If Kerry loses because I defect and vote Green it won't be my fault.

[tedzbear]

I'm not running his campaign.

:kick:

[Christ was Socialist]

1. I agree

he still hasn't unleashed a wave to sway the socialists/greens/cpusa/syndicalist vote.

[wtmusic]

2. Mixed feelings

Sometimes I wish they would abolish the two-party system and make polls illegal. We might get the most qualified president then.

[MichaelHarris]

3. yeah

but we'll blame ya anyway :)

[Melodybe]

9. If you are having reservations about Kerry you should visit

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

It is funny as hell, well written, and gives a great analysis of the political climate.

I highly recommend it.

Look, it takes time for people to come to their senses, we have to take baby steps. Getting rid of the Busheviks in November is step two.

Step 1, getting you guys on our side. We all need to start thinking about a landslide in Nov.

BTW Nader, whom I voted and campaigned for in 2000, is hurting the democrats chance at getting the chimpster away from the big red button. No, not because his being in the race gives the media another crutch in stealing this election, but his campaign is spamming democrat sites and dissing democrats. He is saying that there is no difference between Bush* and Kerry and that is an effing lie. Nader is HELPING Bushco, the sooner everyone comes to grips with that, the better off we'll be.

You should go back and review Kerry's senate record, he ALWAYS votes in favor of the environment, women's rights, and gay rights. Kerry may be an opportunist and he may pander to the general masses, but when it matters (cough)votinginthesenate(cough), other than a few screwy repub bills that would have may him look bad either way, he sides with us everytime.

Just because he is not saying what exactly what you want to hear, does not mean that Kerry does not AGREE with you.

Please reconsider, we NEED you guys to start recognizing that a Kerry presidency is a REALLY good thing.

[MichaelHarris]

10. me reservations?

I'm voting Kerry all the way. Never once wavered.

[Virginian]

4. And, what will you gain? Will your candidate win?

Will the country be more or or will it be less environmentally friendly?

[Melodybe]

15. Considering that Kerry has the BEST voting record on the environment

that any other Senator, it will be A LOT better.

Kerry knows that America needs to be cleaned up, he wants to create 10 million jobs and I am betting that he will put many to work doing just that.

It took me a while too figure it out, but honestly, Nader is a scumbag, he is a once great man that bought into his own hype and now his ego is the size of the hole in the Ozone layer.

Please vote, let go of some of that anger and try and be positive for a chance. Kerry CAN win, and he WILL be good for this country.

[Virginian]

28. Exactly.

So if a person like TedTheBear votes for the green party and this election is so close that those votes determine the election, Did he really expect his candidate to win? What is the purpose of his voting at all?

In this election, you don't win if you buck the system and try to make a statement with your vote. You have to vote to win, otherwise, you are voting to lose. If you don't think your first choice can win, you have to go with your second. You certainly don't want to default to your last choice.

If you want to make a statement, write a letter to the editor. Otherwise, your statement may not get heard or worse yet, your statement may be misinterpreted.

[tedzbear]

56. Since when is my vote "making a statement?"

1) That is your opinion, not mine. I vote for the candidate who best represents my beliefs at the time.

2) How can a vote I make in secret be a "statement?"
Once they tally the Green Party votes, nobody will notice anyway.

3) And why should I vote to win when that vote will mean I lose? For some of us voters integrity, not winning, is an important part of the equation.

Peace.

:kick:

[Sparkly]

62. You don't have anything to lose if Bush wins?

May I suggest you think about those who do have a lot to lose?

I don't understand this notion of "integrity." I couldn't go into the inner city after another Bush win and tell the most desperate people there, "Sorry, I had too much integrity."...

[tedzbear]

88. How often do YOU go to the inner city???

Ever? I go every Sunday to help out at the homeless shelter. So don't try to tell me about integrity.

:kick:

[Virginian]

82. I don't understand you.

You want to vote for someone who has no possibility of winning because that is what is closest to your beliefs at the time. In doing so, you don't vote for the viable candidate who is closest to your beliefs therefore letting the candidate who is the furtherst from your beliefs win the election.

