Mark Lansing wrote:and while I think it's foolish to blame Nader for Gore's defeat (he's been made the scapegoat for Gore's failings as a campaigner and the Republicans' wholsesale theft of the Florida election)

If his 96,000 votes in Florida go to Gore, George W. Bush is a footnote in American history. No recounts, no theft, no Katherine Harris. Stop kidding yourself.

But right now, the hypothetical "idea" in their heads is merely something-other-than-the-status-quo. That's not a party and it's not enough of a reason for a critical mass of people to flip a single independent candidate's lever. You say people just need to spontaneously vote their principles, but principles vary widely even among people who agree on certain core issues. One of the functions of a party is to bring these people together so that their differences are a strength and do not act as an obstacle to action.

Like it or not, political parties are GOOD things. That framework is what allows a political party to be effective once the election is over and the business of governing must begin. The problem isn't the existence of parties, but the existence of too few.

MWilke wrote:

Mark Lansing wrote:and while I think it's foolish to blame Nader for Gore's defeat (he's been made the scapegoat for Gore's failings as a campaigner and the Republicans' wholsesale theft of the Florida election)

If his 96,000 votes in Florida go to Gore, George W. Bush is a footnote in American history. No recounts, no theft, no Katherine Harris. Stop kidding yourself.

If Buchanan's 6,000 votes in Iowa go to Bush, Gore loses that state;
If Buchanan's 11,000 votes in Wisconsin go to Bush, Gore loses that state;
If Buchanan's 1,500 votes in New Mexico go to Bush, Gore loses that state;If Buchanan's 7,000 votes in Oregon go to Bush, Gore loses that state; and If Nader's 96,000 votes in Florida go to Gore, Bush loses that state...but still wins the electoral college.

Why no thanks to Buchanan, instead of vitriol toward Nader?

Fuck both parties and fuck Nader.

This year I'm going with LaRouche.

The MayorofRockNRoll wrote:Fuck both parties and fuck Nader.

This year I'm going with LaRouche.

Does that mean you'll be joining the dirty hippies out in front of the CVS at Diversey and Western with their canvassing activities?

"...until Nader also acknowledges that the queen mother sells crack to children, the Dutch East India company runs the Pentagon, and the Pope owns a mind control satellite on the moon..."

geiginni wrote:

The MayorofRockNRoll wrote:Fuck both parties and fuck Nader.

This year I'm going with LaRouche.

Does that mean you'll be joining the dirty hippies out in front of the CVS at Diversey and Western with their canvassing activities?

"...until Nader also acknowledges that the queen mother sells crack to children, the Dutch East India company runs the Pentagon, and the Pope owns a mind control satellite on the moon..."

LaRouche speaks the truth. I will join him on his pontoon boat. Viva la revolucion.

I would vote for Nader in a heartbeat if the Republican Party hadn't completely lost its mind and if it didn't represent such a clear and immediate danger to the welfare of not only our own country but the entire world.

I mean, look at this guy McCain. The guy is one step away from launching a nuclear war against Iran. Look at how egregiously the Bush administration has handled the war in Iraq, at how it ignores all signs of environmental collapse and keeps pushing the sale of SUVs and disregards climate talks, at how the Constitution has been decimated and riddled with holes to the point that its validity is seriously at risk.

Our most important concern as we move into this election is how our next president will handle the inevitable next version of 9/11. Because it will happen again, it's not a question of "if" but "when". The intelligence community nearly unanimously agrees on that. So, once we face another terrorist attack, my fear of how catastrophic a reaction by the McCain administration would be completely outweighs the many valid and cogent criticisms of the Democratic Party put forward by Nader.

Nader's not an egotist or a spoiler or a fool. Anyone who says that probably has no idea how inadequate the current version of the Democratic party really is, from everything to environmental concerns to health care to wealth inequalities to drug laws to YOU NAME IT. Fuck the Democratic party. I have completely lost faith in their efficacy and in their integrity.

But we are in a clear and present situation of serious damage control. Our country is holding on for dear life. The Democrats suck, but the alternative is far worse. The herd-think, the jingoism and the cavalier flaunting of all rule of law and all respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations has been enough to render the Republican Party of 2008 the most deplorable and by far the most dangerous political monster America has ever seen, at least since the Civil War era.

The thought of four to eight more years of Obama will be a big sigh of relief. So I'm voting for him.

BadComrade wrote:But you know he's got no chance of winning, so why bother? So you can walk around bragging that you voted for Nader? "Yeah, I voted for the guy that had no chance of ever winning".

Why not pick the "lesser of two evils" by voting for Obama or McCain, based on which one you hate just a little bit more? You're gonna be stuck with one of them, so you might as well try and get the one you hate the least in.

Or are you gonna vote for Nader so you can wear a "Don't Blame ME, I voted for Nader" t-shirt for the next 4 years to show everyone how "brilliant" you are?

Dude, already been down that road in the Hillary thread. Rick's comfortable with accomplishing nothing, as long as he's made his point to, well, to himself. I can understand his logic but I can't get behind it. Nigga still works a 9-to-5 but he wants to be an idealist at the same time.

What is there to accomplish if you just pick the least worst out of two? Sure, it gives the lesser evil a better standing, but politically, economically, socially, there's no remarkable difference to be made, or voice to be heard.

If you seriously dislike both Obama, and Clinton, it's foolish to vote for either, even if your better suited candidate can't stand a chance in hell.

How about not eating either? No one's forcing you to.