Democrats trying to skew another election?

[gobear]

@World Eater

People should vote for whoever they want to vote, that will always be more important the who gets fucked up because of it.

Really? Try telling that to the people who’ve died because you, that’s right, YOU, helped put Bush in office.

I really hate this a vote for X is really a vote for Y bullshit. First off, it insults the people who really believe in X’s message and actually want to vote for X, and second, it scares people off from what they really wanted to do.

In the grown-up world, there’s this concept of the lesser evil. No, Kerry is not progressive, and, no, he’s not a perfect candidate. But you have a choice. . .

Vote for Nader and ensure 4 more years of Bush, or vote for Kerry and put up with an imperfect president who at least won’t get Americans killed on false pretenses.

It’s up to you.

[great_glowing_balls_of_jelly]

@duffer

And let us never forget, had Gore carried his own state, this would be a non-issue. I’ll trust his constituants over a court any day.

Please explain the logic of this one. He did not his home state. So what? Maybe what felt was good for the country was not popular in his home state.
I think your some kind of idiot for posting that. Do you do parties? If you have any more gems like that you could spice up my next party with roaring laughter at such utterances.

[elucidator]

Don’t take this the wrong way, GG, I mean no insult, but is English your first language? Your syntax is intriguing, so very close to American and yet…not quite. It kind of reminds me of if Apu from Simpsons were posting.

Again, no denigration intended, I’ve got nothing but respect for knowing one more language than I do. Strictly curious.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Liberal

Actualy, it’s the other way around. The president proposes a budget which Congress then hacks to pieces. If Reagan’s proposed budgets had been approved by Congress, his second term would have ended with a $130 billion surplus.

PresidentReagan.info | Welcome to President Reagan Official Website

I’m surprised you would post such a spurious graph, Lib. I thought you knew better than that.

The numbers on this graph are bullshit. In particular, the numbers listed as the “cumulative difference” are utterly meaningless shite.

Al Franken had a field day with this graph in his book. He sent it into a number of different economists at various universities who all said the numbers were spurious.

In point of fact, every budget that Reagan proposed was reduced by the congress. If Reagan had got the budgets he wanted we’d have all been selling apples again.

[great_glowing_balls_of_jelly]

@elucidator

Don’t take this the wrong way, GG, I mean no insult, but is English your first language? Your syntax is intriguing, so very close to American and yet…not quite. It kind of reminds me of if Apu from Simpsons were posting.

Again, no denigration intended, I’ve got nothing but respect for knowing one more language than I do. Strictly curious.

I only speak American English. I might have picked up some forien spellings from the internet. That combined with less then optimal spelling could look like an exotic dialect.

I’ve come to a point where I have no clue what the local way to spell grey/gray is. Stupid internet messing up grey/gray for me. My other post had a few typos which makes it read a bit odd. I would have fixed them but there was no edit time window. I’ll have to remember to proof read before I post here I guess.

[Liberal]

@Gobear

Vote for Nader and ensure 4 more years of Bush, or vote for Kerry and put up with an imperfect president who at least won’t get Americans killed on false pretenses.

Bullshit. First of all, you have no idea what Kerry will do. Most of what he’s saying right now is a lie anyway, scripted by his staff to help him win the election. He’s just like all the others. This time a decade ago, you would be telling everyone to vote for Clinton because he will end discrimination against gays in the military. As we all know, more gays were discharged during his administration than in any before it. Second, since you’ve already conceded that both Bush and Kerry are evil, why don’t you advise all the Democrats to vote for Nader instead of advising all the Independents to vote for Kerry? Stop being a fucking doormat for power grabbers who couldn’t give less of a shit about you.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@World Eater

Well Kerry is helping Bush too, by running a weak ass campaign and being a flimsy, flip flopping bore. If people like Nader, let them vote for Nader. If the Democratic candidate can’t overcome some thorn in his side, then he deserves to lose.

It seems to me that Bush is simply running a more effective negative ad and smear campaign, since so many dimwitted fucks are mindlessly repeating the charges made by his campaign. In that context, Nader is benefitting from Bush’s malignant effectiveness, which ultimately is a greater boon to Bush.

Nader is going about these days claiming that he will siphon off votes from Bush. Take Pennsylvania for example. Recent polls had Kerry over Bush 49 to 42, until Nader is considered. Then it is Kerry 43-42. Nader clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about, or knows exactly what he is really doing.

