Is that the fairyland version of the Kantian imperative?
Don’t you DARE presume to tell me who I should vote for and why.
Fucker.
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, one week, three days, 3 hours, 50 minutes and 42 seconds.
7726 cigarettes not smoked, saving $965.80.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 50 minutes.
I slept with a moderator!*
I am voting for Nader too. If we somehow mix the best qualities of Gore and Bush, that will be the better man. But as it is, I want my vote to sanction Nader to be the official national gadfly.
What Satan said, though I wouldn’t have been ballsy enough to put it that way. Am I to understand that Al Gore should get my vote not as a vote for Al Gore, but as a vote against George W.? Well, to hell with that. Nader gets my vote because he’s the candidate who most closely represents my beliefs. If George W. wins, I think I’ll blame the people who put him in office by voting for Gore because they were too chickenshit to vote for Nader.
Or better yet, blame the people who voted for Bush…
Well, yeah, that was kinda the point of my post, which was criticizing the “voting for Nader is voting for Bush” mentality.
I just want to BEG the Nader voters:
PLEASE VOTE FOR GORE!!! I do not exaggerate when I say that I will sink into a deep depression if Bush is elected. I am continually AMAZED that anyone could even CONSIDER voting for that man. And horrified.
I just pray that come election day, people will look at the ballot, realize how utterly nuts it is to even think of Bush as prez, and choose Gore. Or at the very least, that he wins electorally. (Which it looks like he could do)
Please god… 4 years of looking at Bush’s smarmy, smug, nasty little face with nothing but self-interest and stupidity behind it and I might shoot myself.
If not for this reality, I would be happy to vote for Nader.
Man, can you just feel the national unity in this thread?
“If so-and-so wins, I’ll kill myself!”
“Well, if such-and-such wins, I’ll kill you!!”
“Well, if so-and-so wins, I’ll leave the country!”
“Yeah, well… blah blah blah…”
I find it amusing when people paint one candidate as the toy of Lucifer while painting the other as a saint, especially with this election. News flash (cough, Stoid, cough)… NEITHER candidate is that great. And NEITHER candidate is as horrible as the other side would want you to believe.
After all, with these two goofballs, the only way they can win is to put their opponent in as bad a light as possible.
I never saw anyone paint Gore as a “saint” in this thread (or anywhere else at any time for that matter, except maybe the Dem convention).
Of course neither candidate is much of a prize and we could do better as a nation. But it seems clear to me as a thinking person that one candidate is much worse than the other and can do a hell of a lot of damage in several crucial areas … areas that we might assume the other candidate would leave alone or even improve. The Court is the most important of these. Look at the idiot Bush’s pop rammed in there, he’s Scalia’s yes-man and votes on the extreme right of most every issue.
So I agree with Stoidela - dyed-in-the-wool Nader voters (who allegedly amount to some 4-5% of the vote) need to look closely at the stats before going into the booth. Should Nader get a whopping 4% and Gore loses by 3%, you’ll feel pretty while Bush simpers and smirks from the inaugural stand. (Oh, you won’t? We’ll see; denial is not a river in Egypt.)
I knew it was a joke. Why would an egomaniac like Nader bail now? Perhaps in our founding fathers day real “statesmen” ran for office, none of these guys have any seriously altruistic motives for running these days, Nader and Brown included. There may have been a time when Nader was serious about his convictions, but he’s made a pretty lively living and become quite famous doing what he does. Cynical I know, but my theory is that by the time your head gets big enough to actually think you have the where-with-all to represent one of the most powerful nations on earth, you must be on some kind of serious power trip.
Needs2know
I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate? (This post is entirely non-sarcastic, just in case that’s not clear)
Who is telling you how to vote? Sure there are people suggesting that people take into account that one important outcome of the election is which candidate wins and that this should not be ignored in deciding how to vote, even if it means voting through gritted teeth. As my reply to Ukulele Ike suggested I doubt that this is a logical way to think - whether you vote for Gore, Nader, Bush or whoever your vote has a vanishingly small chance of affecting the outcome even if the race in your state is tight - but surely it is a legitimate part of political discourse. Who is the fucker here - who is denying that at the end of the day it is still your decision? I don’t see that opus did.
picmr
Vote for Nader, if Nader is the guy you want to see in office. Vote for Gore if Gore is the guy you want to see in office.
