Voting for Nader is a choice.

Remember at the voting booth, that your action has an effect on the outcome whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Attempts to ignore that responsibility with rules like "I say I should vote for someone who matches all my opinions" are arbitrary tactics designed to deflect the feeling of true responsibility for one's actions.

It does not matter what your vote "means" to you, as you have completely made up the meaning; your vote has repercussions regardless of it. What if I decided that what I write on the ballot means that it's my favorite thing to eat for breakfast, and I wrote in "bacon" accordingly?

It is also apparent that the people who have voted this way in the past shirk their responsibility as well. I can imagine that even in this thread people will be asking why I am bringing up Nader, despite the fact that we are still feeling the effect of 2000 votes in the nomination of Supreme Court justices and the Iraq War.

:hide:

:)

:dilemma:

:shrug:

:hide:

not a smart choice, but a choice nonetheless.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nader voters are the same. He took GOP money.

Hillary has taken money from GOP folks, including Rupert Murdoch. Does that mean she is also an asshole? She is even benefiting if you read the New York Post, who can't stop gushing over her and will spin every story to her favor.

And I don't intend to vote for her. Further, I do think that if she runs it will cost us the presidency to another Repugnican serial killer. This country WILL NOT vote for a woman president, however, I realize she is very ambitious and wants to give it a shot regardless of what happens. For her, it's a shot at a new career. For us, the middle class, and the poor of this country, it's life or death. This country is much too uneducated and backward to vote for a woman president. If she gets picked to run for the Dems I know she won't win, I know we'll end up with another Repuke asshole as president, and I know that's when I will buy a one-way ticket out of here because I won't be able to stand living here one more day and watching this country sink deeper into a Republican-designed hell.

At least Edwards is not being supported by the GOP, and refuses to take lobbyist dirty money. I'm planning to vote for him and have signed up with his campaign.

Nader? He's a bottomfeeder. I heard him speak one time that he was being pressed to answer about what outcome his running might have on the middle class and poor if it helped Bush get elected, and he quite nonchalantly said that sometimes you have to do drastic things. So he knew perfectly well what he was doing. He couldn't resist punishing this country.

If Sen. Clinton costs us the presidency, I'll relegate her to the same category as Nader.

-- anonymous

despite the fact that we are still feeling the effect of 2000 votes in the nomination of Supreme Court justices and the Iraq War? :shrug:

TC

:shrug:

But the only things Nader helped us win were the Iraq invasion,
and John Roberts and Sam Alito on the Supreme Court.

Maybe Nader won, but the country lost.

Maar zonder Nader in 2000, was wij niet in deze situatie,
if you get my drift..........

:)

"That too, of course. But without Nader in 2000, we wouldn't be in this situation." (In good Dutch that would be: ", waren wij niet in deze situatie.")

That's true, but I don't believe in blaming people for voting in their best interests. If they believe Nader is better than Gore, then I don't agree with them, but people have a right to vote for the guy who they deem the best to represent them.

I should probably take a course in it, while I'm at it.

As for the interests of the voters in the USA, I submit that
Nader had no one's best interests at heart except his own.
People I know who covered all 3 campaigns said Nader was a stand-
offish guy who was only interested in seeing his name on TV and
in the headlines. Though everyone who voted for him had every right
to do so, if they thought they were voting for someone who represented
them, they were mistaken. Nader represented Nader, and then he hibernated
for four years, left the rest of the country to its misery, and miraculously
arose like the phoenix in 2004 (to little attention) and again now,
hopefully to even less attention. He cares not for the rest of us. He cares for
Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader alone. Turn off the TV cameras and the microphones,
and he's gone.

...interests? Does Hillary or Obama care about the people? Or do they care about seeing their names on tv? Don't all politicians like to get as much publicity as they can get?

You're Dutch is fine, it was a minor slip. You do better than most people. :thumbsup:

And I say this in the narrow context of being in the public eye.

As well-known Senators whose voices and votes in the Senate count,
Hillary and Obama do not have to obsess about whether or not they
are relevant. If Hillary or Obama show up somewhere, there will be
a huge crowd, and if they hold a fundraising campaign, it will be
successful. Nader is now in his mid seventies, and his past contributions,
while vital and appreciated, are indeed in their historical place. What
he did in 2000 has nothing to do with protecting us from e-coli in beef
or from planned obsolescence in GM cars. His main theme that there was
essentially no difference between the platforms of Bush and Gore may
have convinced people to vote for him, but it was a false statement, and
it cost our country dearly. Whatever defects the Gore of eight years ago
may have had, the catastrophe that was Bush would never have happened
if Gore had been allowed to take office. As a kid, I practically grew
up on Capitol Hill, and got to see plenty of political types up close.

So, while all politicians seek (and, indeed need) publicity, those who
seek it purely for the purposes of seeing their name in the headlines
are dangerous spoilers. At home in Texas last year, a popular comic named
"Kinky" Friedman ran for governor. Maybe the Democratic candidate would have
lost anyway, but Friedman got lots of votes and recognition for his career
as an entertainer. He was not looking to really become governor, but the
current governor, Rick Perry, breezed to re-election, and he is a disastrous
nut-case right-wing radical.