I’m sure millions of people around the world, despite their strife, sleep soundly at night knowing that a bunch of people got to vote their conscience on the real differences between Nader and Gore.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@rjung

Do you have a cite for this? A quick search with Google turned up nothing, except for a right-wing blog repeating the story but without any links for verification.

Sure and I forgot to mention that felons were allowed to vote.

Milwaukee journal article.
"McCallum tucked the changes in voter registration laws into his 1,827-page budget proposal after controversies in Milwaukee and across the nation over the November presidential election. The controversy almost led to the first statewide recount of presidential votes in Wisconsin, where Democrat Al Gore edged out George W. Bush by fewer than 6,000 votes.

Also in Milwaukee, a wealthy Gore backer was accused of trading cigarettes for votes, felons voted and a Marquette University student boasted that he voted several times, although he later recanted that claim. "

Felon article
“At least 361 felons voted illegally in Milwaukee on Nov. 7, breaking an often-misunderstood state law that disqualifies felons from voting until they are off probation and parole, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.”

[gobear]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Bullshit. First of all, you have no idea what Kerry will do. Most of what he’s saying right now is a lie anyway, scripted by his staff to help him win the election.

[/quote

So you’re saying Kerry palns to use forged evidence to start a costly war that is doomed to failure? Are you saying that Kerry intends to continue tax cuts to the rich? That he plans on gutting environmental laws and having CEOs write legislation? That he intends to alienate our alies? I’m going to need a cite for that.

This time a decade ago, you would be telling everyone to vote for Clinton because he will end discrimination against gays in the military. As we all know, more gays were discharged during his administration than in any before it.

Actually, I don’t recall him mentioning gays in the military in the '92 campaign, and I certainly had no expectation that he would do anything about it. I was hoping for health care reform, but the Pubbies took care of that.

Second, since you’ve already conceded that both Bush and Kerry are evil, why don’t you advise all the Democrats to vote for Nader instead of advising all the Independents to vote for Kerry?

I said Kerry was the LESSER evil–lesser clearly indicates that Kerry won’t be great, but he won’t be as bad as Bush. Sure, it’d be nice if Kerry supported gay marriage, but at least he won’t support the FMA. That in itself makes Kerry worth voting for. Given a choice between being ignored and being actively persecuted, I’m going for the former. It’s not what I want, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

And don’t fool yourself that voting for Nader is “sending a signal to the Democrats”–it’s not. Every vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. If you want 4 more years of Bush’s failed policies, by all means, vote for Ralph.

And do not presume that because I despise Bush that I’m some sort of lefty. I’m a conservative who hates what Bush’s cabal of fascists is doing to liberty in this nation. There’s no way in hell I’d ever vote for some left-wing goon like Nader.

Stop being a fucking doormat for power grabbers who couldn’t give less of a shit about you.

Right back atcha.

[Squink]

@Uncommon Sense

Sure
also in Milwaukee, a wealthy Gore backer was accused of trading cigarettes for votes, felons voted and a Marquette University student boasted that he voted several times, although he later recanted that claim. "

So you’ve got nothing but unsubstantiated accusations.

[World_Eater]

@gobear

Really? Try telling that to the people who’ve died because you, that’s right, YOU, helped put Bush in office.

How far back should we go?

The people who voted for him are more responsible
The people who elected him Gov, putting him on the national stage are more responsible
Barbara Bush for giving birth to him is more responsible
George senior creaming up inside her is more responsible
etc etc

If the people who voted for Nader looked at the issues, what he stands for, and came to the conclusion that he’s their man, I can only respect that.

In the grown-up world, there’s this concept of the lesser evil. No, Kerry is not progressive, and, no, he’s not a perfect candidate. But you have a choice. . .

And if it was up to people like you, I’d have less of a choice. Even if we have more choices, you want to scare us into thinking we’re wasting our vote.

I want to get Bush out so bad I can taste it, but I’m thinking big picture, and this two party shit ain’t cutting it.

Vote for Nader and ensure 4 more years of Bush, or vote for Kerry and put up with an imperfect president who at least won’t get Americans killed on false pretenses.

It’s quite possible Kerry will be just as bad a president, just in completely different ways we’re currently unable to fathom.

[gobear]

If you seriousy, sincerely want to start a third party, then this quadrennial circus is a waste of time. Parties are not formed by quixotic candidacies for president that won’t go anywhere. You start with grassroots organzing, not just in presidential years, but in every year for every election. Start local–alderman elections, city council. Then mayoralties, governorships. If you can’t swing that, then you’ve got no business getting in the way of the electoral process.

