Kerry has lost my vote.

LOL!!! John Kerry is widely regarded as the most liberal Congress-critter in the nation, even farther to the left than Ted Kennedy.


YES!!!


(click the pic)

Tried, Image couldent get the page?
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Justyify it any way you want to but at least admit to the truth instead of lieing to yourselves. Nader hasent a legeslative base in washington. He will be four years of nothing happening to correct all the mistakes government has made in the last 20 years. But by all means assuage your consience by saying a vote for Nader isent a vote for Bush. Bushes government has lied its A-s off from the first day they took office but ignore that because some of you accept the lies of the republicans. Who do you think hired the CIA operatives that are in Iraq "questioning" the prisoners. Cheneys Halburtion hired most of them and the army kids who were ordered by the CIA to commit the atrosities will take the fall because the civilians that Cheney and Bush hired arnt part of the army. They are above the law. But the army kids had to obey the civilians because the Generals told them too. So vote for Nader and be sure of 4 more years of Bush and Cheneys lieing and the burtchering of our 18 year and 20 year olds to bolster Bushes vision of Gods word as told to him by God.

I am tired of this ridiculous cliche. I don't know if I have to go over the math for you, but it makes no sense at all.

For the mathematically challenged consider who would win if in a state 3 million people voted Kerry, 2.8 million voted for Bush and 500,000 voted for Nader.

Now compare this with the results if the Nader voters just went and voted for Bush since Rabel said is was the same thing.

Clearly a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.

This is just desparate propaganda from a Democratic party with no real message.

I also still find it interesting that no one here has had anything good to say about Kerry. except for Bush.

As I said before I will not vote for Kerry. This has nothing to do with either Bush or Nader. I find it very sad that even Kerry's supporters can make a good argument for his candidacy.

My point of this thread was that I will not vote for Kerry because he doesn't represent my positions. A Nader vote seems infinitely better than the only other option available to me, which is to stay home on election day.

Kerry has a sqare jaw. Clearly, his is a face destined to be carved in granite...or sandstone, carvers being wimps these days.

ebrown

I hope you know I grant both you and edgar the intelligence and integrity to cast votes without my assistance. Particularly given that I'm Canadian.

And I wish upon the US a future multi-party slate too. And I am pissed at Clinton for helping his party ease rightward, thus to some degree abandoning a set of values and constituents with which/whom I personally identify.

But I, from this vantage point in the land of ice and snow, think another term for Bush (with increasing consolditation of power through redistricting, court appointments, media control, ties with industry, etc...thus with the posibility of even further extended political dominance past four years more) to be so antipathetical to the REAL achievement of the goals and values we and Nader share, that Nader ought not to run, now. It's the wrong time...it's the worst possible time.

But that's all I wished to say on the matter. Further than that is me just beating my gums.

Go forth and citizenize as you see fit. I'd respect you even if you were a republican.

If the Democrats were pushing a Democrat agenda it would be so much simpler.

Since I am from Houston, it doesn't really matter who I vote for. The Bush votes will bury mine.

Amen.

If it makes you feel any better Edgar, the Dems in NY will bury mine...

I agree with blatham's last post on every sentence, including that I respect you all and your thought-out votes.

The "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" slogan wasn't intended to be taken literally. The fact is that Nader is generally seen as being far to Kerry's left, and thus, most of the people who vote for Nader would vote liberal if Nader was not on the ballot.

In an election year when the race is so close, those few lost percentage points will almost certainly be enough to cost Kerry the presidency. So, in that sense, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

This is hardly a revelation, and I'm afraid that no amount of vague mathamatical ramblings is going to change this fact.

As I've said to you before, for better or worse, this is a two horse race between Bush and Kerry - one of these two men will be president. Thus, the question is not which candidate represents your views - it is is which candidate comes closest to representing your views; which of the two is bettter.

If you feel one of the two candidates has even a slight edge over the other, you have an obligation to vote for him, IMO. Anything else is putting naive and self-righteous principles above reality - and that is stupid no matter what side of the political spectrum you are from.

It is a sad situation, I'm sure we all agree, but it is what it is.

Does anyone remember the last election. Nader took enough votes to enable Bush to take the "electorial collage". Therefore a vote for Nader who hasent a snowballs chance in he-l of winning. You think the republicans arnt pushing the Nader vote as hard as they can. Think again. And I too am getting tired of this garbage of voting your conscience. Anyone with a real conscience would be doinging everything in thier power to get rid of this government. If Bush is reelected with a republican congress we will have a draft so fast it will make your head spin. Than we can go after the palistianians. Iran, and anyone else Bushes God has told him is evil. If we want to defeat evil lets try destroying it at home first starting with the CIA. Vote however you want but dont try to tell me your voting your conscience.

Once again, for the zillionth time: Gore lost an election he should have won in a landslide. He had his and Clinton's record to run on and was against the most witless, without a clue candidate I have ever seen. And the best he could do was an even split of the vote. Better take a closer look at Gore. Anyone who blames Nader is just looking for a scapegoat.

How does Gore's supposed ineptness change the fact that the democrats almost certainly would have won if not for Nader. It doesn't. And that is the point.

EBrown
I am still learning about Kerry. He isent even the candidate officially yet. Am I 100% for him? How do I know. It isent time to vote yet. Your having made up your mind before the election isent anything I consider reasonable. I have read your posts and I consider you an intelligent man. But where Kerry is concerned I think you have a klinker in your thinker. Certianly Bushes orgainzation must be afriad of him because they have brought some of Nixons crooked friends out of the woodwork to attack him over vietnaum. Have you noticed that none of Bushes Bunch have anything to say about Vietnaum. Could it be the fact they were all too chicken to go themselves makes them nervous about attacking him so they give the job to crooked Nixon mouthpieces.

Edgar,
Pay attention to you sig line

I wrote my sig line. I am proud of that bit of original writing. But, ebrown has it right. Vote the issues and candidates for the truth, no matter what. Let the chips fall where they may.

Edgar,

One of two men will be the next president. The choice is not between Pol Pot and George Bush. It is between John Kerry and George Bush. One of those men will be in office, and it will be a close decision. If you have any preference, you're retarded for not voting one way or the other. Simply put. If you have any preference--any at all--then you are stupid for not pushing that agenda every way you can, and that includes electorally.

Duh. Wud yew mine repeating that, iron, please ma'm. I think yew might uv typed to fast becuz it were hard fore me to follow.

Out of all the responses you could have given, this was probably the worst. I'm not trying to beat up on you in particular, Edgar.

But if people are going to throw away thier vote in the name of some pseudo-philosophical pursuit of ideological purity, I'd ask them to please step aside, as they are standing in the way of a slightly better nation.

Principle is great. Amazing. But you and e-brown are evaluating your principles in a vaccum. Your principles are effectively saying that Bush in office has no greater effect on the world than Kerry in office, and that is shortsighted, selfish, and a complete undermining of the root of the very principles you're espousing.

It's silly.

*leaves to write rant, start thread*