As for my Nederlands--I do what I can, never having lived there, or taken
any courses in it. Niet altijd gemakkelijk under those circumstances.

But at that time, I had no knowledge of Bush's (family) history and Gore's accomplishments under the Clinton administration. Basically, Dutch commentators in the media told us there was no real difference between the Democratic and Republican party. I guess because we don't see the Democrats as 'left'; we tend to see elections in the US as choosing between right-wingers and more right-wingers. There are exceptions to this rule, like Kucinich and Gravel.

How did you learn Dutch? Do you have relatives over there?

In Germany and France they were all blatantly for Gore.
As a Texan, I was only too aware of what a disaster Bush
would be nationally, and he only exceeded my expectations.

I spend much of my time stationed in Germany. We also
have an office in the Netherlands. Our people there
speak English and German ('tuurlijk), but as I am responsible for
all of our overseas operations, I feel a responsibility
to learn the languages of countries where we have offices.
As Nederlands is not so different from German, I just asked
our people there to speak slowly in Nederlands to me and help
me along until I needed no more help in both understanding them
and making myself understood. It was never necessary, but it
is always appreciated.

I'm still working on the fine points, as you saw, and never learned
to write it, since I have never had any classes or lived there, but
at least now I'm good enough to not need help unless I'm in Limburg
or some forgotten part of Brabant.

But it's possible I'm wrong and I have instead mixed my own opinions with the media coverage. I wasn't interested in American politics until the debacle in Florida in 2000. Since then, I have been following US politics.. and also since then, everything got worse and worse, with Bush in office.

I'm writing this from a 'forgotten part' in Brabant, but I can understand why someone would have trouble understanding us. But I'm lost in Limburg too, I can't understand anything! ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The action knows nothing of the symbolic meaning you ascribe to it. It only spurs consequences, and those consequences can be nearer or farther from what you intend by the action, but saying that the action means one thing while it does another is arbitrary.

To be represented by a person that reflects your values, that is the basis of democracy.

It is you, sir, who dilutes democracy by being unable to see beyond your own nose.

If you move the steering wheel left, and say you intend to turn right, you are responsible for driving into oncoming traffic no matter what you say you "intend".

I am in Massachusetts, and here, my vote counts for nothing.

In fact, it is DIS-counted because everyone assumes it will go blue.

I am a registered Dem, but... The only leverage I have at all, is to cast my vte in such a way that it shows I disapprove of the Democrat's performance.

Is my picture clearer now.

I would never, ever urge someone in a contested state to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Never. So you see... we don't REALLY disagree that much.

Mostly you piss me off because you are so pushy about it. And because you supported He Who Shall Not be Named (no, not Voldemort)

Are you really sure of that?

You are among the elite of people who actually replied along the lines of the topic of the message.

If the candidate that was elected turns out to be not exactly as expected, you can say, don't blame me, I voted for........ How many repubs are now libertarians?

The simple truth is, you only have a choice between A and B, yeah sometimes C, D and E appear on the menu, but since the vast majority only get A or B, that's your choice. Now, you hate A but B is okay, but not the D you really want. Since only 1 item can be served, what do you do? Do you take a chance and vote for D, and end up with A, or do you take B, which is not what you love, but at least not something you hate.

Until the voting and election process is changed, you will always have a choice between A and B, no matter how many times you vote for D. And like it or not, B is the only vendor who will work with you to get something more to your liking. The vendor for A, is only in it for the money and doesn't care what you want.

It's a strange fact, but you don't always get what you want.

zalinda

nose and vote for a DINO.

not a sounding board for Sheehan or Nader.

I didn't make that very clear in the post, but instead perhaps relied on my reputation as an anti-Nader activist to imply it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

By the way, what have you done in real life to raise awareness of your stand on NAFTA? The National Organization for Women raises awareness about abortion, the Human Rights Campaign raises awareness about gay marriage, the American Civil Liberties Union raises awareness about civil liberties, and unions raise awareness about labor issues. And their strength makes it difficult for the Democrats to ignore them (particularly with regard to abortion). What have you done, outside of complaining to people on the Internet and threatening to tear the Democratic nomination down (along with everyone else's issues), to help along your NAFTA stance?

..is the BEST out of the candidates running for president.

If people would stop harassing or insulting those, who would rather vote for who they think is the best than who happens to be the Democratic nominee ... MORE and more people would join them and vote third party. People aren't voting for Nader or another candidate because they are often bullied into a feeling of guilt, because they are pressured into voting for 'the lesser of two evils'. The phrase 'the lesser of two evils' STILL means that they are BOTH 'evil'. So why vote for 'evil'?

I do realize this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, I hope the Democrats win in 2008, but I'm convinced that a strong third party, or fourth or fifth party would improve the system and would help the ordinary citizen more than 'the lesser of two evils'.