This is a lose-lose scenerio. You vote for someone who will lose. Because you voted for him, the candidate you least wanted will win the election and for the next four years, you get less than you would have if you had compromised and voted for your second favorite candidate. So if you can't have everything you want, you don't want anything at all.

Are you very young and there is still hope that with a little time you will learn that half a loaf is better than none?

I have to admit, there are lots of people I would choose to vote for instead of Kerry, but none of them are running, and some of them are dead and couldn't assume the duties of the office even if they did win. They stood for my beliefs, but I am not going to write them in year after year because they think like me. I'm going to go for the viable candidate who is closest to my ideals. I may not get everything from him the way I want it, but at least I'll get some things to my liking.

[JI7]

5. who is going to be the Green candidate ?

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. Won't know until June, but I can tell you that here in Maine

Camejo, Cobb, and Nader were the frontrunners for delegates, but the other HALF of our delegates were undecided.

Camejo is all for deferring to Nader *which is too bad because I like Peter*. Cobb is still on the campaign trail.

And the Greens are really divided on what to do:

1) Run our own candidate full out.

2) Run our own candidate in safe states.

3) Run our own candidate quietly and hope we keep party status without hurting the Dem's chances.

4) Back the Dem.

5) Back Nader.




I honestly have no clue how that will turn out, but I am torn between 3 and 4 myself, and plan on checking off Kerry's name even though he really doesn't thrill me.

[IronLionZion]

77. please go for choice 4

I like the Green Party but I hate the Bush wing of the Republican party more than I hate Satan.

Greens are players in local elections and win a lot of them. My state (PA) has the most Greens in office after California. But for national elections they should unite with the Dems.

[ClintonTyree]

6. As Arianna.........

Huffington said in TDS the other night, "when your house is on fire, you don't redecorate". I know I needed a translation of that and I'm glad Stewart made her elucidate. She meant that Bush is SO bad, that getting him out is the main goal at the moment, not reorganizing the Democratic Party or appeasing Green voters.
The stakes are too high this time. Think of the consequences. FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH, AS A LAME DUCK PRESIDENT?
Please reconsider.

[unblock]

7. yeah, why should VOTERS feel responsible for determining the presidency?

sheesh, if that's your attitude, why vote at all?

[Forkboy]

36. Well,voting didn't determine anything last time

[LoZoccolo]

8. Yeah but it's a stupid thing to do.

There's that element of "what's your plan" that comes into play.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Actually no you're responsible for your vote.

Don't act like someone punched the chad for you.

[brainoverload]

12. If Kerry loses..

...because I defect and vote for Bush it won't be my fault. I'm not running Kerry's campaign.

Just felt compelled to offer my own version of deeply philosophical, inspired, constructive commentary.

[saracat]

18. Two Words

Supreme Court. That is all you have to know.Bush must not be allowed to make those appointments!

[brainoverload]

20. it's called sarcasm

[saracat]

31. Sorry

I meant this for tedthebear!

[brainoverload]

33. thanks

[blondeatlast]

63. That's the elephant in the room that no one talks about.

I see it, you see it, but do the rest of them?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. In 2000 this might have made some sense...

But when you consider that four more years of Bush may very well mean the end of American freedoms as we known them, it really doesn't make any sense. If you are smart enough to know what another four years of Bush means for this country, you should be smart enough to vote to stop Bush from getting another four years.

[jfxgillis]

14. Oh yes it will.

The deep truth at the foundation of a democratic republic is that each and every citizen is responsible for the consequences of their own vote.

Whether it's Mr. Greenjeans in a New Hampshire town meeting voting in a 15-14 canvas to erect a stoplight at the corner of First and Main or tedthebear voting as one of 100,000,000 voters for President of the United States, YOU are responsible for YOUR vote.

For example. I helped elect Ronald Reagan. I voted for John Anderson. I knew when I voted for Anderson that my vote would make it impossible for Carter to defeat Reagan. But I did it anyway because I judged that Carter was so over his head in office that there was no appreciable difference between a conservative Democrat of known incompetence and a conservative Republican of indetermined competence.

