|
11 Sep 04 - 11:13 PM (#1269704) Subject: BS: Another Political Thread From: mack/misophist The primary reasons for voting for Kerry of Bush have all been done to death. Except for a couple of people who support Bush without saying why, we all know where every one stands. What interests me are your primary secondary reasons for your choice. ie. After you finish your basic rant, what's the first secondary thing that comes to mind. I'll start. I'm voting Green in our local election but I wouldn't dream of doing it in the national election. It'd be a wasted vote. To me, the closest thing to a Green with a snowball's chance of winning is Kerry. The Republicans are more of a dark brown than Green; sort of like scorched earth. That means the environment is my primary secondary reason. And a bit of the primary primary reason, too. Next,please. |
|
12 Sep 04 - 04:20 AM (#1269806) Subject: RE: BS: Another Political Thread From: Dave Hanson Although I am called red, I'm actually mauve. eric |
|
12 Sep 04 - 09:41 AM (#1269916) Subject: RE: BS: Another Political Thread From: mack/misophist Congratulations on being the first of the aneline dyes. |
|
12 Sep 04 - 10:27 AM (#1269951) Subject: RE: BS: Another Political Thread From: GUEST No offense Mack, but if you think Kerry is "close to Green" you've deluded yourself to justify voting for him, IMO. It's an easy vote, isn't it? Easy as in "I, like DougR, don't even have to seriously look at the candidate choices, I can just do the easy thing and vote against Bush." Choosing to vote for Nader or Cobb takes a bit more than that. An examination of ALL the candidates positions, but ESPECIALLY Kerry's. Why Kerry's in particular? Because Nader and Cobb voters would like to see Bush gone too. But we also understand that if there is precious little difference between Bush and Kerry on the biggest issues, like war, trade, human rights globally and civil rights in the US, the Patriot Act, etc, it is wrong to vote for Kerry just because that is the easy, convenient, more socially acceptable thing to do. Greens strongly opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the "PATRIOT Act", the Free Trade Area of the Americas, No Child Left Behind, and most other policies of the Bush administration. Senator Kerry was not with us in opposing these policies. Now, I agree with much of what you say here at Mudcat. But I have to say this: people who are claiming to support the Green agenda, which is worlds different from the Kerry agenda, are hypocrites, IMO. They are looking for a way to justify voting for one of the two evil candidates. I will suffer the slings and arrows of the Nerds, the Thomas the Rhymers, the others accusing me of being a Leninist because I won't vote for Kerry--all the slurs, all the attacks claiming I don't care about the tens of thousands of innocent people being killed as a result of US foreign policy, of the Muslim men and women rotting in American jails with no access to legal counsel, about the outsourcing of jobs, about any of the things that Greens actually DO care about, deeply and passionately. But these same name callers engaging in ad hominem attacks against me because I won't vote for Kerry, apparently care very little for those things. Because if you truly did care about the 13,000 dead Iraqis, in addition to the 1,000 dead American soldiers, you couldn't bring yourself to vote for a man who will stay the foreign policy course, and just go looking for other nations to sanction our barbarous slaughter of innocent Muslims in the Middle East. You wouldn't be able to bring yourself to the point of voting for a candidate who enthusiastically voted for the Patriot Act, and says he will keep it in place, but "review it". You couldn't vote the man who was an advocate of the trade agreements that are wreaking havoc globally and nationally, in terms of human rights, the environment, and all that is precious to the political philosophies of the Green Party. It is really easy to claim one "supports the Greens". It is duplicitous and hypocritical in the extreme, to claim to do that and then turn around and vote for Kerry, who is nearly as evil as Bush. And I'm not calling Kerry evil as a form of hyperbole. I actually believe the guy is just as evil, because he paints himself as a good guy with a white hat, just like Bush does. He supports many of the same policies as Bush does. Sure he is better than Bush on abortion and gay marriage, but there are many more important issues that are demanding our attention right now, and none more important than getting people to understand that these wars are all about oil and the weapons of mass destruction the Americans are using to control it, and thereby, control the American economy. There isn't anything more important to our nation and our world right now than making those linkages, and working with the people who have the integrity to stick to their guns in this election year. Our principles and values aren't supposed to go out the window every four years, just to make a politically expedient vote for president. And we all need to be clear about this: this year truly is not any different than the 2000 election was in terms of what is at stake for the US and the world. And the choices between the two party candidates are just as bad. Neither is the right choice. