A vote for the green party

[Gatsby]

Okay, there's no need for name calling. No one here is a cry baby. We just have differing opinions in the spirit of debate. Let's keep it nice. Be constructive.

[muttless]

dems are just as descructive as republicans under the influence of big business...which tends to drive political priorities.

neither candidate cares to address the crumbling social foundation of this country, and they never will.

why isn't the left angered by this?

change isn't comfortable nor is it pleasant, but it's inevitable and it has long term effects...

[bwallach]

Sorry but thats my opion . People were looken for a reason to blame someone. Why not blame the party that shouldn't be there in most of your opions. By most of these posts it look as if were on the path to the blame game again.

I know no one wants to bring up chads but it wasen't chads it was diisinfranchizing the voters that got bush into the whitehouse.

really gore won and it had nothing to do with nader.


muttless: you know why ? becasue there to busy fighting between each other and against the other partys to work on the issues at hand.

[muttless]

I am proposing that the dems know exactly what's going on...these candidates are also corporate puppets, and to address any issue that really matters to the people of this country (as it seems Nader's at least willing to discuss) means they'd be booted off the gravy train.

And still my question is, why doesn't that fact infurate more liberals? We say we want democracy, but instead we follow the media, like sheep, in labeling those who might be better leaders as "spoilers."

If Kerry's elected, we may only be getting a better public speaker.

[nycwriters]

Originally posted by muttless
We say we want democracy, but instead we follow the media, like sheep, in labeling those who might be better leaders as "spoilers."

If Kerry's elected, we may only be getting a better public speaker.

First off: Yes, beware the media. Evil bastards those media types.

Second: Kerry's platform is entirely different from the scope of Bush's proposed platform. How can you say it's just a different speaker? Have you been listening to how they've both tackled the issues?

Beware generalizations, they'll foil your argument.

Today's politics is now at a point where most parties adhere to brokerage party politics, and I agree that the gravy train is problematic in getting "true" politics in our elections. However, we gave Jr. four years and he's managed to alienate large portions of the world, where goodwill had been built up previously -- you should check out an article entitled "The Arrogant Empire" ... that will give you insight to what's going on outside the borders of the USA on how this country is viewed now because of his leadership. Heavy footed.

Time to give someone else a chance. While Kerry isn't my choice for leader, it's the lesser of two evils kind of playoff.

As for Nader, he knows he's never going to get elected so he can afford to go out on a limb on issues -- see: brokerage party politics. Throwing his hat into the ring, as I've said in previous posts, only divides the left, making the right strong. He's an ass to even run.

[muttless]

NYC...you're kidding yourself if you think the international community has recently (i.e., since the coronation) labeled the US "heavy footed."

The only thing Jr. is really guilty of is being less discrete than his predecessors.

[masterofNone]

Originally posted by muttless
NYC...you're kidding yourself if you think the international community has recently (i.e., since the coronation) labeled the US "heavy footed."

The only thing Jr. is really guilty of is being less discrete than his predecessors.

oh, I think the international community has wildly differnt reactions to the bush administration than any of his predecessors. I've never seen, in the last 46 years, any administration that so strongly rebuffed the concerns, hopes and fears of the international community. while we've been the lone super power for sometime, it took GWB to figure out how to abuse that status to the derision of, um, pretty much the whole world. it's not that he's less descrete than his predecessors. it's that he's more ham handed, bull headed, and wrong in so many, many ways.





in my humble opinion.

[nycwriters]

Originally posted by muttless
NYC...you're kidding yourself if you think the international community has recently (i.e., since the coronation) labeled the US "heavy footed."

The only thing Jr. is really guilty of is being less discrete than his predecessors.

read. it's long, but it explains.

PS. Welcome back MoN.

[masterofNone]

thanks. good to be back.

[noxxville]

Originally posted by imdrsmooth
Is a wasted vote if you want Bush out of office.

DEBATE!

A thought: Can you really be upset with a third party if, as a presidential candidate, you can't carry your home state? The same state that Clinton/Gore won in 1992 & 1996? The state that, in the 2000 election, Bush won by 80,000 plus votes (Nader brought in 19,781). What if your home state had 11 electoral votes and you only lost the electoral by 5? Do you think that might be part of your problem? 23 of the last 25 election winners took their home state.

Did Nader have an impact on the election? Of course he did. That was the point. Did Nader stop Gore from winning? Not at all. All Gore needed was his home state and everything would have been different.

[nycwriters]

You're absolutely right about Gore with his home state ... but two facts remain: elsewhere he won the poop-ular vote and Nadar was a detractor by dividing the left in the votes.

So the initial question -- a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush (paraphrasing), is essentially right.

[noxxville]

no......because, if he wins his home state, he wins the whole bean.

[nycwriters]

Yeah but what about the popular vote? Doesn't that have any import?

[trisherina]

Not really

[nycwriters]

It was a figurative question(s).