That's the way I've been voting and I'm not doin' it anymore. It's not good enough for me that a candidate will say anything to get elected and then turn out to be a slight modification of Bush.
bush
PLEASE reconsider!!! The danger is not just Bush; it's the whole Neocom, unilateralist pre-emptive, oil hungry, hawkish, absolutist, fundamentalist, militarist threat to America and the world. Very frankly, while I'm afraid of the terrorist movement in the world, I'm also seriously afraid of the threat to the world (and our relations with it) by the Bush gang and the threat to American political culture by the Ashcroft forces.
I'm with you, JL. We HAVE to vote...otherwise, we concede the country to Bush, and I can't live with that.
i have to admit its a quandry for me but at this point i would vote for Mr Greenjeans over Bush (keeping in mind i am a Green)
JL is on the money.
From the outside looking in the neocons ARE the terrorists.
Hi, Gozmo. Welcome!
No. I don't think there's a wall dividing the Dems and the Reps when it comes to corruption, I really don't. Maybe a 3' fence, but too many Dems have been leaping agilely over that fence lately for me to commit to any leader who hasn't indicated that he's armed for bear. I'd go green. I tried to last time by switching votes with an Oregonian, but that got ditched at the last minute and I voted for Gore.
dys or innybody--
Consider a Green thread. I get driplets of info, but would enjoy a place to discuss Green platform, adopted policy, electables... I would start one, but you guys know alot more than I do ...
votes
Sofia, if we've learned anything from the last presidential election, we've learned--or should have learned--that a vote for the really good guys (i.e., the green party) is a vote for Bush. I'd really love to vote green, but that's a luxury that we cannot afford in 2004. P-l-E-A-S-E.
I know how a Green vote translates, though you have a couple here, who disagree...
That doesn't preclude us from discussing the party.
You need a candidate who has the ability to expose Bush and the neocon agenda. Believe it or not there are millions who haven't heard, listened or understood. The Bush presidency has been effective from the neocon point of view, they know his prejudices and the buttons to push. So how good must the DEM candidate be. Appealing and good intentioned that is all. I know it's cynical but winning the office is what matters, then you tickle the prejudices and you have access to the buttons.
It seems to me that if voting green hands the presidency to the likes of Bush/Cheney, it is foolish behaviour. Surely there are better places to show your green values. I will be be voting green in our next state election but no way will I chase rainbows in a Federal Election.
Now that the Democratic contenders are staring to make an appearance, I decided to start a thread about what you would want to see as the Democratic platform? Here is the link:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7202
link
Good idea for a link, Diane. I must leave again til Friday. Look it up then.
This link may have been posted on another thread, I don't know. I'm just trying to catch up. But here it is. I think it appropriate for this thread as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/weekinreview/04ATLA.html
Sheldon Wolin, distinguished professor emeritus at Princeton, surprises me by echoing what those who are believed to be conspiracy theorists think Bush is up to. In an article called "Inverted Totalitarianism" he writes:
Quote:
[...] We may have invaded Iraq to bring in democracy and bring down a totalitarian regime, but in the process our own system may be moving closer to the latter and further weakening the former. The change has been intimated by the sudden popularity of two political terms rarely applied earlier to the American political system. "Empire" and "superpower" both suggest that a new system of power concentrated and expansive, has come into existence and supplanted the old terms.
[...] The increasing power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The party system is a notorious example. The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon in American history of a fervently doctrinal party, zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority.
[...] As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology. In ceasing to be a genuine opposition party the Democrats have smoothed the road to power of a party more than eager to use it to promote empire abroad and corporate power at home. Bear in mind that a ruthless, ideologically driven party with a mass base was a crucial element in all of the twentieth-century regimes seeking total power. Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security.
[...] No doubt these remarks will be dismissed by some as alarmist, but I want to go further and name the emergent political system "inverted totalitarianism." By inverted I mean that while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the "streets" were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive--while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.
[...] What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030519&s=wolin
"A great lie has been told. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq never posed any threat. Inspections worked. The fact is that the United Nations disarmed Iraq. The war was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He lied to send us to war. His lie caused the death of over 130 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis. He is a murderer."
-- Scott Ritter, former Marine, current weapons inspector
You mean Scott Ritter the pedophile? Scott Ritter who accepted Iraqi donations for a film he was doing about Iraq when he was supposed to be inspecting?
ROTFL!
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixnewstop.html