185 replies to this topic

[mikemfer]

in a presidential election, voting for your presidential choice is not voting on principal.

voting for the next best thing just to get the current president out is voting on principal.

That would all depend what you considered your principles to be. If you believe in the principle that getting a bad president out is more important than who consequently wins, that might be a principle that guides your vote. Then again, you could believe in the principle that you should vote for who you think would make the best president, regardless of what anyone else might do. But either way, you are making a decision based on the principles you support, and voting on principle.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

i guess we will have to agree to disagree about voting on principal
because i think it is the exact opposite of what you are saying.......
i don't think i am voting on principal if my objective is to get bush
out of office.....which needs to happen....and is a possible goal.......
my thought process at the moment is the idea of walking before we can run
don't get me wrong...i understand what your saying....i agree...but....
voting for kerry, well, the means justify the end for me.......................
if i vote for kerry, and others vote for kerry then we have a chance at getting bush
out of office.......and at this moment i am putting aside idealism
at this very moment, all i want is for bush to be out of office...............

and my point about the 2000 election was that the election was stolen by THE
bush, not so much that my vote did not count at all, but rather that my vote did
not count because the election was stolen......................................................

EDIT:the end justifies the means

[aaronburke]

but....
voting for kerry, well, the means justify the end for me.......................

that's exactly what i mean...that is being
guided by principle.

but as mikemfer says, it's all how you
define principle. if we want to use the
loosest definition, then everything we do
is based on principle.

if we use the textbook definition of principle,
then voting for your favorite candidate = not on principle,
voting for someone else just to knock bush out = voting on principle.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

but....
voting for kerry, well, the means justify the end for me.......................

that's exactly what i mean...that is being
guided by principle.

but as mikemfer says, it's all how you
define principle. if we want to use the
loosest definition, then everything we do
is based on principle.

if we use the textbook definition of principle,
then voting for your favorite candidate = not on principle,
voting for someone else just to knock bush out = voting on principle.

yeah, i see your point

my thinking was that if you are going to vote on someone based on
the idea that he is the right candidate for you even though you know
he will not get elected, you might shift the election in THE bush'S
favor, and have to deal with THE bush for another four years(very fucking scary)

if you ignore those facts then isn't your vote based on principal, and or idealism

[aaronburke]

well, yeah, if i KNEW for sure,
then that would be true, but i
don't know for sure. i just have
this big ol feeling that nader won't
be our next president. you never know,
but he doesn't have a good chance...
not a very good chance at all.
but i still have to vote and see what
happens.

you're right though, if i did know something
for sure, then that's definitely on principle.

regardless, i hope THE bush is out of
here after this - with the iraq stuff,
the new moore movie, and everything
else, if people are still uninformed and
vote for him, maybe we deserve another
4 years of this bs...

[rudolpho of pensacola]

agreed
another four years of THE bush frightens me


no offense to anyone, but i will bet anybody on this board
or anywhere else for that matter, some serious cash that nader
will not become the next president.................................

i think(hope) everyone truly truly knows that nader will not win

ok i'm exhausted from this, my political discussion window of time
has closed---------for now-------------------i think

thank you for a healthy debate

[aaronburke]

just one more comment -
knowing that nader won't win,
and thus changing your vote to
someone else that has a chance
of winning, is also voting based on
principle.

thus, i would ask everyone who supports
nader to vote nader!! don't just vote for
kerry to get bush out of office.

[mikemfer]

I think I posted this before, but our current Bush seems to be following the same path as his father. The primary difference is the elder Bush didn't have a galvanizing event like 9/11 to get people behind him. However, the elder bush was continuing Reagan's run and had momentum.

THe point is, both had economic problems to overcome. Both Bushes went to war with Iraq about 20 months before the election. Both had the majority of Americans behind them at the start of the war. Both lost majority support by the time all was said and done.

The Michael moore movie was the number one movie in the country this weekend. I went last night and the theatre was packed, on a Tuesday at 7 PM. I know there are a lot of people who have seen the movie that weren't going to vote for Bush, but the movie must be reaching SOME people. The movie definitely won't have a positive impact on Bush's campaign.

If republicans are giving financial support to Nader, it's because they're scared. Our current Bush would never have gotten his nomination if his father wasn't president before, and even with that, the best they could do other than him was Dan Quayle, who was a laughingstock. He never was a strong candidate.

I think Bush has a good chance of losing his job. In '92 at this point I didn't think Clinton had a prayer. And Perot was a third-party candidate that year, and he had a lot more support in polls than Nader. But Clinton still won.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

shit
i told myself no more, oh well
2 tears in a bucket motherfuck it...

but, the swing vote for perot was more of THE bush supporters and not so much the clinton supporters

i believe perot did say once that he knew he would not win, he just did not want THE bush to win

[woodman]

Sweet, there is discussion, which is more important than me working.

I think Nader would make a more positive change in my life, and how I view my own country, as i think a few of you would agree... A vote for Nader does not equate to a vote for Bush. Most polls that I see incorporating the Nader factor show that when he's part of the equation, votes are re-cast almost equally from both the R's and the D's, which means that a number of folks of both poles are becoming tired of the status quo; however most people who only passively gather news from the television, papers, or internet will never get to know what he's about. In 2000, the green party failed to take 5% of the popular vote, which would have qualified them for federal assistance for this election. Had this happened, and had Nader and the green party kept their union, we might be seeing more of big Raplh - in TV adds, on CNN, and the debates. As it stands, Nader doesn't even poll 15% nationwide, which apparently is what he needs to be accepted in the debate club.... frustrating.... Like aaron and ray posted, go check out Nader's site, or even check out the green party, with which he's no longer affiliated but shares some common ideas - they've just chosen their candidate...

[/Mr DNA/]

i have voted twice for nader and i will be doing it again come this november.

if he, or some equivalent minded person, was not in the running my only alternative would be to not vote.

in the issues that matter most to me, there is no difference between democrats and republicans. i would go further to state that i believe the differences propagated by those two parties to distinguish themselves are mere distractions.

if the government moves too far in a direction you disagree with, you should act to move the government back to your desired position; in acting only to move the government less far in a direction you disagree with you are not only predetermining your fate but you can lie awake at night knowing you actually had a hand in it.

[/Mr DNA/]

you should act to move the government back to your desired position

clarification: i am well aware that a vote for nader is not an effective action towards change at this time. mostly i do that for peace of mind... and i like the idea of having "nader in 96", "nader in 2000", and "nader in 2004" stickers on my corvair.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

you should act to move the government back to your desired position

clarification: i am well aware that a vote for nader is not an effective action towards change at this time. mostly i do that for peace of mind... and i like the idea of having "nader in 96", "nader in 2000", and "nader in 2004" stickers on my corvair.

sleep easy...........................................

[woodman]

I'm just glad you're driving a corvair.

[aaronburke]

sleep easy...........................................

it's not going to be much
better under kerry, if at all...
any president is just going to be
a pawn of the big business/government...