I may well have been wrong. But I did it, and I kinew it, and Reagan IS my fault.

When you develop out of your adolescent ideology, you'll realize I'm right.

[tedzbear]

58. Sorry, but my philosophy is different than yours.

I feel the integrity that comes from voting for the candidate who best represents your beliefs at the time is the right thing to do.

I am powerless over the majority's will. My single vote is just that, a single vote. I find it absurd to think that my vote is important enough to turn the tide, and therefore I should jettison my beliefs.
I do not vote to win the majority's favor, I vote for the truth.

:kick:

[blondeatlast]

65. Ypu must have known you would get negative response to this thread.

But you posted anyway, and kicked it besides.

Fine; vote for Nadir, vote Green, even vote for Bush. I'm swallowing my moral pride to vote for a candidate I'm not completely happy with for the following reasons:

Bush, Rove, Cheney, a Republican majority in the House and Senate and one or two Supreme Court appointments made by a President who talks to God--and who thinks God talks DIRECTLY to him.

Say goodbye to:
Gay rights
Roe v. Wade
Miranda warnings
Unreasonable search and seizure

And, very possibly for many who post here, hello to:
Gitmo.

If you can live with that, congratulations--you're a far better person than I am.

[bluestateguy]

16. Depends on your state

Nader voters from 2000 in 48 states can make that argument. That argument is suspect for Naderities in New Hampshire and outright false for Naderities in Florida. In a state like California a Nader vote will probably not be damaging. On the other hand if a Senator ranked by the National Journal as having the most liberal voting record in 2003 is not to your satisfaction, I don't see how much more can be done to appease the likes of you.

[IronLionZion]

80. ted said Green not Nader

and it looks like he's in the extremely blue state of California - a state where a groping Austrian beefcake can become governor.

Nader is no Green. He never was.

[elperromagico]

17. Certainly. It's up to Kerry to win your vote.

I hope he does win your vote. :)

[DieboldMustDie]

19. It's Kerry vs. Fascism!

I'm afraid it's that simple. :scared:

[tinanator]

39. a yes vote on the PATRIOT Act and IWR proves that how?

If he IS against fascism, which IS Corporatism, why doesnt he say so?

[MinnFats]

21. I know some Greenies talkin' like BOLSHEVIKS!

"Let's just let things get worse and worse. When things finally are worse than anyone imagined they could be, people will flock to our banner."


No, thanks.

[demgrrrll]

22. Go ahead Ted. I mean it is all about you, after all. n/t.

.

[tedzbear]

59. Actually, it's not.

I just don't need to conform to your dictates. YOU are the one demanding that I follow your lead. So in the end it's all about YOU, isn't it.

You are talking BS, girlfriend.

[demgrrrll]

71. Not at all Ted. Read for comprehension. I said go ahead. That

has nothing to do with my dictates whatever you think they
may be. Do I think that it is selfish? Yes I do. But I have NO expectations that you care in the least about that nor do I expect you to. Live free or die baby!!

[tedzbear]

89. Nope, you were intentionally insulting me...

...so don't back off in a huff. You said "it's all about you, after all." That is a clear accusation of self-centered selfishness because I won't vote Kerry like you.

Own your own s--t or die, baby!!

[demgrrrll]

91. Ted you started this vanity thread with I am going to do thus and so

and it won't be MY fault and then you want to be insulted
because someone points out your premise is that it is all about you?
Well gee I wonder where I could have gotten that idea.
I didn't back off, said you were selfish and that is how I see
the premise of this thread and your original comment as self centered and selfish. That being said I meant what I said, go ahead. I am
mature enough to realize what I can and can't control. Last post.
This is getting tiresome.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Yep.

I had another tell me Bush* would bring total collapse, and that we should try to get that over with as quick as possible so we could build anew.

:eyes:

Sounds a little like what we're trying to do in Iraq.

