Kerry picks Edwards as VP. That's it, I'm not voting.

The BBQ Pit
101

minty green, you’re not only a refreshing color, you’re a refreshing poster. If the SDMB gave out “Most Valuable Player in a Thread” awards, I’d rally for you to win for your performance here.

How very much I look forward to Knowed Out’s response upon reading your reasoned, articulate defense of Edwards! Although I can kinda understand why he might be reluctant to respond after making such an unmitigated ass of himself by revealing how little he’s done his research before making his melodramatic pronouncement. Look at all the hysterical “facts” he proffered in his anti-Edwards OP: 28% voting record? Wrong! No history as a senator? Wrong! He won on coattails? Wrong! He started campaigning two days after he was elected? Wrong yet again.

And not a single one of these couldn’t have been corrected with the slightest amount of research … instead of relying on a single source. :rolleyes:

But alas, apparently even normally smart posters are quick to make ill-founded, blanket condemnations without bothering to back ‘em up. World Eater, you called Edwards an ambulance chaser – one of the worst insults you can level at an attorney – but then admit that you don’t actually know anything about Edwards’ history as an attorney. WTF? I mean, okay, you definitely get some points for honestly admitting your lack of research, but then why did you make such a nasty remark against Edwards in the first place? If all you knew was that the guy won several millions for his clients, how the hell do you go from that fact to labeling him an ambulance chaser – aka, a scumbag bastard who seeks profit from the misfortunes of others irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the case? For shame, dude.

Anyway. Back to the OP. Please pay attention to the reasoned comments in this thread. This year’s election is about Bush vs. Kerry. If you want Bush in office, vote for him. If you don’t, vote for Kerry. This is not the year to sit on your hands and sulk. There are some very big differences between Bush and Kerry, and if you believe otherwise you are simply not paying attention.

And claiming that Kerry chose Edwards to win votes is like claiming that the Bulls hired Jordan to score points. In other words: NO SHIT SHERLOCK. This election is way, way, WAY too important for us to expect Kerry to fuck around by being experimental or brave, like choosing some little known African American Jewish quadraplegic woman.

Edwards was the second favorite in the Democratic primaries, and – even setting aside the other vital qualities such as his intelligence, his fiery passion as a debater, and his compassion for the underdog – it seems extremely practical (not to mention respectful of the runner-up’s followers) to peg him for the #2 spot. (BTW, this post is coming from someone who was actually rooting for Wes Clark as VP. I’m no Edwards booster, but I definitely appreciate his skills as a campaigner and his history as a supporter of the middle class.)

I guess my message to folks like Knowed Out who far too readily accept soundbytes as gospel, is: stop letting others do your research for you! It really doesn’t take much effort to go to a few different sources to get a well-rounded history on which to found your opinion.

Also: for fuck’s sake, vote.

102

But not for Nader.

103

HEE!

It’s funny 'cause it’s true.

104

Well, as I said, I do vote, but I can also see why people just don’t feel passionate enough about either party and their decision to use their right to not vote doesn’t make them assholes in my book.

Person A: “Where should we go for Dinner, McDonald’s or Burgerking?”

Person B: “I want Sushi.”

Person A: “There’s no Sushi place in town, besides we couldn’t afford it anyway. So it’s McDonald’s or Burgerking.”

Person B: “Meh, whatever. I don’t really care, you guys go ahead and decide, I’ll tag along.”

Person C: “The Whopper is so much better than the Big Mac oh and by the way B, you’re such an asshole for not making a clear statement for either McDonald’s or Burgerking!”

Person B: “WTF???”
I would vote for McDonald’s by the way, but I wouldn’t pester B for not giving a rat’s ass either way :wink:

105

And if the election were as minor a matter as where to get your dinner tonight, that would be fine. But that’s an absurd analogy.

The single most precious right we have in this nation, the right on which this nation was founded and at that time differed from every nation in the world, is the right to vote. Throw it away, by all means, if you so choose, but then don’t let me ever catch you bitching about governmental policies. Ask the people in Florida if one vote can make a difference. And bear in mind, those large numbers of votes are made up of individual votes.

And, as choie said, if you can’t see a difference between the parties, you simply aren’t paying attention. There may not be anyone you want to vote for. But there is surely always someone you want to vote against.

106

Just because you don’t feel strongly about food doesn’t make it an unimportant issue :wink:

Anyway, some people might actually like to vote against a certain party or politician, but voting against someone is not in the system. If they’d come up with negative votes, I’m sure a few more people would vote to give some politicians a -1 vote. But since your vote doesn’t say “I agree with Candidate X the least!” but rather “I totally endorse candidate Y!” some people just cannot do that on a good conscience. I don’t quite see where the negative connotations come from when people excercise their right not to vote. (Still I encourage people to vote, even though I consider it a futile excercise. It’s paradox, I know. I just can’t bring myself to berate others for actively choosing not to vote; especially if they’ve got good reasons not to do so).

As for the importance of the vote itself: You just decide - at less than a millionth fraction anyway - who gets to rule the country for the next 4 years, based on who put on the best show before. What politicians do after winning the election is completely out of the voter’s control and all they can do is show approval or displeasure at the next election (and if the system wasn’t so vain not voting would send the strongest message of disapproval; instead non-voters are slandered for being lazy and/or apathetic.)

