Really, how so? [/b][/quote] Probably something like "The only way to beat Bush is for everyone to vote for Kerry." This type of ignorant crap that makes me want Kerry to lose.
Probably something like "The only way to beat Bush is for everyone to vote for Kerry." This type of ignorant crap that makes me want Kerry to lose. [/b][/quote] I think the reason is because Bush is such a horrible president and doing so many horrible things to our country, everyone agrees that we need to get rid of him. Which is why many people are saying to put your other agenda aside(such as voting for Nader so there is more of a choice in future elections) and vote for Kerry to make sure Bush is out of office. Basically, it's do what is best for now, not 20 years from now. Look at all the damage Bush has caused in just 4 years, we can't let him have another 4. Michael Moore is even doing this. He has said that Nader has all the right stances on the issues(in his opinion) but we need to think about right now which is why he is voting for, and supporting, John Kerry.
I think the reason is because Bush is such a horrible president and doing so many horrible things to our country, everyone agrees that we need to get rid of him. Which is why many people are saying to put your other agenda aside(such as voting for Nader so there is more of a choice in future elections) and vote for Kerry to make sure Bush is out of office. Basically, it's do what is best for now, not 20 years from now. Look at all the damage Bush has caused in just 4 years, we can't let him have another 4. Michael Moore is even doing this. He has said that Nader has all the right stances on the issues(in his opinion) but we need to think about right now which is why he is voting for, and supporting, John Kerry. [/b][/quote] What's to stop Bush from running again in 2008? Sure he can have two terms, but theres no rule against them being not being back to back, right?
I think the reason is because Bush is such a horrible president and doing so many horrible things to our country, everyone agrees that we need to get rid of him. Which is why many people are saying to put your other agenda aside(such as voting for Nader so there is more of a choice in future elections) and vote for Kerry to make sure Bush is out of office. Basically, it's do what is best for now, not 20 years from now. Look at all the damage Bush has caused in just 4 years, we can't let him have another 4. Michael Moore is even doing this. He has said that Nader has all the right stances on the issues(in his opinion) but we need to think about right now which is why he is voting for, and supporting, John Kerry. [/b][/quote] That's one of my grievances with Moore. He supports Nader on the inside, yet has basically shelved all his Democratic criticism just because he hates Bush so much. What you are suggesting is settling. The only wasted vote is for someone you don’t respect. Both Kerry and Bush are hawks, both voted for the Patriot act, both are in favor of NAFTA and the WTO, and both are controlled by the corporate interests who support them. There is in essence not two, but one Republicratic party. Through collusion they have systematically silenced the voices of those who disagree with them. Do you think Kerry go against the corrupt system that got him in? No, of course not, and because of that, there will be no big change. A vote for Nader is a vote for change.
Really, how so? [/b][/quote] It’s quite simple, really. People who vote for Ralph Nader would otherwise vote for John Kerry. Therefore, votes for John Kerry are taken away because they’re being given to Ralph Nader, giving George W. Bush the edge in the polls. Anyway, if I could vote, I’d vote for John Kerry.
It’s quite simple, really. People who vote for Ralph Nader would otherwise vote for John Kerry. Therefore, votes for John Kerry are taken away because they’re being given to Ralph Nader, giving George W. Bush the edge in the polls. Anyway, if I could vote, I’d vote for John Kerry. [/b][/quote] That's only looking at the numbers. I don't view this election as Dem vs. Rep. Like I said in my previous post, the Democratic and Republican parties are indeed very similar, and together have silenced other voices. Again, they are, in essence, one big controlling party. How is that choice? How is that democracy? A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, it's a vote for change. If Kerry gets elected, nothing in that aspect will change. Corporate interests will continue to dominate the two "big" candidates, and our government on a whole. The lesser of the two evils is still evil, and in my opinion, Nader is a better option. I would be wasting a vote if I didn't vote for who I thought was the best candidate. I would be wasting a vote if I conformed and voted for a candidate I didn't respect. I, as a Nader supporter, would be wasting a vote if I voted for John Kerry.
That's only looking at the numbers. I don't view this election as Dem vs. Rep. Like I said in my previous post, the Democratic and Republican parties are indeed very similar, and together have silenced other voices. Again, they are, in essence, one big controlling party. How is that choice? How is that democracy? A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, it's a vote for change. If Kerry gets elected, nothing in that aspect will change. Corporate interests will continue to dominate the two "big" candidates, and our government on a whole. The lesser of the two evils is still evil, and in my opinion, Nader is a better option. I would be wasting a vote if I didn't vote for who I thought was the best candidate. I would be wasting a vote if I conformed and voted for a candidate I didn't respect. I, as a Nader supporter, would be wasting a vote if I voted for John Kerry. [/b][/quote] um, yeah, a vote for Nader is indeed a wasted vote and a vote for Bush. Nader will not win, he knows that, everyone else knows that. He doesn't have a snowman's chance in hell and he's not going to be like the Red Sox and come back to win. In an election this close, voting for anyone besides Kerry is a vote for Bush.
No, I got the point, and I too, know what you're saying. Even before I proposed the question to Katethegreat, I knew what she (or anyone else) was going to say: Nader is splitting the liberal vote, thus giving the edge statistically to Bush. However, I was just trying to trying to show that some people see Bush and Kerry as almost on the same team, and that either way at the end of this year, a corporate puppet will be elected. If that's your view, then voting for Nader is not a vote for Bush.
Well, I'll be the first to say, that you're the first person I've ever heard call Kerry a corporate puppet. It's not like he's going to use ketchup to become the President.
Well, it's not completely correct to think that Bush is controlled by corporate influences (Halliburton, Enron) and Kerry is not. In this aspect, like I said, they are the same. Kerry has been tied to Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and people have made a case of indirect ties to Raytheon, the fourth largest weapons maker in the U.S., Loral, and Lockheed-Martin.
arnold , oh wait I''l be serieos idd not bush he maked a lot of stupid decisions , then to that other guy kerry
Yes, those are his campaign contributors. But I doubt he's going to be a slave to them like Bush was. He's announced that publicly. It's probably why many corporations are shying away from Kerry.
I guess time will tell if he's elected this fall. All I was stating was, people, such as I, with that view certainly don't deem a vote for Nader a vote for Bush.
A vote for Nader can be interpreted as three things; a vote away from Bush, a vote away from Kerry, and a vote for the best political party not to have a fighting chance in this election. But Bush must leave.
Nulled my vote. If I were allowed to vote, I still wouldnt vote. This whole Kerry vs Bush thing is a complete bull. They both lie, etc and then there's this other guy Nader running and I havent heard much about or from him. Proud to be Canadian.
Bush wanted to go after Saddam because he had connections to Al Qaeda when had more connections to Al Qaeda than Saddam. He's been in an oil company with the Saudi Royal family and the Bin Ladens for years and years. He even gave one of the leaders of the Taliban a tour of U.S. federal buildings in mid- August 2001. We need this "president" out.
It's just like the Gore and Bush election. People wasted their votes on the independent party which allowed Bush to win.
Heaven forbid that a politician lies. I don't think the world would be running properly if a politician always told the truth.
Nader, hands down. I mean, the more support he gets, the more influence/exposure he has to make his ideas known and heard. 1) Once Bush is gone, another corporate-controlled idiot is going to take his place, its not going to stop. 2) I have been saying this for a long time (as well as Link04), Kerry is not much better than Bush...better, but still he supports most of the same things as Bush has, including pre-emptive assaults on foreign nations....even if he said he doesn't want to alienate other countries, its still wrong.