[Melodybe]

24. Kick MinnFats, you just hit the nail on the head

Folks we have to stop this while we are still capable of doing so, another 4 years of Shrub equals Nazi USA 2004, that is the reality, deal with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. You mean Marxists...

Bolshleviks wanted to do something about the problem instead of letting it get worst.

[MinnFats]

27. you sure? Bolsheviks were pre-revolution, when life under the Tsar...

...was becoming unbearable.
They wanted conditions to become even worse so theirs would be the only solution.


Course, I've been out of school quite a while.

Anyway, you get my point, no?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Bolshleviks headed the revolution and came to power afterwords...

Lenin believed that a communist revolution would come about lead by a small elite group of pure socialists such as himself. Unlike Marx, they believed that socialism would not happen by iteself and would have to be pushed.

[mzmolly]

35. I agree, what an odd strategy?

:crazy:

[QC]

42. It's the "Nach Hitler, uns!" strategy.

("After Hitler, us!") That was the slogan of German Communists who believed that Hitler would be so bad that a few years of him would send the German people running screaming into their arms.

Instead, as we all know, Hitler loaded up the Communists and sent them to the death camps.

Not such a smart strategy.

[JVS]

47. Was there not a Communist state on German territory after 1945?

[mzmolly]

49. Wow!

What an interesting and apt comparison.

[Zorra]

53. Great point

On March 5, 1933, the last free elections in Germany, before Hitler became absolute dictator, were held.

Approximate Totals:

Nazi's: 17,277,180
Center Party: 4,000,000+
Social Democrats: 7,000,000+
Communists: 4,000,000+

"As we all know, Hitler loaded up the Communists and sent them to death camps."

On Nov. 2, 2004, the last free elections in the US, before Bu$h became absolute dictator, were held

Theoretical Totals:

Bu$h: 53,200,000
Kerry: 53,000,000
Nader: 2,000,000
Greens: 2,000,000
Other: 1,000,000

In June, 2005, Bu$h outlaws all opposition parties, for security reasons related to WW III.

Unite against Bu$h. Vote for Kerry.

[blondeatlast]

67. Precisely. Thank you for a brief, yet erudite post.

[the Kelly Gang]

26. why defect ?.get rid of Bush first or there won't be any Green Party

to support.
The greatest crisis in US politics is the Bush & Co doctrine that threatens to drag everything so far to the extreme right it may never come back.
The only hope is to rid the world of these neocons and bring US politics back to the centre.
Then the Greens and other political groups may be able to thrive.

Australia is an example .Under the preferential system the Greens supported a right wing Howard and his party ( something that made me vow to never vote for them again )...which is how he gained power and then reneged on everything he promised them.
Now the normally left Labor Party has to be a conservative force just to win power ( which it will this year) but then they will just be a conservative government instead of a far-right as we have now.

Politics is about compromise and the most important act in the world today is to first rid us all of Bush.
If he wins again, I predict the Greens will just become a minor fringe group that will fade.

[LandOLincoln]

32. They're already a minor fringe group--and they have their

good, good friend Ralph Nader largely to thank for that.

This time the Green leadership won't touch Ralphie with a ten-foot pole. They're smart enough to see him for what he really is.

Too bad the more...hormonally challenged, shall we say? of the Green rank and file is too...hormonally blinded, shall we say? to see it for themselves.

[tedzbear]

60. What are you trying to say, LandOLincoln?

Are you calling me a fag? Or are you saying women are idiots?

[Lexingtonian]

29. Gee, thanks, ye weak of faith

It's war and you're going AWOL or over to the enemy.

Consider November 3. Will we be getting an abject concession and admission of your bad judgment from you, or at least an apology for crappy behavior, if our team wins?

John Kerry is a much smarter politician than you are, by demonstration, and running moderate Republicans away from their party allegiance now while they are willing- for the first time in a generation- is a much more important task in the American political arena in the longer run than kissing ass with e.g. Greens.

Both the Republican and the Green Party are in decline, your going over to them simply makes you part of the reactionaries and increasingly irrelevant groups.

[mzmolly]

34. If Bush wins and you vote Green, don't bitch about his ruining the world

ey?

:hi:

[Forkboy]

37. People can bitch whether they vote for your guy or someone else

or no one at all.

[mzmolly]

51. Sure and they do.. but as my high school english teacher said...

"If you don't vote, don't bitch." I tend to agree.

[tinanator]

43. If Kerry wins and people continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan

will you?

[mzmolly]

50. Will I bitch? Yes I will...

;)

However, people are going to continue to die in those countries no matter who is in office. The difference will be between wether or not we have any international support.

[tedzbear]

61. So you're saying it's OK for our troops to continue dying...

...as long as their dying has international support?

[mzmolly]

70. So your saying it's ok to leave Iraq high and dry, as long as we cover

our OWN asses?

What Im saying is that we need to de-Americanize the venture, and prevent a draft by brining in the UN and other nations. Bush can't accomplish that, nor does he desire to...

[tedzbear]

75. No. I am rejecting your all or nothing argument.

We don't need to "stay the course" as Kerry wishes, or cut and run either.

We can gradually turn the WHOLE ENCHILADA over to the UN, and that means the oil, infrastructure, and politics, and remove our troops at a pace commensurate to the addition of international peacekeepers. We should also require our taxpayers to pay the entire bill for reconstruction since we blew up the place behind a phony rationale. Otherwise, I doubt if the rest of the world will think it's fair they pick up the tab. If we're not careful, they might leave us twisting in the wind.

:nuke:

[mzmolly]

93. Did you miss the part where the UN said we made this mess and they

aren't interested in cleaning it up for us.

Sorry, we are in this, we started it and we will finish it.

I am not thinking in terms of all or nothing YOU ARE.

You are saying it's the UN OR the US. I am saying it should be both. Furter I assert that Kerry is in the position to make this happen, Bush is not.

[Hav]

38. .

If I'm getting a bad mark for the next test because I didn't learn, it won't be my fault. I'm not deciding which questions are asked in the test.

If my trousers are getting wet because I'm pissing against the wind, it won't be my fault. I can't make the wind blow in the other direction.

If my underwear is dirty because I don't wipe my ass, it's not my fault. My mommy didn't help me.

[zulchzulu]

40. Nothing is your fault

No need to think you can make a difference.

No need to think about the consequences of what will happen if Bush gets a second term.

No need to even vote.

It's not your fault. It's somebody else's.

You're perfect.

[JHBowden]

44. That pretty much sums up the attitude.

:toast:

[tedzbear]

90. Same to you, buddy.

By the looks of your post, you're guilty of the same.

[emulatorloo]

41. I thought there was no difference between Reagan and Mondale

and then I woke up, but it was too late.

Will bush protect the environment? No
Will kerry? Yes

Will bush pack the supreme court with arch conservatives and cronies? Yes
Will kerry put reasonable judges in? Yes

Vote how you want to. Kerry has a great record, in spite of some lapses. Bush has a lousy record. If you can take another 4 years of bush economy, environment, war mongering, knock yourself out.

[Sparkly]

45. No difference between "yes" and "no"

It seems to me anybody who cares about the people suffering under this administration will vote to get Bush out.

Any woman with a fertile womb should be worried. Anybody who sees the danger of theocracy should be worried. Anybody who cares about civil rights should be worried. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't vote for John Kerry.

[mzmolly]

52. Here here!

:toast:

[ramapo]

72. Reagan & Mondale - No difference?

Did you really think that?

I don't remember anybody thinking that. People just loved Reagan and his stupid remarks, reckless economic ideas, anti-environmental policies, anti-choice, anti-worker, anti-science, pro-rich and pro-corporate policies.

Reagan set the course to change the US from a democratic republic to a corpocracy ruled by the tenets of corporatism, a big step towards fascism which the Bush adminsitration has embraced.


Reagan set the stage for Bush II since many of the players are the same.

[samsingh]

46. no but the world will suffer with another bush win

[TNMOM]

48. Not your fault, but you'll pay the price

Vote your conscience, but don't be stupid, either.
Don't waste this chance to rid our country of the worst president its ever had. Voting for Nader is short-sighted.