Nader is a boutique candiate who has NO chance to be president. Thus, you are throwing away your vote. That’s not me scaring you, that’s just a harsh reality.

You need to face reality. It’s going to be a tight race. Kerry needs every bit of support he can get. If you deprive him of that support by giving your vote to a candidate who cannot win, then you help ensure 4 more years of Bush.

There’s no way around that equation. Your vote for Nader helps Bush.

Four more years. Is that what you want? It’s your choice.

[Liberal]

@Gobear

So you’re saying Kerry palns to use forged evidence to start a costly war that is doomed to failure? Are you saying that Kerry intends to continue tax cuts to the rich? That he plans on gutting environmental laws and having CEOs write legislation? That he intends to alienate our alies? I’m going to need a cite for that.

Why didn’t you ask me if I’m saying that Kerry is an alien from the planet Wadnax? I said what I said. He’s a career politician. He’s a liar. He cannot be trusted to do what he says he will. If you think he can, then you’re exactly what he and used car salesmen everywhere are looking for.

Actually, I don’t recall him mentioning gays in the military in the '92 campaign, and I certainly had no expectation that he would do anything about it. I was hoping for health care reform, but the Pubbies took care of that.

Well, let me refresh your memory. From February 1, 1993 Newsweek:

Candidate Bill Clinton staked out his position on gays in uniform during an appearance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in October 1991. It was only mildly remarkable at the time - - the kind of gesture a moderate Democrat would make to impress the avant-garde, and one that seemed to bear no significant political price. It was simple: Clinton, once elected, would do for gays what Harry Truman did for blacks in 1948 - - eliminate the military’s discriminatory policies by executive order, starting a social revolution with the stroke of a pen. Fifteen months later, faced with widespread opposition in the ranks and stonewalling from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Clinton and his advisers are realizing otherwise: in the real world of Beltway politics, this gesture could prove both controversial and costly.

[…snip…]

As gays themselves tell it, serving in the military poses the continual strain of living in a hostile environment. Homosexuality itself is forbidden, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes all forms of gay sex a criminal felony. (This sodomy rule applies to straights as well as gays, of course.) These regulations are enforced unevenly and to some extent arbitrarily. But they can be imposed at any time, which makes gays continually vulnerable to harassment, vendetta and reprisal - - even if they perform their duties well, and even if they try to keep sexual orientations secret. If their sexual identities become known, they face speedy discharge from the ranks: there were 700 such “administrative separations” during 1992, and about 13,000 men and women have been cashiered as homosexuals since 1982. Although most such discharges are honorable, there is a catch: the discharge papers, known as a DD214, clearly state the reason for the individual’s expulsion to future employers.

Gay-rights activists have been fighting these policies for years. Their primary weapon has been the law - - and bit by bit, in a series of lawsuits, they have forced the Pentagon to retreat from its longstanding insistence that homosexuality is a threat to discipline and national security. The case of Sgt. Leonard Matlovich, which dates back to the mid-1970s, was the first real setback for the brass. Matlovich, who has since died of AIDS, was discharged from the Air Force on the ground of his sexual orientation - - but later collected $160,000 in back pay when the Air Force could not rebut his claim to an exemption from the no-gays policy. Late last year, in a decision that probably signaled the end of the Pentagon’s legal resistance, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively upheld a lower-court ruling that demanded the services provide “a rational basis” for the ban on gays. The case, Pruitt v. Cheney, involves a lesbian chaplain in the Army Reserve, Capt. Carolyn Pruitt. A federal judge in Los Angeles, meanwhile, had already ordered the Navy to reinstate Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, who announced his homosexuality on national television in May and was discharged in August.

Meinhold is staking his career and reputation to prove a political point - - that gay Americans are just as loyal and just as competent as straights, and that they deserve equal standing and equal treatment from the military. Other gays are fighting back as well - - and all are providing new test cases for the gay-rights movement, which sees Pentagon policy as a prime target in the campaign to change the attitudes of society at large. Gay political groups were among Bill Clinton’s strongest supporters, contributing about $3 million to his presidential campaign, according to Robert Bray of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a Washington-based lobbying group. And now, says lawyer-activist Bob Wightman of Arlington, Texas, “when Bill Clinton lifts the ban, he is going to push national acceptance of homosexuality. It’s not just going to push people out of the closet in the military- - it’s going to push people out of the closet all over the country. It’s going to be OK to be a homosexual.”