Once politicians are actually accountable for the bs they pull while in office or once the general public gets more control, that might change. As things are now, you have more control over things that directly affect you by choosing to have either a whopper or a big mac or neither than by choosing that party XYZ gets a fraction of a percentage more.

107

…rat poison?

This isn’t a choice between equals, here. We’re all choosing our dinner options, and we’re all stuck with the same choice, and there’s some people that want us to choose rat poison, and since you don’t much like McDonald’s, you’re not doing anything about that.

minty’s illogic about Nader aside (can’t blame him; it’s the party line), this election IS very important. Too important to pretend that the choices are equally bad. We can choose between the unpleasant and the really, really horrible, and if you don’t help make the choice, be ready to receive a lot of resentment.

Daniel

108

What — other than promises made, which surely we can all agree are next to worthless — makes you think Kerry will not take Bush’s baton and run with it. He is on record saying that the Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were a threat to the US and its allies. He’s on record endorsing a continuation of the war, saying only that he would do it differently but not saying exactly how. He’s from a long line of American royalty with family ties to great wealth and power. There’s no reason to believe that he will not continue Bush’s reckless spending and fueling of bloated government. So how is that you see this vast difference between them? Why is it that you people can’t come together and shift your support to someone — like, God forgive me, Nader — who represents all the classic Democratic principles you claim to espouse and Kerry vaguely references like wistful memories from time to time? Nader already has 4%. All he needs is your 49% to put him over the top. I mean holy shit. How many times and how many generations are gonna fall for this “I believe in America and I’m gonna make it better” boilerplate fucking demonic vomitous voice of Satan bullshit? Grow some fucking balls.

109

Yeah, MG’s a good ol’ boy. For a trial lawyer, and all.

110

I’d agree with that. Reckless is a much better term.

111

I like the rat poison analogy, so let’s run with it.

Let’s say there’s 100 people in the room, and you’re going to vote on what to eat for dinner. You’ve got three choices on what to vote for: yummy sushi, deadly rat poison, and not-so-yummy but definitely-not-fatal McDonald’s. But this is a group decision. Whatever gets the most votes is what everybody has to eat.

So people start talking about what they want to eat. Despite the obvious yumminess of the sushi, you only hear one or two other voices in the room who have the slightest interest in sushi. Amazingly, everyone else seems to be talking about how they’d rather have McDonald’s or rat poison. And oh my god, there seem to be just about equal numbers of McDonalds and rat poison people! There’s a pretty good chance that you’re going to have to eat rat poison for dinner!

But boy, that sushi sure would be yummy. Way yummier than bland old McDonald’s hamburgers. So you go to the voting booth, and you cast a vote on principle. Sushi is obviously the way it should be! Even if we don’t get sushi this time, it will show all those McDonald’s people that they have to account for the sushi vote next time we vote on dinner!

Enjoy your rat poison, dummy.

112

You enjoy it too, moron. You could have voted for sushi.

113

Jesus wept.

Daniel

114
  1. You forget that we vote for food based on the electoral college, hmmm?
  2. You forget that McDonald’s has been adding more and more rat poison to their meals every year in hopes of attracting some strychnine fans.
  3. You forget that McDonald’s used to serve sushi, but has started taking sushi votes for granted.
  4. You forget that one set of votes for sushi has gone a long way toward convincing McDonald’s to remove the rat poison from their own products.

Daniel

115

15 minutes later…

Person A: Okay B, come and get your Big Mac.

Person B: But I said I wanted sushi.

Person A: I told you there were no sushi places near by, and that we couldn’t afford it even if there were.

Person B: Well then why didn’t you get me a Whopper?

Person A: You said you didn’t care. I like McDonald’s better, so I went there.

Person B: How come I never get what I want?

116

Nice try, but you’re still eating rat poison for dinner.

117

I don’t think you get it. He *did * vote for sushi - that’s why he’s eating rat poison.

Wha…? And all Nader needs to do to get a handful of truly liberal ideals placed on the Democratic platform is to step out of the ring, and tell his constituents (both of them) to vote for Kerry. I mean, grow some fucking balls, Nader. Isn’t that how change occurs - through negotiation and compromise?

118
  1. You’re forgetting that if I’d voted for McDonald’s, my electoral votes would still go to rat poison. Hello, I’m in North Carolina.

Like I said, I think you’re extremely irrational over this, but hey–it’s the party line. Fortunately, some members of the party have gotten the message, viz Nancy Pelosi’s ascendance.

Daniel

119

There ain’t no electoral college in the room of 100 people voting for dinner. If the clear majority had indicated their preference for rat poison, then I would agree that voting for sushi would be a rational dissenting vote. But that wasn’t the case for Nader voters in a lot of states in 2000.

120

The problem is in the numbers, Excalibre. There are many more centrists who vote regularly than there are “progressives”. And every time the Democratic Party makes noises about income redistribution or other socialist utopia pipe dreams, more centrists roll their eyes and slip out the back door.