RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
All I know is that he announced that he'd be running as an independent candidate about a month or two back, and that can't be anything but bad for Kerry's chances.Rick Wade said:
I think most have realized from the disaster he caused in the last election that Nader is, at this point, a factor that ought to be ignored since he has no chance of winning anyway.
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
It feels to me like selecting from among lesser evils. I don't like the idea of voting against a candidate, since I really view the vote as a Hale-&-Hearty "FOR" call. And I can't, in good conscience, truly support either candidate.
I wish they would add a "No Confidence" box, that, if enough people were disgusted by both main runners, a majority No Confidence would force them to call the whole thing off, and start over again until some good candidates could be found. Somene to vote for.
In my own skull, the only reason to vote for Bush is because I don't support Kerry; the only reason I would vote for Kerry would be to see Bush not get another 4 years of opportunity for destruction.
Considering the options, I think I'll abstain this round.
D.
I wish they would add a "No Confidence" box, that, if enough people were disgusted by both main runners, a majority No Confidence would force them to call the whole thing off, and start over again until some good candidates could be found. Somene to vote for.
In my own skull, the only reason to vote for Bush is because I don't support Kerry; the only reason I would vote for Kerry would be to see Bush not get another 4 years of opportunity for destruction.
Considering the options, I think I'll abstain this round.
D.
someguy
Master Black Belt
I'd rather vote for Nader or even write in Garfield the Cat than to not vote. voting for a third party would support the losening of the chock hold of a two party system. Still it wouldn't do much but I'd rather do little rather than none. I seriously thinking about a 3rd party canidate.
qizmoduis
Purple Belt
I will be voting for Kerry because he's the best choice. Bush is the absolute worst president this country has ever seen. It'll take us decades to undo the damage he's done in merely 3 years.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I thought about "the lesser of 2 evils" arguement for awhile, and hear is my take.
I don't think that change, positive or negative, will (or should) happen overnight. So, when I vote, I think will this canidate make our country a little bit better, or a little bit worse, or stagnate. If it is worse or stagnate, then I won't vote for that canidate. In 2000, I felt that Gore or Bush would have left us worse or stagnate. I excercised my 3rd party vote and voted for Nader then. It wasn't "throwing my vote away" because the large numbers that voted for Nader pushed the Democratic party to address issues that weren't being addressed before, such as living wage. I am happy about my vote for Nader, even though Bush had gotten elected.
2004 is a vastly different year, however, then 2000. I feel that Bush has done damage to our country. I look at Kerry, and I don't see a perfect canidate, or a perfect person; but I do see someone who will actually make us a bit better then we are today. So, he will have my vote this year.
Now, Nader makes an interesting point. He believes that right now, because of the way we are structured, that it doesn't matter who you are; if you are in one of the 2 dominating parties, then your doomed to fail the american people. This is because he believes that to get elected, you have to appease your party (dem. or rep.), and that the party is run by corporate special interest. It's a no-win situation because even if Kerry has the greatest of intentions, he either appeals to the corporate monster or he is gone. I understand his point, and I somewhat agree. However, since I don't believe that change happens overnight, I believe that large structural problems will take time to fix as well. If we can continue making those few steps for the better with every canidate, then eventually these structural problems can be fixed.
Anyways, on the lesser of 2 evils issue, if one out of the 2 main canidates can make some change for the better, then even if he isn't the perfect canidate, voting for him/her isn't voting for the lesser of 2 evils, in my opinion.
:asian:
I don't think that change, positive or negative, will (or should) happen overnight. So, when I vote, I think will this canidate make our country a little bit better, or a little bit worse, or stagnate. If it is worse or stagnate, then I won't vote for that canidate. In 2000, I felt that Gore or Bush would have left us worse or stagnate. I excercised my 3rd party vote and voted for Nader then. It wasn't "throwing my vote away" because the large numbers that voted for Nader pushed the Democratic party to address issues that weren't being addressed before, such as living wage. I am happy about my vote for Nader, even though Bush had gotten elected.
2004 is a vastly different year, however, then 2000. I feel that Bush has done damage to our country. I look at Kerry, and I don't see a perfect canidate, or a perfect person; but I do see someone who will actually make us a bit better then we are today. So, he will have my vote this year.
Now, Nader makes an interesting point. He believes that right now, because of the way we are structured, that it doesn't matter who you are; if you are in one of the 2 dominating parties, then your doomed to fail the american people. This is because he believes that to get elected, you have to appease your party (dem. or rep.), and that the party is run by corporate special interest. It's a no-win situation because even if Kerry has the greatest of intentions, he either appeals to the corporate monster or he is gone. I understand his point, and I somewhat agree. However, since I don't believe that change happens overnight, I believe that large structural problems will take time to fix as well. If we can continue making those few steps for the better with every canidate, then eventually these structural problems can be fixed.
Anyways, on the lesser of 2 evils issue, if one out of the 2 main canidates can make some change for the better, then even if he isn't the perfect canidate, voting for him/her isn't voting for the lesser of 2 evils, in my opinion.
:asian:
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
Well said, Paul. :asian:
Cruentus
Grandmaster
heretic888 said:
Thanks man!
:asian:
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
DO NOT sit out this election. It may be the most important vote you ever make.
I strongly urge everyone to read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies."
It would help you decide who to vote for.
Clarke is not a liberal or a conservative, just a brilliant mind who served our country in counterterrorism analysis through the past 4 administrations--Republican AND Democratic. He gives a scholarly analysis of the events and motivations that led to our current situation, and most importantly, recommendations on what we could be doing to insure the security of America while promoting democracy abroad. Yet it's a very readable book.
In Clarke's judgement, by taking over Iraq, we played right into Al Qaeda's hands, squandering the opportunities we had to spread democracy and improve our security after 9/11.
I strongly urge everyone to read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies."
It would help you decide who to vote for.
Clarke is not a liberal or a conservative, just a brilliant mind who served our country in counterterrorism analysis through the past 4 administrations--Republican AND Democratic. He gives a scholarly analysis of the events and motivations that led to our current situation, and most importantly, recommendations on what we could be doing to insure the security of America while promoting democracy abroad. Yet it's a very readable book.
In Clarke's judgement, by taking over Iraq, we played right into Al Qaeda's hands, squandering the opportunities we had to spread democracy and improve our security after 9/11.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I agree with Clarke's judgement.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Don't kid yourself, Disco...Dubya was only in govt for 9 years before he became president. Maybe you COULD do the job.Disco said:
