Just for the record, the tyrant that Liberal refers to is George Bush the Lesses. From the context of your response above I suspect you may think he was referring to Saddam Hussein.
This is no place for miscommunication based on poor attention to detail.
What the hell am I saying? :smack: This is precisely the place for that. That’s what makes this place such a hoot to observe sometimes. 
[emily litella]
Oh. That’s very different. Never mind.
[/emily litella]
Does anybody really know what the fuck Liberal is talking about anymore, anyway?
Not mine, yours. Sheesh
I’m talking about the same thing I’ve always talked about. The proper ethical role of government is to secure the right of peaceful honest people to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Bush is shitting all over that ethic. I do believe that Kerry will shit on it a bit less, but the only candidate that I know of for whom the aforementioned ethic is the very foundation of his campaign is Badnarik. If Kerry cannot win, then I might as well vote for the only thing approaching a good guy. If Kerry can win, then I must hold my nose and vote for him.
I take a different view. I think your vote is only a “waste” if you do not vote for the candidate who best reflects your views, regardless of the state of the polls in your electoral region. If your preferred candidate is going to win by a landslide or is going to get his butt kicked, at least your views will be accurately reflected. It is not like your single vote is ever going to influence the actual result. If you want to influence the result of an election, take up canvassing or throw some money into your candidate’s campaign fund.
That’s a very interesting take indeed. Thanks, InvidiousCourgette.
I second Courgette: If not even you will vote for that which you genuinely advocate now, why the heck would anyone else vote that way ever?
Thank God someone else thinks this way. I thought that after my Pit thread on GWB threads, I was the only one.
At any rate, speaking for myself only on the topic, I’ll agree with InvidiousCourgette (wotta username!) on general principles. However, I personally have not yet found a third-party candidate who both accurately reflects my views and is not a total nutcase or asshole. So it looks like Kerry for me…
Liberal, your premise is fatally flawed. Just becuase those polls show one thing, that doesn’t mean that what the polls will show in November.
But a vote for Nader is the same as voting for GWB. The naderites have a LOT to answer for, not to mention that egotist- Nader, himself.
I say no, it’s not a waste. Vote with your conscience. I’m going to.
I mean, Kerry fucked himself. It’s not like it’s your faullt. He voted for the War. Then he said the War was wrong. Except he would vote the same way even if he knew then what he knows now. Only things should be different.
What in the FUCK is this guy smoking? I mean, Jesus Pissing Christ, does he want to just hand both his asscheeks in a pair of flip-flops to the Republicans? He’s got nothing. “I voted to support the President”. Um, Douchebag, “The President” isn’t some hypothetical thing out there you support just coz, it’s a guy, a real flesh-and-blood human being who happens to be G.W. fucking Bush. As in, the guy who was talking like he was going after Sadddam the day after he got into office. Why did you think voting to give this maniac carte-blanche to invade Iraq was a good idea under any circimstances? You stupid cunting fuck! What in the spewing fuck did you think would happen? He wouldn’t try to invade? Did the whole thing with Hans Blix just somehow completely fly right over your rectangular fucking head, you shit-for-brained twat? You runny stool. You could have had an issue. You could have showed principles. You served in an unjust war, escalated under false pretenses. Ring a fucking bell, dipshit? See any relevence to current events, fuckstick? You protested the injustices once, when it suited you, I guess. You seemed like yoou were practically fucking born to vote NO on this bill, and you pussied out. You fucked it. You pulled that finger out of your ass, stuck it in the wind, and said “oooo, better vote for the jingos if I wanna be president”. Fat fucking chance, asswipe. Good, I’m glad you’re squirming. Please, keep explaining to us how you were for the war, but against it at the same time. Please, rationalize it as a security issue, because “The President” needed to appear strong in the face of Saddam. Did you have your head shoved so far up your rectum you couldn’t tell the guy would invade under any circumstances if given the go-ahead? What, you protest unjust wars so you can vote for them when it’s your turn to get the Presidential Seal? Not on my vote.