And do not presume that because I despise Bush that I’m some sort of lefty. I’m a conservative who hates what Bush’s cabal of fascists is doing to liberty in this nation. There’s no way in hell I’d ever vote for some left-wing goon like Nader.

Then why would you vote for a left-wing goon like Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[gobear]

@Liberal

Why didn’t you ask me if I’m saying that Kerry is an alien from the planet Wadnax? I said what I said. He’s a career politician. He’s a liar. He cannot be trusted to do what he says he will. If you think he can, then you’re exactly what he and used car salesmen everywhere are looking for.

In that case, fuck voting, huh? Let’s just have a king, since you don’t seem to put any faith in free elections. By the same criteria, you have no business supporting Nader because he’s a liar, too, and is just as bad as Bush.

Well, let me refresh your memory. From February 1, 1993 Newsweek:

A 1991 speech at the Kennedy school is before the campaign and the article is from after the inauguration, so I repeat, Clinton said nothing about gays in the military during the campaign

And anyway leading off his administration with that issue was a mistake.

Then why would you vote for a left-wing goon like Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Then why are you voting for Nader; he’s “evil,” too. I swear this has been explained to you by other posters–if you’ve got a choice between being ignored and being violated, go with being ignored. We know Bush is a corrupt, venal sunuvabitch who has gotten America involved in a costly, futile war, who has wrecked our economy, who has soiled the our national image. He is a known quantity of badness. Kerry is a colorless, moderate candidate who will likely make some bad decisions, But he isn’t going to be as destructive as Bush.

Vote Kerry, not because Kerry will be a great president, but because he won’t be the disaster Bush is.

And if you think Kerry is left-wing, you have much to learn.

[World_Eater]

@gobear

If you seriousy, sincerely want to start a third party, then this quadrennial circus is a waste of time. Parties are not formed by quixotic candidacies for president that won’t go anywhere. You start with grassroots organzing, not just in presidential years, but in every year for every election. Start local–alderman elections, city council. Then mayoralties, governorships. If you can’t swing that, then you’ve got no business getting in the way of the electoral process.

Sure, but people have been doing this for decades, and we’re as close to a 2 party system as we’ve ever been. I don’t have any suggestions, but I sure as hell know Nader is the least of our problems.

Nader is a boutique candiate who has NO chance to be president. Thus, you are throwing away your vote. That’s not me scaring you, that’s just a harsh reality.

Voting for a candidate you wouldn’t have voted for in the first place is throwing away your vote. The problem isn’t Nader, the problem is lack of choice. Say I’m a conservative but I don’t want to vote for Bush, then what?

That’s the fucking problem.

You need to face reality. It’s going to be a tight race. Kerry needs every bit of support he can get. If you deprive him of that support by giving your vote to a candidate who cannot win, then you help ensure 4 more years of Bush.

What if someone doesn’t like Kerry? Why in good conscience should they vote for him? If someone doesn’t like Kerry and chooses not to vote for him, it’s their fault we’ll have Bush for 4 more years? Get the hell out of here.

Seems to me that your blame is best spent on those who actually voted for Bush, not someone who, along with 5,000 other factors, indirectly affected his ascension to the throne.

There’s no way around that equation. Your vote for Nader helps Bush.

A vote for Bush helps Bush too, or have you forgotten?

Four more years. Is that what you want? It’s your choice.

Yeah, right, it’s my choice :rolleyes: , shouldn’t I be voting Kerry no questions asked?

[Liberal]

@Gobear

A 1991 speech at the Kennedy school is before the campaign and the article is from after the inauguration, so I repeat, Clinton said nothing about gays in the military during the campaign.

You stupid disingenuous ignorant fuck. Fuck you and anything else you have to say.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@Squink

So you’ve got nothing but unsubstantiated accusations.

Nope.

Read this story.

The Democratic prosecutor in Milwaukee choose not to go after Milstien. Since she was never charged, they remain as allegations even though she was caught on tape.

[World_Eater]

@gobear

We know Bush is a corrupt, venal sunuvabitch who has gotten America involved in a costly, futile war, who has wrecked our economy, who has soiled the our national image. He is a known quantity of badness.

50% of the country doesn’t feel this way. This is the problem, not Nader.

[Liberal]

From Gay Today

President Clinton signed the military’s gay ban, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” into law on November 30, 1993. Adoption of the law followed a campaign promise to lift the previous ban and allow lesbian and gay Americans to serve openly. Since the current law went into effect, almost ten thousand service members have been discharged on the basis of sexual orientation.

