And sure, like the more sensible of you, I am a bit out of sorts that it looks like the frat boy retard might win. But - tra la la, I am innocent.
Yes, for a while I did consider voting for Gore because I was afraid. But in the end I refused to cast my vote out of fear. I will not be coerced to vote for someone I don’t fully support. It’s not the American way as I know it.
I am proud to have voted for Nader just as I did in 1996. I am grateful that I live in a country where someone can get up and talk about the issues and attack the system the way he does without being imprisoned or assassinated. Nader should be President. That’s why I voted for him.
So, Flame on! if you think it will make you feel better. But let it be known that I am guilt free and feel chipper and such attacks will have no ill effect. To paraphrase Nader himself: “If Gore can’t beat an idiot with a horrible record, what good is he? It should be a slam dunk.” Quite so. (Maybe this will teach Gore not to talk to everyone like they were 5-year-olds.)
The frat boy retard-ites wanted it more and worked harder. They were organized and hungry. They made sure that a significant bloc of the populace was sufficiently brainwashed into thinking that the frat boy retard was qualified (a tough sell at best). They had a shitload of cash to spend - is the Presidency for sale, now? Guess so - a long time ago. Let their struggle serve as an example to you pissed-off Democrats. If you want to take that motherfucker down in 2004, you better get busy starting Monday morning.
Oh, and all you who voted for the frat boy retard? Sure, you can fuck yourself with a rake … But you better enjoy it while it lasts and hope he does all that he can to advance your phony-baloney, right-wing, plastic-morality cause, because I bet after this unimaginable abortion of a Presidency, the people won’t let a Republican walk down Pennsylvania Avenue’s sidewalk.
I was originally going to agree with Mr. Yax, but let’s see … you’re innocent because you voted your conscience, but Bush voters (who presumably voted their conscience) should impose upon themselves vaginal or anal gratification with farming utensils? They are as innocent as you are, RTA.
Hypocrisy alert, people.
As for you voting for Nader because he should be President, it’s a nice sentiment, but rather silly. Personally, of famous politicians, I think John McCain should be President. (Of everybody, I think my friend Chris Rutledge would make a fantastic president. He actually registered as a Presidential candidate in 1988.) But I didn’t write Sen. McCain’s name in.
To use an IRL analogy, I would really like to be an astronaut (seriously). However, neither my math/science skills nor my eyesight are good enough to make the cut. So now I’m a lawyer. Was this the lesser of two evils? No, of course not - I rather enjoy my career. Dealing with the possible is a sign of maturity.
What Sua said. I’ve never heard it put better. I only wish it had been said that way before the election so I could have used it on some Nader voters of my acquaintance.
Actually, lawyer, I would hope that no gratification is involved at all. I’m thinking instead fatal lacerations of the nether regions - but that’s neither here nor there.
Insisting that we should only vote for people for whom we are told victory is “possible”, as you imply, is nothing more than being a good little drone and doing what we’re told is good for us. I know that goose-stepping in such a formation secretly appeals to a lot of you Republicans, but insinuating that I lack “maturity” for seeing greener grass outside what we are spoon-fed and instructed to do hardly expresses any appreciation for what America is all about.
As for this spurious charge of “hypocrisy”, it’s a relatively simple equation:
People who voted for the frat boy retard because they think he is a larger-than-life figure who will surely be one of our great Presidents, because his proposals make perfect financial and strategic sense, because he is more knowledgeable and experienced, they are - how do you say? Ah yes - complete idiots.
People who voted for the frat boy retard in order to punish Clinton’s many transgressions need to be clued in to the fact that Clinton and Gore are actually - brace yourselves - 2 different people.
People who voted for the frat boy retard because they always vote the GOP, they are drones without a mind of their own. And as we all know, we can really do without people who vote the GOP - the party who brings us such mature, non-hypocritical legislative titans as Dick Armey et al. - exclusively.
Call me a hypocrite if you have to - at least I’m not the one enthusiastically installing right-wing fake-Christian sock puppets into our government, claiming that it’s all about “inclusion” and “compassion” when generations of experience demonstrates it’s actually about keeping a boot on the throat of the poor and the minorities, meanwhile grabbing all the cherry tax breaks for you and your buddies.
Of course, when “the possible” is essentially limited to what the parties to which Messrs. Bush and Gore happen to belong to say it is . . .