Look, either you knew, and voted like the craven fuck I think your are, or you didn’t, which makes you as big a fucknut as Bush. Either way, why in the hairy FUCK should we support this gonad? Vote with your principles, Liberal. Enough of this “hold your nose and vote for the Democrat” bullshit. Fuck that. If these shitstains on the supposed right side of the issues can’t even define themselves, then I say kick them in the ass until they figure it out. Show them they don’t get rewarded for trying to play to every side. Either they care about how WE feel, or they don’t. If the latter, pull the lever for somebody else. It’s the correct thing to do.
I voted for Nader in 2000 because I believed it was the right thing to do. Hold your applause, please. This election, I have no fucking idea what to do. Nader has sold out the Green Party and has a book deal with Harper Collins. Great. :rolleyes: I’m not a libertarian, so where is my viable third party to vote for? I believe that America needs a third party, but another one has to arise or the Greens need to be revitalized before they will have any impact on national politics. This breaks my heart to say, but there it is. Count me as still undecided, but not in the traditional “oh I’m so torn, will it be Bush or Kerry?” sense.
As for this:
One of my major voting criteria is environmental policy. The Bush administration’s treatment of the environment is abyssmal, verging on criminal. In another 4 years, irreparable damage may well be done. I just finished writing my letters on Bush’s attempts to underming the Roadless Area Conservation Rule; if he succeeds, those areas of roadless forest will be paved through, cut down, or mined, and there’s no going back after that. This is only the latest example of many. Could the Kerry administration be worse? Hardly. It’s almost guaranteed to be better, in fact. Likewise, could Kerry appoint a worse Secretary of the Interior, Attorney General, or Secretary of Defense? I highly doubt it.
These are the things that might make me vote for Kerry, even if I went to the polls sure he would lose. It’d be more like voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. It’s a big moral compromise for me, because I believe passionately in third parties, but thinking about those forests always just gets me. The principled vote for a third party v. the principled vote for an administration who won’t fuck up the planet quite so fast? I really don’t know. Hard thinking and reflecting will have to be done before I pull the lever.
Lib, I’d venture that you already know the answer to your question. You will vote in the manner most likely to have the most positive result for your particular brand of libertarianism. Usually, you don’t see a positive outcome from either major party, and the best choice is to further a vastly better cause, even if futilely. In this election, the chance to help replace a monstrous tyranny with a return to more usual levels of tyranny is a more positive proposition than continuing to be futile, if principled. However, if the Kerry cause cannot be helped by your vote, I cannot see you supporting its advancement, as you only support them as a means to get rid of Bush. Thus, if the election is not at all close in your state, your principles are probably best served with a Badnarik vote.
Just a friendly reminder: You shouldn’t vote for the candidate who has the views most similar to yourself, or who you like the best (this isn’t a popularity contest)-- you should vote in the way that will help elect the candidate that is better for this country (in your opinion). As a practical matter that means-- don’t vote for Nader unless you believe the country is better off with Bush as president than Kerry.
Like it or not, voting is strategy.
Have you completly lost your mind? I’ve been hearing this line on the environment since Reagan’s forst term. “Oh no, his policies are going to destroy or sweet Mother Earth!”
This shit’s been going on for over 20 years and I still don’t need a gas mask to breath outdoors. The water is still safe to drink. And the redwoods are still standing.
And to add to my point you quoted, it is NOT the President that makes such policies (Unless a Clintonesque fiat) nor is he the one to appoint the other higher ups you mentioned. The President nominates them and Congress votes to approve the post.
Umm… correct me if I’m wrong (and I probably am) but…
Libertarian socialism is drastically different from social libertarianism.
The former says, “Let people do what they want, as long as they pay for everybody else.”
The latter says, “Let people do what they want, so long as they pay for themselves.”
Now maybe I was wrong at the outset regarding Bush, but you came from WAY left field with the “socialism” comment…
Wait, I just reread the thread…
I didn’t find the word “socialism” anywhere.
My apologies, bedtime for bonzo.
Last post!
Neither has a thing to do with Bush.
Good night.
Actually, I’d suggest that the former says “Let people do what they want full stop, without the physical or economic coercion enshrined by property privilege”.
And my, did people pay under Pinochet.
Well organized and cogent. Thanks, Jeremy.
Like it or not, voting is symbolic. Your vote is not going to change the result. If that is your aim, then you need to do something different. And yes, persuading people to vote tactically *en masse * could achieve that.