Kerry has lost my vote.

ebrown_p: I strongly encourage you to vote for someone else. Given that you live in Massachusetts, there's no chance that your vote will make any difference in the race's final outcome anyway. As such, the only way that you can make your voice heard is if you vote for a third-party or independent candidate. You won't make a difference, but at least you'll make a statement.

0 Replies

I think Nader has some good things to say, but in the circles I travel in (under 30 and college educated), he's no longer taken very seriously.

0 Replies

Nader should be taken seriously, he is a liberal fruit-cake with an agenda, I am a liberal fruit-cake and if I had an agenda I would be dangerous.

0 Replies

Nader is truly the only candidate worth considering. And yet I am voting for Kerry. I am not proud of my decision. I feel like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

0 Replies

I think Nader's day is gone.
I have no compunctions about voting fornJohn Kerry. I think he'll do a good job.

0 Replies

ebrown is correct that no one else is adressing the most inportant problems. The Dems are really saying of Republican plans, "Me too; only not so radically."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Where the 'left' thinks the 'right' wants to take away certain rights, the 'right' is equally concerned that the 'left' will take away more of other rights.

What rights is the "right" concerned about losing?

0 Replies

"John Kerry Must Go" - from The Village Voice
Forgive me if someone else has pointed this out...

And now, from the bastion of the Conservative point of view, The Village Voice:

Quote:

John Kerry Must Go <-link
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Where the 'left' thinks the 'right' wants to take away certain rights, the 'right' is equally concerned that the 'left' will take away more of other rights.

What rights is the "right" concerned about losing?

How about the right to keep most of what you earn and decide how you want to use your own money to help others?

How about the right to arm yourself to protect yourself and your family?

How about the right not only to have faith, but to actually speak about it in public, even if you hold office?

How about the rights normally reserved to the states and to the people?

How about those, for starters. Cool

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Panzade,

My point is that Kerry does not support my point of view. I would be happy to explain my point of view on another thread (or by PM).

I find both targeted killings and suicide attacks to be morally reprehensible. There are many progressive thinkers who agree with me on this. I would find it difficult to vote for a politician who supported either of these actions.

The question I have been asking myself is can I vote for Kerry even though I disagree with his positions -- and in some cases find them offensive.

I could overlook a certain number of things for political reasons (and because I dislike Bush). I would hold my nose entering the voting booth, and wash my hands afterwards.

But, there is a point where I can no longer give a candidate my vote in good conscience.

For me, Kerry has reached that point. There are a number of reasons why, but his statements on the Middle East were the thing that pushed him over the line.

Both George Bush and John Kerry are severely lacking. However, one of these two men will be president. You have a moral obligation to vote for the candidate which you think is best. The only thing that should violate your conscience is foolishly refusing to choose one. Too much hangs in the balance for that indulgence.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Panzade,

My point is that Kerry does not support my point of view. I would be happy to explain my point of view on another thread (or by PM).

I find both targeted killings and suicide attacks to be morally reprehensible. There are many progressive thinkers who agree with me on this. I would find it difficult to vote for a politician who supported either of these actions.

The question I have been asking myself is can I vote for Kerry even though I disagree with his positions -- and in some cases find them offensive.

I could overlook a certain number of things for political reasons (and because I dislike Bush). I would hold my nose entering the voting booth, and wash my hands afterwards.

But, there is a point where I can no longer give a candidate my vote in good conscience.

For me, Kerry has reached that point. There are a number of reasons why, but his statements on the Middle East were the thing that pushed him over the line.

Both George Bush and John Kerry are severely lacking. However, one of these two men will be president. You have a moral obligation to vote for the candidate which you think is best. The only thing that should violate your conscience is foolishly refusing to choose one. Too much hangs in the balance for that indulgence.

0 Replies

ILZ,

If I understand correctly, you are claiming that I have a moral obligation to vote for Bush or Kerry. Can you explain what you are basing this moral obligation on. Why am I morally obligated?

There are two problems with your proposition.

First, your proposition leads to a basic moral contradiction. The US role in the Israel-Palestine conflict is a very important issue to me. I find the policies of both Bush and Kerry to be morally repugnant. If you are right, it forces me to support a candidate who has a position that I find immoral.

Second, if everyone accepts your proposition, it removes all incentive to change the system. The Democrats have no reason to stand for progressive issues if they can take progressive votes for granted-- and this is what they are doing.

I am not "foolishly refusing to choose one". I am thoughfully and deliberately refusing to vote for a candidate who I disagree with in fundamental and important ways.

A vote for Kerry is a vote against the rights of homosexuals to marry and against a just peace process in the Middle East. A vote for Kerry is a vote against real change and a vote for the status quo.

If this is your position then you can vote for Kerry with a clear conscience.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Where the 'left' thinks the 'right' wants to take away certain rights, the 'right' is equally concerned that the 'left' will take away more of other rights.

What rights is the "right" concerned about losing?

How about the right to keep most of what you earn and decide how you want to use your own money to help others?

How about the right to arm yourself to protect yourself and your family?

How about the right not only to have faith, but to actually speak about it in public, even if you hold office?

How about the rights normally reserved to the states and to the people?

How about those, for starters.

That's fine for starters, but you forgot some good ones the "right" is fighting for...

The right to force teachers to teach out-dated biblical myths in science classes.
The right to jail American citizens without access to a lawyer.
The right to keep your neighbors from marrying the person they are in love with.
The right to prevent states from giving all of its citizens equal marriage rights.
The right of the government to spy on American citizens.
The right to destroy the environment, including wetlands and national reserves, for profit.

0 Replies

I have to side with ebrown here. He is not obligated in any sense of the word to vote Republican or Democrat. He is one of the few persons I can point to that stands steadfast on his principles all the time.

0 Replies

I should like to remind au1929 that the makeup of the Supreme Court would be in no danger unless the Republicans held at least 60 seats. The Democrats have been able to hold up all of President Bush's key appointments as long as the Republicans do not get more than 60 votes to stop the filibuster.

0 Replies

It is a fallacy that recognition of practical function of vote constitutes a desertion of principle. It's simply a different criterion.

Practical idealism supercedes naive idealism in my own principles.

0 Replies

This observation is a bit tangential to the subject of this tread. But there is a good deal of evidence from paleoanthropology (the study of fossils) and lower Paleolithic archaeology ( the study of material culture remains) that humans, and the hominid species from which we are descended were not aggressive hunters of big game, but quick witted opportunists, scavengers, and "skimmers"; grabbing what they could and moving on. Quite the reverse from the noble ideal we have imagined for ourselves and our ancestors. But we prospered and expanded with this strategy and now dominate the planet. While those hominid species that stuck to a less flexible but perhaps more admirable survival strategy (peaceful, passive, purveyors of nut and berries who slept in trees) are now gone. The moral of this evolutionary just so story seems to be that flexibility is the key to success. That a willingness to bend principle for an immediate advantage in the long run is a winning strategy. But then, as John Maynard Keynes once said, in the long run we are all dead

0 Replies

As Nader once said, there is verry little to no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Which is why I hold my nose any time I vote Democrat anymore. It's just a matter of degree when discussing which is worse. All too many progressives don't recognize the damage they are doing to themselves when they vote for Democrats.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The right to force teachers to teach out-dated biblical myths in science classes.
The right to jail American citizens without access to a lawyer.
The right to keep your neighbors from marrying the person they are in love with.
The right to prevent states from giving all of its citizens equal marriage rights.
The right of the government to spy on American citizens.
The right to destroy the environment, including wetlands and national reserves, for profit.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

0 Replies

Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right

0 Replies

Kerry has lost my vote.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know