[mitchum]

54. I agree (because you're not that important)

but you will pay the price

[w4rma]

55. It will **partly** be your fault. (nt)

[MessiahRp]

57. It's that mentality that is why America looks so bad

to other countries. Some of us refuse to ever take responsibility for our action or in your case inaction. My first thought in reading your post was Bush at his press conference refusing responsibility for anything. By not voting for Kerry and essentially enabling Bush to return to office you are just as bad as the Right Wingers. You'll be ignorant but for other reasons.

Kerry is not here to inspire you, he is here to lead us to a better place. Kerry is not here to listen to a small section of the Democrats when the job he is campaigning for requires him to listen to everyone, and just because Republicans don't do that doesn't mean Dems should be as small minded and do the same.

You are the problem in American Politics because you believe so much in serving your own self interest that everything you believe in can be disintegrated in the process because you will choose a basic non-vote over siding with a party that while not perfect represents a closer position to your views.

That to me is ludicrious.

The future of this country is at stake and voting for Nader or not voting at all signals that you just don't care apparently. Four more years of BushCo in office represents the elimination of anything you hold sacred and if you don't care about that then it is you who is at fault and you who gave up on our country thus allowing the BFEE to continue on.

Rp

[tedzbear]

64. But maybe, just maybe, building a third party IS the long term answer!

Who's to say the Green Party won't grow (like Perot) as a result of Kerry's centrist-right wing platform, and the subsequent Bush win?

Plus I think your analogy of Bush = Hitler is a scare tactic. If Bush DOES try to be Hitler, I am more than willing to hit the streets and get arrested in order to protect the Constitution. And I doubt that Rove and Cheney have the balls to go THAT far anyway. This country will begin to fragment if they do, and they know that. They will have two Iraqs on their hands.

:kick:

[VOX]

68. Maybe, but choose your battles wisely. Put BushCo OUT first...

If we don't, we're all just polishing brass on the deck of the Titanic.

[MessiahRp]

87. Scare Tactic? How about reality...

If you think what I propose from Bush in four years of term without facing an electorate is a scare tactic may I wake you up to the realities of what has passed in these previous three years?

He already has stomped on the Constitution with The Patriot Act, had the Justice Dept. scoping out protesters, trampled on Roe vs. Wade, and assigned tons of crazy right wing judges to the high courts (some without Congressional approval).

He's targeted three countries for war that weren't involved in 9/11 and attacked one of them (not to mention he sent the craziest most dangerous one of them all on edge because of it). Not to mention he lied about the reasons to go in and diverted $700 million in funds to the war illegally, and has the public so brainwashed they don't even care.

He's given tax cuts to the rich, rewarded corporations for moving all of our jobs overseas and then asked for further welfare cuts, cut energy assistance, cut head start, cut school lunch programs, cut after school programs. Made sure that the poor rot in hell while he and his buddies make out like bandits.

He rolled back environmental standards 10-20 years, rewarded polluters by making it where they no longer have to have smoke stack filters in most stacks and don't have to pay for Superfund cleanups that they caused in our waters.

If you think that is a scare tactic, wake up to reality buddy because this was WITH an election to face. Four years with NO electorate will only be WORSE..

Rp

[balanced]

69. That's not the point.

It's not your fault. It might merely be a tenable conclusion that if you and other Green leaners had voted for Kerry, he would have won, and Bush would have lost. It is a tenable conclusion that if Nader had dropped out in Florida, Gore would now be president. It's not Nader's fault. Fault has nothing to do with it.

[snippy]

73. Of course it will be. Neither sophistry nor ignorance can change that fact

If Kerry loses because you defect, it is your fault by definition. You also will be responsible for Bush's actions in his second term.

In 2004, a vote in a competitive state for anyone other than Kerry is a masturbatory vote, nothing else. Green voters or Nader voters in competitive states are not people who care about improving this country or the world. They care about trying to appear that they are more concerned than anyone else because of their enlightenment. Their vote is solely about self-gratification. They differ from Nader himself only in that Nader also is concerned with using his position to amass personal wealth.

