessly for saying that. Were you here for that?

To clarify, I think my statement clearly shows that all candidates favor lowering the tax cuts for the wealthy. You responded that "Democrats helped pass the tax cuts", and indeed, some did, but none of them are presidential candidates, which is what my statement concerns. The reason Dean was attacked "mercilessly" for his position was because it is an indefensible position in November. Walter Mondale tried it, and last time I checked, it did not work out so well (though he almost carried a 2nd state). If you think the Democrats were hard on him, you have no idea what kind of demagoguery Karl Rove's stormtroopers would have used. Calling for the repeal of just the tax breaks for the wealthy (including Nader voters in Beverly Hills) allows us to have the kind of debate about taxes that we should have, and that we can win.

Nor is your statement factually correct. Dean was not the "only" candidate to call for total repeal. The candidates positions:

Sharpton:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Al_Sharpton_Tax_Reform.htm

I would repeal all of President Bush's tax cuts. They are the major reason we have gone from a projected 10-year $5.6 trillion surplus to a projected $2.4 trillion deficit in two years under Bush. I would invest the savings in job-creating programs such as education, health care and housing to stimulate the economy from the bottom up.

Source: Interview with TheState.com May 2, 2003

Kucinich:

http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm#Tax_Reform

Q: To repeal the Bush tax cuts, is that a tax hike on those who've seen a reduction?

KUCINICH: No, actually the tax cuts that go to people in the top brackets ought to be repealed and ought to be put into a fund to provide for universal college education, free tuition for the 12 million American students who are currently attending public colleges and universities.

Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003

You have stipulated to Dean's position.

Kerry:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

John Kerry has the courage to take on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However, he believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003. Specifically, he wants to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts because it would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2,000. These families are often already struggling with higher health care costs and higher state and local taxes. In fact, John Kerry wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class with new tax credits on health care and college tuition. These tax cuts are part of his plan to restore the economy and cut the budget deficit in half in four years.

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.

HR 2 May 23, 2003
HR 1836 may 23, 2001

Clark:

http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

The Families First Tax Reform will shift the tax burden from those who are struggling to get by to those with the most to spare. The entire proposal is offset by closing corporate loopholes and by a 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million a year. The rate increase will only reach the income-over $1 million-of the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.

Edwards:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Tax_Reform.htm

Q: Will you work to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

I voted against the Bush tax cuts. I believe we should repeal the tax cuts for those that earn over $200,000 a year, and close a group of corporate tax loop holes. I would not raise taxes on middle class working families because I believe they are the engine of our economy and it would be a mistake and would inhibit long-term economic growth.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 7, 2003

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.

HR 2 May 23, 2003
HR 1836 may 23, 2001

none of this "data" changes anything I said

You have staked out your position and I have staked out mine. But don't come complaining to the folks here after your Green votes swing another election to Bush. Don't express shock and dismay when you realize on November 2nd that most Americans do not share your Marxist/postmodernist view of the world. Don't come complaining to the folks here when the draft is reinstituted, the deficit hits 1 trillion, the ranks of the uninsured hits 50 million, new wars are started in N. Korea, Syria and Iran, abortion is outlawed, gays are thrown into concentration camps, school prayer is made mandatory and martial law is declared. I'll be there to say I TOLD YOU SO (4 words that I love saying to people).

when Bush wins in Novemeber

It's not like Green voters ever have to live with the consequences of Republican presidencies like the rest of us do.

you're a lot richer than a whole SHITLOAD of other people, so shove that

I make less money than you ever have...I will get no tax cut

and ONCE AGAIN it was the Democrats that enabled Bush's tax-cuts

The righteous indignation of the Bush-serving coalition breakers will make me nauseous. They have every right to ignore reality and vote whichever way they please. The fascists have every right to remain united and stay in power.

be careful about expressing any pro Nader or even kucinich(at this stage of the game) feelings about DU, admins tend to edit/remove/close discusions regarding such implications to inhibit any such progession down that path,the Anyone-but-Bush mentality is a disease not easily cured.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

... and let the chips fall where they may. I voted for Nader last election and haven't regretted it a day. What others think of how I vote is irrelevant.

Most of your posts would suggest otherwise.

>I voted for Nader last election ....

Reprinted for your convenience. :)

that's all :hi:

:wow:

college the one who "decides" the president, there is no way the Democrats or republicans will let a third party in. A vote Nader would have been a vote for Bush. Let's face it, there aren't too many people in Washington who are working "for the people". Most are working for big corporations and the money they bring in. With only 36% of the eligible voters even bothering to get out and vote, let alone understand the issues - there is not much that will change.

Your Avatar says it all.

Would be to start from the bottom and work your way up, not from the top down with Nader. The Religious Reich we all know and love could never have gotten Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed elected... instead, they worked from the bottom up - electing Reich candidates to local town councils, school boards, etc and worming their way up from there. Now, they have effective control of the Republican Party and have Rick Santorum in the Senate and * in the White House.

By running a national candidate ( as well as the local and state level ones you suggest) the Greens get a chance for matching federal funding and publicity.

If you subscribe to the stupidity that a candidate who got 2.75% of the nationwide vote actually affected the results of that stolen election then so be it, live with your own illusions.

If you understand that Gore ran a shitty campaign, never challenged Bush , never showed a backbone,never won his own damn state, if you understand that Jeb stole Florida for his brother while the democrats all played 'blind man describes the elephant', while they acted like the Our Gang crew making a movie about running for president, then perhaps you are intelligent enough to vote Green next time.

If you are sick and tired of some people's self righteous bullshit about a fine public spirited citizen, Ralph Nader, a man who could have had a great job as a junior partner in any number of prestigious law firms right out of college but chose to work for all americans instead, if you are sick of the lack of a spine of the democrats, sick of their collusions with the GOP in voting for so many Bush policies, if you understand that there are no longer two distinct political parties in America , then perhaps you might vote Green next time.

If you cannot see your way to voting Green thats fine, as long as you work to make your party a better one and refuse to accept the endless propaganda from the right wing of that party that seems to dominate this forum more and more.

I can't afford to vote for Nader either....as one of my astute friends once said in college

"You have to be rich to be a hippie..."

plants went away because of nafta I grew up in the rio grande valley in texas alot of small farmers got hurt by big agribusiness which the dems enabled and i am saying this to you as a bi (read dems still dont think i should have equal rights)whose father is in iraq becuase of bush enablers lower middle class latina

See his speech in SF on Sept. 22, 2002. Had he been president, this war would not have happened.

The IWR vote was a symbolic display. Bush is the Commander in Chief and was very public about the fact that he felt he did not need congressional authorization to go to war.