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

The BBQ Pit
121

Actually, i think you might have missed the point.

If i have it right:

sushi = Nader
McDonalds = Democrats
rat poison = Republicans

Minty is saying that, being a pragmatist, he knew he could never get sushi, so he voted for McDonald’s in order to avoid rat poison. But some people voted for sushi, allowing rat poison to sneak home as the winner.

Yeah, you see, i think that there’s a difference between choosing to vote Dem even though you might be a Nader supporter, and slamming people who vote for Nader.

I really don’t have a problem with the former. If i were allowed to vote in the upcoming election, i’d vote Democrat even though a third party candidate like Nader might more closely represent my views. I think that it really is that important to get rid of the incumbent.

Had i been voting in 2000, i would have voted for Nader. But i never criticized anyone, even potential Nader supporters, for voting for Gore. I just find it hard to understand the vitriol directed at Nader voters, when there were so many other factors contributing to Gore’s loss, and some of those factors were internal to the Democratic party.

Lib, i agree with much of the underlying idea behind your argument, but i really do think that the differences between the Dems and the GOP are important enough to vote for the former rather than a third party candidate in this election. You’ve made clear in other posts on these boards what you think of the current administration’s push against liberty, especially the depredations of the DoJ under The Evil One. I think that even if the only change Kerry made as President were to replace Ashcroft with an Attorney General who was even a little more concerned about civil liberties than about covering up nude statues, the country would be in a better position than it is now.

There’s also a whole bunch of other issues that might improve under a Democratic president. What about the decision to withhold federal funding from organizations that discuss abortion? Reversing that would be no small victory. Constitutional amendment to declare marriage as a man-woman thing? Probably wouldn’t have White House imprimatur under a Democrat, even though Kerry doesn’t support gay marriage.

On the issue of government spending, it’s predictable enough that you and i will disagree. You, being a good libertarian, oppose most (all?) government intervention in the economy. I don’t. But, given that you’ve already conceded that both of the major parties spend too much money, i think it is non-trivial to examine what the money might be spent on. If the government is going to blow a whole lot of tax dollars, then i for one would prefer that it spend them in areas that might help the less fortunate members of society. And i believe that’s more likely to happen under Kerry than Bush.

122

I don’t have to throw my vote away. It’s been done already by Gerrymandering, and literally while I was in the Navy, and had to vote by absentee ballot.

123

Read it again. Yes, minty’s ultimate message is you should vote for McDonalds, because you sure as hell aren’t getting sushi. But in his example, he is most definitely voting for sushi:

124

I’m voting for Kerry. Because I really don’t like sushi.

125

Actually, I hadn’t contemplated any participation by myself in the hypothetical. I was addressing the situation faced by the hypothetical voter who wants sushi. Personally, I prefer sushi to both of the other options, although I’d cast my vote for McDonald’s in a heartbeat if sushi was doomed and McDonald’s was the only viable way to avoid the rat poison.

And why on earth shouldn’t the sushi voters be subject to criticism if their vote ensured that everyone had to eat rat poison for dinner?

126

Well, this all doesn’t matter too much, but i still read it differently.

Minty said:

In my interpretation, the “you” in this paragraph is all the dumb Nader voters who knew they could never get sushi, but voted for it anyway.

It’s getting pretty desperate here. Maybe minty could clear this up. :slight_smile:

127

And i see he already has.

128

And for those of you scoring at home:

Munch: 6,580
Everyone else: 0

:slight_smile:

129

The problem is that their vote is one of about a hundred different factors leading to rat poison, but it’s the one that McDonald’s advocates constantly harp on.

Dropping the pained analogy: Democrats called the bluff of the Greens, and got really pissy when it turned out not to be a bluff. Now, some Democrats have figured out that they’ve got to take progressive viewpoints under consideration when they’re trying to win an election, or they won’t win.

Other Democrats, of course–minty being a prime example–consider revenge against the Greens a more powerful motive than actually winning the next election, and so spend their time hollering at the Greens instead of figuring out how to meet enough of their needs in order to get them to join a coalition. Thankfully, the folks in power in the Democratic party aren’t doing that any more.

Daniel

130

Of course, we’ll give a free pass to the people who actually and actively voted for the rat poison; after all, they “at least got what they wanted.”

131

Some ESPN announcer describing a baseball game:
“If you’re scoring at home, or even if you’re alone …”

132

Why do I automatically think that was John Madden, despite the fact that he has never to my knowledge called a baseball game?

133

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL20040120a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200402/CUL20040202a.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200401260836.asp

http://www.rangelmd.com/2004/01/john-edwards-appears-on-my-radar.html

http://www.asininity.com/comments/1863_0_1_0_C/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2004-02-25.htm

Dunno, but IMO, this is the MO of an ambulance chaser, YMMV.