[tedzbear]

74. That is YOUR opinion.

One could also say, if Kerry loses because we defect, it is HIS fault for alienating too many of his base.
Also, nobody is responsible for Bush's actions but Bush himself. You're desperately throwing blame around rather than accept your own responsibility for not being more inclusive, and therefore alienating some much needed support.

You may feel voting with integrity is masturbatory, but that shoe could equally fit on the other foot: yours. By willingly supporting a candidate who will alienate a good portion of his base, you are indulging yourself with "win or else" sport fucking.

My, my, I can see why you picked the name: snippy. Assigning blame is a "guilt" tool many moms use to control their bratty kids, but it's rather pointless when discussing politics. Until we can reach a point of compromise, we will both seem guilty in each others' eyes. Too bad. You are sacrificing your left to win over the right. It won't work.

:kick:

[snippy]

76. Pure selfish ignorance. Bush is bad for this country and the entire world

Actions and choices have consequences. Whack off if you want to, but take some responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

[tedzbear]

78. Same to you, snippy.

Whack off if you want to, but take some responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

:nopity:


edit for sp.

[snippy]

79. I always do and always will.

[IronLionZion]

81. I think tedthebear wants Kerry to earn his votes

Which I certainly think he will. It's better to vote FOR Kerry rather than AGAINST shrub*.

Kerry is quite liberal despite the IWR and Patrio Act. But you can see his dilemma. He wants the moderates and Independents too.

[LandOLincoln]

83. You're not running his campaign?

THANK GOD. :evilgrin:

[Endangered Specie]

84. If Bush wins... Green voters will be at the same level as Bush voters

[TreasonousBastard]

85. Yes, it will be your fault!

It will be your fault and the fault of everyone else who doesn't like Bush, but Kerry just isn't good enough.

Personally, I'm, sick and tired of all these bullshit arguments and apologetics for not voting for Kerry.

Kerry may not be good enough for some people, but there will only one of two men inaugurated next January, and the choice is simply between those two. If it is a Hobson's choice for some, that is just too fucking bad because we live in an imperfect political system in an imperfect world.

There is no great act of conscience in voting. One votes simply for the choices offered, and in one's best interests. No one's interests are served by voting for obvious losers in most elections unless both major candidates are so dreadful one hopes a massive amount of protest votes are cast. Even then, it makes little diffence in the long run, and the two major parties have never changed as a result of protest votes. The Republicans didn't change because of Teddy Roosevelt's bolting, and the Democrats didn't become more segregationist when Wallace ran.

Voting for a minor pissant candidate in this election is not a vote of conscience-- it is a vote of moral cowardice. It simply means that when faced with a difficult choice, punt. Back away from the choice and piss and moan because things aren't going your way.

I saw your profile, and have no doubt you have faced incredibly difficult choices in your life already. Why back away from this one? This one is so easy.

[DjTj]

86. It will if he loses by one vote...

...in your state and it swings the electoral college to Bush.

[Snivi Yllom]

92. if Kerry loses it will be his fault

[bkcc]

94. I am sooo sick of hearing this shit.

There are two types of voters who will be out there this fall:

1) people who vote for Bush*
2) people who are not voting for Bush*

Unfortunately, Kerry and third-party voters are both in the second group. Why, for the love of all that is holy, do you want to split that vote?!?

Yes, it's America and you're free to do whatever you want with your vote, but why in this election cycle? I think everyone agrees that the primary goal is to get Bush* out of office this November. If that is THE goal, then why jeopardize that by essentially casting a "luxury" vote for a candidate like Nader who has absolutely no shot of winning?!?

I'm sorry. Anyone who wants Bush* out and still votes Nader is dead wrong and is part of the problem.

Disagree all you want...wring your hands...wail and gnash your teeth about your right to vote for whomever you want, but when that dipshit from Crawford is back in the White House next year, anyone who voted for Nader can list themselves among the reasons.

</rant>