The people who threaten to vote third party are harassing and insulting everybody else to begin with. They are in effect saying that they'll make life miserable on this Earth for everyone if they don't get what they want. That's worse than insults; it's a form of terrorism, really.

I've been very assertive, yes. But I seek to make my point and expose the fallacy of splinterism rather than just annoy people or bring unrelated things into the conflict, or threaten peoples' livelihood and safety as the splinterists do.

I know no such third party supporters. Are you sure you aren't talking about the people who insult others who exercise their right to vote for a third party?

...make life less miserable on this Earth, or more miserable?

:eyes:

Surely you're not serious. If so, where did you get your education in political philosophy?

My vote - My choice. If a candidate wants my vote, he or she will have to work for it.

Don't forget that we don't have a parliamentary system. There are
no coalitions to be formed. As things stand now, it's either or. In
the election of 2008, indeed as it was in 2000, the vote will be divided
between roughly similar numbers of voters voting for the Democratic candidate
and the Republican candidate. As almost all states allocate their electoral
votes on a winner-take-all basis, a tiny third party splitting the vote of
one of the major parties can (and in 2000 DID) throw states to the opposition.

Should we be open to reform, or even a discussion of a parliamentary system?
Maybe, but it is a fact that such a seismic change would require a change in
our Constitution, and that isn't happening before the election of 2008, if ever.

We are faced with the reality that the next president will be the nominee of
the Democrats or the Republicans. We are also faced with the reality that at
least one and conceivably more Supreme Court justices will be nominated by
the next president and confirmed by the Senate. If that president is a
Republican, the laws of our land will be interpreted by an unassailable
majority of the extremist right. NO defeat of ANY Democrat is worth that,
unless you happen to own a large number of abortion clinics in southern
Canada or northern Mexico, and stock in the Remington firearms company.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just as bad a choice as voting for Nader.

Nader dismissed it as "gonadal politics".

And a large part of why I don't want Hillary Clinton nominated.

She's virtually tied with empty suits like Fred Thompson. Given what we've seen of GOP vote suppression, I want a landslide in 2008, not a squeaker.

I'm a man, so I'm just supposed to defer my opinion on the subject. If that's the case, then I have no obligation to factor abortion rights into my decision regarding my vote.

You can't have it both ways.

the two-party system, claiming it has been subverted, say the two-party system is owned by AIPAC?

If the system is believed broken beyond fixing, is the Libertarian, Green, or other Party an excusable choice? What makes the two-party system sacrosanct?

NoFederales

On edit: spelling

the most bills....

I think that more Americans are beginning to give up on the two-party system and want alternatives. Globalization, health and medical care, jobs, retirement, are some things that being removed from ordinary discourse between constituents and elected representatives--hell, can voters even be sure that voting even matters?

Except for Dennis Kucinch, and maybe Edwards, I don't see the other candidates as much different. If they ARE NOT viewed as different, then a Hillary-Rudy election choice is what? W's and L's for the respective two big Parties? w/o substantive benefit for the dissenting and disenfranchised?

I'd rather see more messy democracy at work with extra Party affiliations than continue with dysfunctional two-party blindness. This may be interpreted as running counter to "D"emocraticUnderground as opposed to a democraticunderground, but so be it. I fear for our Republic.

NoFederales

If you want to present the case that there is no difference between the two parties, I suggest you prove it by looking at the votes, rather than making stuff up.

an alternative which is yet to be addressed.

I perceive, then, that you want all third party supporters to concede that any Dem candidate will be justifiably better than any Repub. If this is the case, then let us agree to disagree.

NoFederales

primary than in the general election.

This is because we unfortunately have a winner take all two party system.

1 he's a douchebag, ya we know
2 he's not running
3 you're obsessed with him, we get it. you focus the heat of a thousand suns on his dumb ass

we get it... really

It's up to you whether or not you want to see this. You not only saw my topic in the list, you clicked on the thread. You are responsible for being in this thread. I plan to be excoriating the Nader candidacy up until the election if he runs. If you have a problem with that, it's up to you to do something about it, but you should know I cannot be nagged into stopping because I do not respect nagging. That would be disrespecting myself.

n/t

This has reached a new depth in the "Loyalty Oath" category of post. Twisting the Constitution, nay even the pillars of democracy itself in order to enforce lockstep voting and lockstep thinking. Sir, I must say that I'm truly impressed at your achievement.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

If every American did that we would not be in the shit we are in today.

of how Kerry tried to say he was not voting for war but voting to "go to the UN". Votes have consequences, and it doesn't matter what you think you are voting for.

...it isn't necessarily a bright choice, but it's a choice nonetheless.

Not that I would ever vote for the guy. I don't even like him. If I choose to give him MY vote, though, that's my business and nobody else's.

I'm so sick of people telling me whom I must vote for. I've said before that I will NOT vote for Mrs. Clinton even if she gets the nomination, and I've been blasted for it. Tough shit. It's my vote, and I will cast it for whomever I please. If I'm forced to vote for someone I personally despise, what's the point? I have no more desire to live in a "Democratic" fascist state than a Republican one.