Perot participated in the debates because of his strong showing in earlier efforts. We’ll never break out of this two-party system of debates unless there are enough people who are willing to show they support a third canddiate.
- Rick
Let that be a reminder to all of us: always take your prescription medication every day.
I see that some people can’t put their passions aside for the sake of seeing this from a logical point of view (to put a Mr. Spock twist on it), which is what I was trying to do.
<start>
10. Nader can’t win.
20. Bush might win.
30. Bush scares the hell out of me.
40. Bush must not be allowed to win the election.
50. My vote for Nader takes support from Gore.
60. Less support for Gore = increase in net support for Bush.
70. More net support for Bush = Bush wins the election.
80. Go to line 40.
<Run>
Admittedly, line 30 involves a bit of passion. So let’s just say that I have serious resevrations about electing babling, blathering idiots into positions of supreme power.
The only way out of this loop is to insert line 75:
- Cast vote for Gore.
Exception: Some of you have indicated that you would change line 50 and 60 thustly:
- I have no serious problem with Bush being elected.
- Therefore, vote for whoever the hell I want to.
Which is just fine. If this is your reasoning, then the OP is not directed toward you. Your opinion is still valuable, though.
Even if it happened, I still wouldn’t vote for Gore. I’d then vote for Harry Browne.
Dude, that is not hygenic at all. I hope you washed up afterwards with something anti-bacterial.
zen101
D.F.A.
You know it seems like everyone here who is a Gore supporter or a Nader supporter is anti-Bush. Meaning the popular argument is “Well, choose Gore becuase Nader won’t win.”.
Looks like everyone assumes that if you are Green party then you must at least be a little bit in favor of Gore over Bush. Not me. If I was forced to choose between the two I would abstain. They are both scummy little autocrats who pollute the gene pool and deserve to be cut from the human roster.
Now if all you Gore supporters who like to beg for my vote and whine about Nader supporters “wasted” votes could gather a brain cell and a slice of unity and integrity you would rally behind the ONLY candidate who can reform our judicial system.
I don’t like Bush any more than Algore but at least his followers don’t act like fucking panhandlers.
Vote Nader! A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush and a vote for Bush is a vote for Gore. They are the same fucking person. Don’t you get it? Even with Nader in the race it is still a two party election.
You have the conservative left and the liberal right. Both of them in a daisy-chain of funding. Taking turns sucking each other and financial backers off that they are more full of other people’s DNA than a Lewinski original.
If you are reading this and are still undecided and are open to ANY advice at all then take this one bit. Never let someone tell you how to vote based on their own special interests. And don’t think that this is about anything else. 90% of the people who are voting for Gore or Bush are voting AGAINST Gore or Bush and not FOR anyone in particular. If you want your vote to actually mean something then vote FOR something even if it is one of the major candidates, if you believe in them then you are doing the right thing.
zen101
D.F.A.
Well, let’s see…
In any event, what I meant was simple: Do NOT tell me that my vote for a third party candidate is a “wasted vote,” and do NOT tell me how, if I want to avoid Bush I have to abandon my principals and vote for someone I view as a schmuck.
There have been many threads here - and I certainly hear it elsewhere as well - that if I am scared of a Bush administration (and I am), I should abandon any third-part candidates.
I bought into that shit in NYC when Dinkins needed my support so I didn’t vote Libertarian. Guiliani beat him anyway. I did the same thing when voting against Jesse Helms down here in NC, going for his democratic competitor, and the fossil still fucking won.
Well, no more. I vote for the best person overall, period.
And if you presume to tell me that I am wrong for this, that i am wasting my vote, that I need to vote for Gore… Well, I will call you a fucker and tell you to take your opinion and stick it up your ass.
It’s my goddammed vote.
Am I clear now?
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, one week, three days, 13 hours, 27 minutes and 22 seconds.
7742 cigarettes not smoked, saving $967.80.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 10 minutes.
I slept with a moderator!*
I second that emotion, Satan!
Someone tell me…Is Nader actually QUAILIFIED to do anything more than help me pick the better toaster?
Needs2know
http://avclub.theonion.com/savage.html
Don’t be thrown by the fact that this link points to The Onion; it’s from the serious side of the paper. I think it’s a pretty good explanation of why voting for Nader is a wasted vote, Satan’s enthusiasm be damned (heh). Of course, YMMV.
Q