|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 175 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 99 of 175:
| 
Oct 30 23:22 UTC 2000 |
Ok Brighn how about this: The Clinton/Gore administration quite literally
robbed from poor welfare mothers and gave the money to rich defense
contractors. You can remove the large stick from your a$$ now.
I'm sure you know what I ment BTW. Yet another dem defender tries to weasel
out of actually addressing the weak Clinton/Gore record when it comes to
addressing the needs of the poor, or the damage done to the environment.
Every day that goes by I got more disapointed with the democratics and
their weak weasly panic striken defenders. <sigh> No wonder Gore can't
surmount perhaps the dumbest Republican since Quayle.
|
brighn
|
|
response 100 of 175:
|
Oct 30 23:38 UTC 2000 |
Implying that Gore has done nothing of record for eight years qualifies as
defending Gore? Um, ok. At least MD read the post the way I meant it.
Gore's qualifications should be based on his years as a Senator, primarily.
Which makes him more qualified than Bush, but only slightly.
And Quayle is bright. Like Carter, he lacks political sense, and like Bush,
he gaffed frequently. He also fulfilled his role as VP relatively adequately.
(And no, I didn't know what you meant. If I'd known what you meant, I'd've
ignored it as more Conspiracy Theory nonsense.)
|
mary
|
|
response 101 of 175:
|
Oct 31 00:07 UTC 2000 |
View hidden response.
|
scg
|
|
response 102 of 175:
|
Oct 31 01:32 UTC 2000 |
I find the comments that anybody who would vote for Gore is just a sheep
blindly following the party line to be somewhat offensive. I could as easily
argue that those voting for Nader are blindly following Nader rather than
thinking for themselves, but I won't. I don't know enough about the thought
processes of the individual Nader voters to know which of them are or aren't.
I do think it's a lot easier to assume that somebody who disagrees with you
is blindly being misled, rather than coming to terms with the possibility that
it could be a well thought out decision.
Here's my thinking: I could vote for whichever of the people who has
expressed interest struck me as likely to be the best President. I would in
that case probably write in Bill Bradley, but maybe if I were to think about
this more I would pick somebody even more obscure. However, having given some
slight thought to the issue, and having concluded that there isn't a sizable
group of people who are going to write in Bradley, my writing in Bradley is
very unlikely to bring the US any closer to having Bradley as President. I
don't think I'm making that determination as a blind sheep. Rather, it would
go against everything I know about political polling for somebody who is
currently at 0% in the polls to win the election. So, if the candidate I
would really like to vote for has no chance, I then shift my thinking to how
I can manipulate the election to get results close to what I want. We've got
a couple of candidates who a few votes might push over the top, and while
neither of them seems perfect, Gore seems far closer to what I want than Bush
is. So maybe in voting for Gore, I'm not being completely honest. Maybe he's
not my first choice. But voting for Gore seems to be the most effective thing
I can do towards getting a President at least somewhat similar to what I want.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 103 of 175:
|
Oct 31 01:43 UTC 2000 |
This item needs more gas. (The type you get from eating beans.)
|
richard
|
|
response 104 of 175:
|
Oct 31 02:40 UTC 2000 |
Michigan Governor John Engler was on Larry King tonight. Engler is openly
encouraging the Nader voters to turn out and vote. I mean, why not,
if Bush wins and Michigan is the deciding state, Engler becomes a hero
to the GOP and probably gets to be attorney general.
I suppose a Nader vote is worth four years of having Engler as our
nation's chief law enforcement officer?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 105 of 175:
|
Oct 31 03:29 UTC 2000 |
I doubt Engler could redeem himself in front of the national party
bosses after his humiliation in the Republican Primary this year,
where he failed to make good on his promise to deliver the state to
Bush. I also have a hard time imagining anyone offering him the
USAG position, even if he personally cast the deciding vote that
carried the state..
