With this kind of agenda how xould you take him seriously.
I do.
The question is totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Nope. All he has to do is say “I’m still marginally better on that one issue, just like last time. Therefore, you’ll vote for me again, just like last time.”
I think that if you go with candidate you think will be the winner this early in the process rather than the candidate that you more fully agree with, you’re silencing any voice you may have had supporting the less popular candidate. They don’t know! The popular candidate, receiving your vote, will assume that you agree with him 100%, which is not the case.
We communicate with these people via petitions, e-mails, political rallys and campaign contributions, but the loudest voice we have is our votes. (Damn – brought up campaign contributions; there goes my argument.)
I’m going to try to figure out what possible value I could add to this thread; the answer will involve getting as many diverse opinions as possible onto the radar of the candidates and somehow still winding up with a government that isn’t completely grid-locked. Magic may be involved, and no small amount of tequila.
I agree with that up to a point. But Ralph Nader is a prime example of someone I used to admire but no longer do because he did not know when enough was enough.
er… in case anybody took the Nader/Paul ticket idea seriously…
whoooosh!
When exactly is enough enough?
Marc
It’s like art or pornography: I know it when I see it.
The answer is clear: when I perceive that your guy appeals to some people who were maybe going to support my guy, and he starts taking people away from our team, then enough is enough. Maybe your guy can play around a little during primaries, you know, to bring up some important issues, or whatever he does, but he’d better get out of the way; he only is allowed to hang out with real politicians by the grace of those with more power than he. Because, of course, if you don’t vote for a Democrat or a Republican, you’re unamerican.
It’s the Linus Pauling syndrome, like when he started nattering on about vitamin C. And why IS it that Nader won’t run for anything but president anyway?
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to the thread. If you can’t keep up, maybe you should log off and focus on that vodka sippy-cup you were talking about a while back.
Back to the question of why I would vote for Nader: if he runs for president, he would be the only candidate other than Obama who I could stand serving in the office, and I like his platform a lot better than I like Obama’s. It’s also not my responsibility to usher Obama into office, because I’m not an Obama supporter and I’m not a Democrat.
Democrats seem to think that political belief is a slide and leftists just need to push in a little closer; voting for a Democrat would not be a “compromise” for me, it would be antithetical to my values.
Having a reluctant preference does not mean you’re obliged to settle. I’d prefer drowning to being tortured to death, but I’d rather get a backrub than either and I’m not willing to compromise by agreeing to be drowned.
I think it’s based on the mistaken assumption that all us pinkos would gladly vote Democratic if our party of preference didn’t exist. Nope. I, for one, would vote for TLDRIDKFTWLOLWTFBBQKTHXBAIZOMGWTHROFLFOBTMIANATDNFTL.
Maybe next year, in the 8th grade, you’ll change your mind.
If you care to confuse pragmatism with a collective bending over, be my guest, but I’ll have none of it.
IOZ has penned a succinct opinion here:
Fuck you in the ear, asshole.
The question was asked in response to my posting the Florida 2000 vote counts in response to someone’s asking whether there were any states that were close enough for Nader to have siphoned off enough votes to cost Gore the state. The question is irrelevant to to the factual nature of the exchange.
Oh wait, I’m trying to explain something to someone who wants vote for Nader in '08. I’d have better luck explaining quantum mechanics to my cat.