I didn’t know dead kids talked to him in the courtroom, neat trick, maybe he’ll tell us some dead Iraqi kids said Bush was evil.

134

Least he has a sense of humor.

March 10, 2003

135

No, this it the MO of a plaintiffs attorney who sees a family that has been wronged in some way and works to get restitution.

Now if you want to read the quote literally, then yes, you’ve fallen for dramatization and think he’s the OTHER John Edwards. If, however, you’ve ever watched a live courtroom trial, or hell, even watched Law and Order, you’ll know that it is his job to get a message across to jurors. If that means being a touch overdramatic and interpreting a fetal heart monitor, then it’s a means to and end.

I hate to think of you ever getting injured and needing representation the way you always turn a blighted eye upon lawyers.

Sam

136

That’s one way to see it, or, he’s got a real good thing going that generates him buckets of money.

And this is the very thing that makes them assholes. Overlooking the science, and playing the emotions of the jury to a huge payday. The system isn’t fixed, no good comes out of it, in fact things are probably worse off. Because of ambulance chasing lawsuits, hospitals are doing more c-sections, which carry their own risks. Of course the sharks don’t care, it’s a feeding bonanza for them any which way you cut it.

Then he has a chance to actually vote on a measure that might do some good, and he votes it down. For the little man my ass.

My girlfriend is well on her way to becoming a doctor, so unfortunately, I’ll probably be dealing with some in the future.

137

I guess it’s all in your interpretation. I read that article completely differently. The first thing that popped out at me was the fact that the individual attempting to malign Senator Edwards refused to be identified.

Hmmm. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I’m severly dizzy after reading all that spin. Medical experts, and even other lawyers, in the above-linked article admit that, though extremely rare, cerebral palsy can be caused by negligence on the part of the delivering doctor. John Edwards screens his cases carefully enough not to take any of the ones that clearly fall into the majority category of “not the doctor’s fault” (or at least no way to prove it) and somehow this gets twisted into him cherry-picking his cases so as to profit the most? What utter crap. And I agree with him – given that the science is showing that most cases of cerebral palsy are unpreventable, why the holy fuck should there be some mass fund for all families whose children unfortunately suffer from it? The entire point gets lost, and in fact, you do then apply “bad science” when you try to weasel out of taking responsibility for your actions on those cases where it’s applicable, by throwing money at everyone so the ones you really do fuck up can’t come after you.

Frankly, all that article showed me was that Senator Edwards was an ethical man, with a big heart, who’s bright enough and eloquent enough to choose winnable cases and then (horror of horrors!) actually win them. Which is exactly the kind of man I want lobbying congress on my behalf – someone who chooses his battles wisely and then can argue his case effectively! Sounds like the perfect man for the job to me.

Wow. Just wow. That’s offensive on so many levels, I can’t even begin to express it.

138

Why on earth would you say anything even remotely resembling that? Put down the crack pipe, man.

Ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Where do you see me giving any Bush supporters a “free pass” around here? Last I checked, the resident SDMB right-wingers had me firmly labeled as some kind of rabid leftie based on my arguments with them.

Just because this argument revolves around the folks who do actually know that rat poison is bad, but don’t care enough to take steps to avoid the rat poison, does not mean that the pro-rat poison people get away without criticism for their idiotic position.

139

None of your cites show how Edwards was allegedly “overlooking the science.” To the contrary, the people quoted in those articles (and what the hell is cnsnews.com, anyway?) clearly stated that some cerebral palsey cases are caused by bothched deliveries. Assuming that Edwards presented evidence that the individual patients he represented had had their CP caused by a botched delivery, where is the “junk science” of which you complain?

140

AvhHines:

…And they’re the best-situated to tell you that no, in fact, one vote can’t make a difference. (Unless you’re on the Supreme Court.) I always find it amusing that the closest presidential campaign in at least the last 125 years is used to show that every vote counts even though, mathematically, any one person (or two, or fifty) deciding to vote for Gore rather than voting for Nader or Buchanan or Bush or not voting at all would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, even if they were in Florida, even if they were in Palm Beach County.

I (obviously) understand that votes in aggregate will tilt an election, and that an astonishingly small number of aggregate votes would have tilted that one, but it’s still a canard to extrapolate from that to the statement that “one vote can make a difference.” No, it can’t. Particularly in a national election.

I agree with minty when he says, as he did on page one of this thread, that voting serves an important civic purpose, giving citizens a tangible stake in the direction of their government. People should vote. More people should vote. But not because their vote will change the outcome, not singly. It won’t.

Someone who doesn’t vote but who volunteers for a political campaign is making far more of a difference than someone who votes and feels that that satisfies their civic obligations.