Tell me, why did all fifty states waste time putting other candidates on their ballots if they were outside the realm of “the possible”? Think of the millions in typesetting costs that could have been saved.
Also tell me why you would think Nader voters would want Al Gore to be President? How many of them might not have voted at all otherwise, leaving the Bush/Gore dynamic essentially unchanged?
Phil, if you think that out of 72000 nader voters, there wouldn’t have been 2000 more Gore voters than Bush voters, then I suggest you take your head out of your ass and enter a little world I like to call “Reality.”
RTA: You certainly have the right to vote your conscience, and I am glad that you voted even if my own personal opinion is that Nader is lower than a snake’s belly and you are an idiot.
However, Nader’s performance in Florida might still give Bush the presidency.
I know many Bush supporters and most of them do not worship him as larger than life. Several of my friends and my landlord decided to vote for Bush because they (and I for that matter) thinks Gore supports gun control too much. Others voted for Bush because they genuinely like his policies and persona, and others voted for him because they think he is a lesser evil than the Gorbot.
Flyasster, maybe you can start the constitutional initiative that would require you, and you alone, to approve all future presidential candidates. Or perhaps you can have everybody in the country run their choice by you.
Maybe these 72000 Nader voters would have just stayed home if Nader was not on the ballot.
You call me “lawyer”. My handle on this board is “SuaSponte”. I can only presume that you called me “lawyer” as an insult. If so, it was ineffective.
I say that only a Bush or Gore victory was possible simply because it’s the truth. (This is also in response to you pldennison) The reason for this is not because the American electorate are a bunch of drones - it is because of the American electoral system. America has a “first past the post” system. The winner takes all. Under such a system, third parties do not stand a chance. I discussed this in a GD thread a week or so ago entitled “Do third parties stand a chance”, or some similar thread. For further reading on the problems with the American electoral system, and why third parties can’t succeed, I recommend you read the November edition of Discover magazine.
Should this system be changed? Absolutely, IMO. However, until it is changed, we are stuck with a two-party system. Look it up - well before the soulless corporate fat cats stole our electoral system from us, to paraphrase Nader, this country has always had two major parties. No third party Presidential candidate has ever won. In fact, there has only once been a change in the identity of the two major parties - the change from the Whigs to the Republicans in 1852-1856.
So, given that, under the American electoral system, Nader didn’t have a chance as a third party candidate, let’s look at the “possible” - either Gore wins or Nader wins. Given your rather vile and definitely immature desire to see Bush supporters well, die, I will make the assumption that, given a choice between Bush and Gore, you would rather have Gore win. (BTW, I get a feeling that you think I am a Bush supporter. I’m not. I can only conclude you drew this assumption because I don’t want to see Bush’s supporters die. It’s a simple mistake for you to make - it’s called transference. Just assured, however, sane people don’t wish death upon those who disagree with them.)
So, if you had learned anything about the American electoral system, you would have recognized that Bush and Gore were the only two choices. I point out to you that it was your responsibility to learn about the American electoral system before you took it upon yourself to take on the responsibility of voting, and I will assume that you did. So, you could cast your vote in a way that supported a man whose character would probably had concerns about, and whose policies you didn’t completely agree with, and a man you repeatedly describe as a “frat boy retard”. You chose to withhold your vote from the man who supported at least some of the policies you supported. In doing so, you supported the “frat boy retard”.
It’s your vote, and you can choose to use it as you see fit. However, don’t blind yourself to the consequences of your vote. It truly doesn’t matter what side I support - this board is about fighting ignorance. You are apparently ignorant - willfully or not - to the consequences of your vote. I hope I have fought your ignorance.
I suggest we put this issue aside for now. We can all rest assured that gobs of PolySci majors writing their theses will poll these poor bastards to death over the next few months to figure out how they would or would not have voted if Nader wasn’t a candidate.
Sua
What about people who voted for Bush because they think that doing nothing about Social Security is a recipe for disaster in 20-30 years? What about people who voted for Bush because they think that Al Gore is a condescending twit?
I’m assuming you left these people out because you admit that there are legitimate reasons for voting for Bush. For a moment I thought you might be implying that no thinking person could vote for Bush.
Clue: I did not vote for Bush. I just found your rant insulting on behalf of intelligent Bush voters which I assume exist.