What *is* this bizarre fixation you've got with Engler, Richard?
|
gull
|
|
response 106 of 175:
|
Oct 31 03:56 UTC 2000 |
What I don't understand about the "vote for someone who's likely to win"
argument is that, carried to its logical conclusion, it suggests that the
only person you should vote for is whoever's ahead, since if the person you
vote for doesn't win, your vote is wasted. This strikes me as a very
circular sort of logic.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 175:
|
Oct 31 04:00 UTC 2000 |
mcnally, engler is one of bush's inner inner circle, if bush wins he can
basically choose his job. Yes, he took heat for Bush losing the primary,
\but all will be forgiven if Bush wins michigan in the general election.
|
richard
|
|
response 108 of 175:
|
Oct 31 04:34 UTC 2000 |
and even if Engler stays as governor during a bush administration, he'd
have "the stroke" with the whitehouse, he'd be the most powerful
governor in the country, with the white house backing up hisentire
conservative agenda for Michigan.
|
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 175:
|
Oct 31 06:13 UTC 2000 |
gull, the argument isn't "vote for someone who's likely to win," it's
"vote for someone who has a realistic chance at winning." Nader doesn't.
If you don't understand that this late in the game, you never will.
It seems like most of the people who are still actively supporting Nader are
those who want Nader's message to be reflected in the political arena, the
same way that Perot's message became a major force, as well as those who want
to send a message to the two parties that they're growing tired of the
bickering and deadlock, and those who want to vote because they vote and can't
stomach either of the two main choices. And, while Nader has that proverbial
snowball's chance (or, in a moment of Dennis Miller rant, mayhap I should
suggest that perhaps the quarter COULD land on its edge and see how many
people catch the reference), his effect on the next four years will be greater
than any of the other also-rans, regardless.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 110 of 175:
|
Oct 31 06:31 UTC 2000 |
Over the past few weeks I have become disenchanted with Gore, though mostly
because I don't like his manner in debates and speaches: he is too
aggressive, not very subtle, shows too little humor, and...rubs me the
wrong way. However, between Gore and Bush, what rides in with Bush - the
extreme Right fanatics scares me so much I will have to vote for Gore.
Nader has some good ideas in a very narrow way and doesn't rise to even
the level of a statesman in my opinion (in addition to the fact he is
NOT going to win, so a useful vote can only be cast to separate Gore
and Bush).
|
senna
|
|
response 111 of 175:
|
Oct 31 06:55 UTC 2000 |
His inner inner circle? What do you know about Bush's inner inner circle,
richard?
|
mdw
|
|
response 112 of 175:
|
Oct 31 07:29 UTC 2000 |
I'm sure Bush has an "inner-inner" circle, but it's almost certainly
comprised of people who don't have full-time commitments elsewhere.
Right now, I'm sure their full-time job is spent making sure Bush
doesn't make any big mistakes, like visiting the wrong southern school.
There is probably another group of people behind that, who don't deal
with Bush full-time, but may be even more influential; the people who
gave Bush his millions, and have groomed him for the job of being
president.
The sad thing is those people will probably do almost as well if Gore
gets elected instead.
|
scg
|
|
response 113 of 175:
|
Oct 31 07:55 UTC 2000 |
re 106:
I think gull if following the argument to a rather illogical
conclusion. The reason for voting for a candidate with a good chance of
winning in a multi-party election is not so the voter can claim to have voted
for the winner, but rather to manipulate the result of the election. Where
there are three "main" candidates, two of whom are in a dead heat and the
third of whom is trailing so far behind that there's no possible way to catch
up, a vote for one of the leading candidates may change the course of the
election, while a vote for the far trailing candidate is unlikely to make a
difference. On the other hand, if you have a two candidate race where one
candidate is getting so far ahead that the other has no chance of winning,
it might be reasonable for a supporter of the minority candidate to question
why they were voting at all. However, in such an election there would be
nothing to manipulate by voting for anybody other than the voter's first
choice candidate, so if the voter were to decide to vote anyway, voting for
the candidate they didn't want would make very little sense.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 114 of 175:
|
Oct 31 09:54 UTC 2000 |
How about voting for the person that most represents your views? I
would strongly urge and encourage those that feel Nader most strongly
represents your views to do so. Its called a 'democracy'.