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the Green candidate or Nader because it isn't politically expedient enough or socially acceptable enough for you to feel comfortable, while at the same time claiming Nader and Cobb are the candidates that represent your best interests, the nation's best interests, and the world's best interests, then stop being a hypocrite by claiming to be supporting the Green and Nader agenda and platform. An "Anybody But Bush" vote for Kerry is a vote against the Green philosophy, the Green agenda, the Green Party, and the Nader agenda stands for, and you claiming otherwise doesn't make it so, my friend. There is no more or less at stake in this election year than there is any other, regardless of how much hate you carry in heart towards Bush and the Republicans. Hateful, politically expedient, "Anybody But..." lesser of two evil voting is exactly what has gotten us to where we are now. So how about all those of you claiming to support the progressive agenda actually do so by changing your voting habits, and abandoning the Democratic party once and for all? If enough of you would simply do that, the whole world could change. |
|
12 Sep 04 - 12:47 PM (#1270055) Subject: RE: BS: Another Political Thread From: Ebbie Jay Leno said, 'The latest figures show that Nader is at 1%. 1 %? Even milk has 2 percent! In my opinion, 'Nader' has become the catch phrase for a desired political phenomenon that has very little to do with Ralph Nader himself. Nader, let's face it, would not be a good president, for a great many reasons. Naderism, on the other hand, is a concept, a workable ideal, that we can all work toward. And when we find a person who incorporates those ideals and can take them to the level that is needed to be a viable candidate, wonderful. I'll vote for that person in a heartbeat. Just as I voted for Nader more than once years ago. In my opinion Ralph Nader has served his function. I think his name will likely be enshrined in a political movement of the future. |
|
12 Sep 04 - 02:03 PM (#1270123) Subject: RE: BS: Another Political Thread From: GUEST I disagree with your assessment of Nader as president Ebbie, though I agree with your assessment of the agenda he is promoting. You see, everyone keeps saying that Nader is too inflexible to be president, or couldn't get anything done in a Democrat or Republican controlled Congress... But Nader has worked with those very same people for decades, and accomplished more than all of the Democrats and Republicans combined in the past 30 years. He has more than proven he is capable of accomplishing important, meaningful changes in the status quo by sticking to his principles, and never giving up. That is the epitome of the kind of leadership we need so desperately in the US and the world right now. Nader outlived his usefulness? Hell, he and the example he has set will live for generations beyond ours. It is us, we the people, whom history will chastise for failing to see the greatest leader among us at the time when we needed that leadership most. If I were you Ebbie, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the man who has shown he has more than nine political lives. He is perpetually pronounced dead and irrelevant by the liberals, because they look so pathetic by comparison, not because the man has lost his teeth (which he hasn't) or his passion for the good fight. Nader won't be out of the political picture anytime soon, unless extremely poor health or death puts him out of it. There is no sign of him being even remotely close to that stage of his life yet. Nader is in the October phase of his life, not the New Year's Eve about to pass away phase. |
|
13 Sep 04 - 03:18 AM (#1270807) Subject: RE: BS: Another Political Thread From: Teresa Well, I'm reiterating a point i made in a different thread, but just in case ... I want bush out. For sure. What's the most likely way to get him out? Vote for Kerry. I usually vote "for" and not "against" ... but the thought of four more years with bush is ... frightening, to say the least. that's what it boils down to this time around, IMHO. T |