From The Washington Post

President-elect Bill Clinton, torn between gay-rights supporters and advisers who fear upheaval in the U.S. armed forces, Thursday reaffirmed **a campaign pledge to permit acknowledged homosexuals in military service ** but said he would “consult with a lot of people” for an indefinite time “about what our options are.”

From About Gays in the Military

Clinton promised (as a campaign promise) to eliminate the restrictions about homosexuals serving in the military. When he was elected to office, he set about trying to make this happen, by drafting an Executive Order which would have ordered the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the policy.

From [

In November, President-elect Bill Clinton (D) announces that he will keep **his campaign pledge to lift the military’s ban on gays ** when he takes office in 1993

From [url=http://www.gayworld.com/content/stories/oct03/article_2003_10_6_2313.php]Gay World Online](]Issues and Controversies, Gays in the Military[/url)

The defacto ban on gays in the military was signed by Clinton on November 30, 1993 as a compromise to a campaign pledge to lift the previous ban and allow lesbian and gay Americans to serve openly.

From Common Dreams News Center

Every year since President Clinton tried and failed to meet a campaign pledge to join the rest of the advanced world and ban discrimination, settling instead for the national self-delusion of ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’’ there has been a detailed report of what is really going on.

There’s a bazillion of these. So, what now? A pledge is not a promise? A promise is not a pledge? Sources not reliable? Everybody’s fucking lying? What?

[gobear]

@World Eater

Sure, but people have been doing this for decades, and we’re as close to a 2 party system as we’ve ever been. I don’t have any suggestions, but I sure as hell know Nader is the least of our problems.

I’m talking about the 2004 election, in which Nader poses a significant problem.

Voting for a candidate you wouldn’t have voted for in the first place is throwing away your vote. The problem isn’t Nader, the problem is lack of choice. Say I’m a conservative but I don’t want to vote for Bush, then what?

That’s the fucking problem.

There are other conservative choices beside Bush: The Constitution party (Bible- thumping fascists) or the Libertarian party (another impractical boutique party). They won’t win either, (fortunately: those Constitution party folks are scary!), but they exist and are larger than any left-wing alternate party because the right has unity of purpose and burning passion that the left lacks. “Bush sucks” only works until the election then you have to come up with ideas.

What if someone doesn’t like Kerry? Why in good conscience should they vote for him?

To prevent 4 more years of utter disaster, that’s why. Kerry will get rid of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft–that alone should get you on board.

If someone doesn’t like Kerry and chooses not to vote for him, it’s their fault we’ll have Bush for 4 more years? Get the hell out of here.

That’s reality, deal.
Vote for Bush–Bush wins.
Vote for Nader–Bush wins.
Vore For Kerry–Bush loses

Seems to me that your blame is best spent on those who actually voted for Bush, not someone who, along with 5,000 other factors, indirectly affected his ascension to the throne.

That doesn’t in any way mitigate your responsiblity for 2000, and the clusterfuck of four years ago should show you that this year’s election is too damned important to frivol away your vote.

A vote for Bush helps Bush too, or have you forgotten?

Immaterial. We’re talking about votes for Nader. Anyone who is willing to voge for Bush at this point is so deluded that they are unreachable. Shodan and the other right-wing voters wouldn’t vote for Jesus Christ Himself if He ran as a Democrat. But you can be reached, I hope.

Four more years of Halliburton, Abu Ghraib, and Ashcroft, and you will have to bear the knowledge that you helped Bush get re-elected.

Yeah, right, it’s my choice :rolleyes: , shouldn’t I be voting Kerry no questions asked?

I didn’t say you couldn’t vote Nader, I’m just pointing out the consequences if you do.

50% of the country doesn’t feel this way. This is the problem, not Nader.

Good point, and thus all the more reason not to split the anti-Bush vote.

Originally posted by Liberal
You stupid disingenuous ignorant fuck. Fuck you and anything else you have to say.

Hello, Mr. Vice-president!

As for your cites, those work because they directly refer to a campaign pledge, which your previous cite did not. You are right, Clinton broke that promise. But Clinton’s sliminess has no bearing on this election. Clinton isn’t running, Kerry is. Will Kerry be a good president? I don’t know. Will he break campaign pledges? Very likely. Will he be good on my issues? Doubtful. Will he be as horrible as Bush? I don’t think so, and that is what I’m basing my vote on. I want Bush gone, and voting for Nader interferes with that goal.