|
md
|
|
response 115 of 175:
|
Oct 31 12:51 UTC 2000 |
"Vote for someone who has a realistic chance at winning." Okay, tell
us why any Democrat should have voted for McGovern, Mondale or Carter
(in 1980). Not one of them had a snowball's chance in hell of
winning. Neither did Dukakis, for that matter. "Vote for someone who
has a realistic chance at winning" is simply not good advice. It's the
lie the Democrats are currently telling to try and lure Nader voters.
|
scott
|
|
response 116 of 175:
|
Oct 31 13:45 UTC 2000 |
I've been gradually remember what Hunter S. Thompson wrote about the 1968
election. It was Humphrey vs. Nixon, and he voted for a third party
candidate. But even after all the mess Nixon created, his opinion was that
Humphrey would have been just as corrupt but better at covering it up.
|
brighn
|
|
response 117 of 175:
|
Oct 31 15:13 UTC 2000 |
#113> Exactly. If either Gore or Bush had a ten-point margin going in to next
Tuesday in Michigan, I'd vote for Browne.
#115> See my last paragraph.
|
richard
|
|
response 118 of 175:
|
Oct 31 17:37 UTC 2000 |
md, you have to be IN office to have the power-- Gore and Nader share
many of the same core values. Both are for affirmative action, both
are pro choice, both share a populist view of government, both are
environmentalists, both favor consumer protections and campaign finance
reform-- the difference is that Gore can win, Nader cant. We've done
well with the democratic party running the executive branch the last
eight years-- we're not talking clinton but the folks under him-- the
operative question is are all those people worth replacing? Because if
Nader DID get elected, he'd presumably put democrats and like minded
people in all those jobs. So with Gore you are getting someone who on
an administrative level would do most of what Nader would do. And he
can get elected.
|
gull
|
|
response 119 of 175:
|
Oct 31 18:05 UTC 2000 |
My point is that it seems to work like this:
- People will only vote for candidates that seem to have a chance of winning.
- Only candidates that people will vote for will seem to have a chance of
winning.
It's all very circular. It's exactly that attitude that ensures we'll get
election after election of bland, cookie-cutter, lowest-common-denominator
candidates. It's a vicious cycle.
|
md
|
|
response 120 of 175:
|
Oct 31 18:36 UTC 2000 |
So, it's "Vote for someone who has a realistic chance at winning --
unless it's my party's candidate, in which case you should vote for him
whether he has a realistic chance of winning or not."
Okay, I'll accept that. Only, of course, my party is the Green party.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 121 of 175:
|
Oct 31 20:25 UTC 2000 |
i'm voting for rocky and bullwinkle.
they are real smart.
|
richard
|
|
response 122 of 175:
|
Oct 31 20:56 UTC 2000 |
no no md, I was saying that IF you are choosing between two candidates
who share similar views, and only one of them has a chance to win, THEN
you have to logically consider voting for that person. Its like many
liberterians will vote republican because the republicans have a chance
to win and they have much in common with a gop small government platform.
its saying "its better to get part of your goals achieved than none at
all"
|
raven
|
|
response 123 of 175:
|
Oct 31 21:11 UTC 2000 |
I would say Gore & Bush share far more policy positions than Gore and
Nader. Where Gore and Bush are similar, both are pro death penalty, both
support increases in military spending (in fact Gore/Libierman's is
larger), both support the pure pork of a national missile defense system,
both are pro free trade with China and support the IMF/WTO/NAFTA, both
support very incremental reform to the health care system, both are pro
"welfare reform," both are heavily indebted to big corporations for
campaign support. Both are in fact so similar that I can only use a run on
sentence to describe them. :-)
A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush policy wise. That's why I'm voting for
Nader.
|