185 replies to this topic

[Hooray For Everything]

sorry, , STUPID CAPS LOCK

[woodman]

I don't think it's selfish - it's a matter of personal view.

[woodman]

Personally I prefer 'the postman' to 'tin cup'.

But that's just me.

[aaronburke]

It's selfish to vote for someone just so you can
feel better about yourself. If I vote want to vote
for someone who has the closest views to myself,
I'd write in my own name. I sure would feel good
about myself knowing that I voted for the person who
(if elected) would definately going to go to bat for every
issues that is important to me. The thing is, I won't do it
because I understand that there are things more
important that me feeling good about my voting record,
such as who is actually running the country.
Do you really want to be Roy 'Tin Cup' McAvoy shooting
the same shot into the water over and over, or do you
want to move up the leader board? Maybe not to the top,
but at least in the right direction.

maybe i missed something, but who's voting
to feel better about themselves? i don't understand
your post at all...

[bobby]

It's all over the place and I can't believe it's not sinking in.

1. if Nader wasn't running, they wouldn't vote at all.
2. because of reason # 1, the votes aren't being taken away from the Dem's
3. They're not asking you to reconsider you're vote
4. Stop asking them to reconsider their vote

[donald]

I say vote for who YOU believe is the best candidate

Did Ralph cost Al Gore the election in 2000?

No.

Al Gore won the election in 2000.

George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election.

No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned.

To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.

The Constitution does not mention parties.

This country had a rich history of third parties.

George W. Bush’s recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election.

The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election.

Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election.

A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s book Too Close to Call).

Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates.

Buchanan cost Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico).

Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign.

And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida.

Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph’s votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.

In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph’s voters would NOT have voted for Gore.

In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.

CNN’s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

[aaronburke]

i will retire from this thread because
i now know EXACTLY why this country
has a two party system which won't be
leaving anytime soon.

anyway, i'll say it once again - vote
for who you want to be president, not
who you think stands a legitimate chance
of winning. i won't vote for myself for
a couple of reasons, but in response to
your post, MR ducks, i believe nader can
run the country better than i. and i don't
vote to pad my voting history or to make
myself feel good.

it was a good debate while it lasted,
so everybody go out and vote for kerry, or try
to convince people to. i'm sure the
US will be a LOT better and different
under kerry.

[woodman]

Nice quote d.o. nald

[Brodie]

I say vote for who YOU believe is the best candidate

Did Ralph cost Al Gore the election in 2000?

No.

Al Gore won the election in 2000.

George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election.

No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned.

To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.

The Constitution does not mention parties.

This country had a rich history of third parties.

George W. Bush’s recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election.

The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election.

Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election.

A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s book Too Close to Call).

Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates.

Buchanan cost Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico).

Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign.

And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida.

Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph’s votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.

In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph’s voters would NOT have voted for Gore.

In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.

CNN’s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

I'm not telling anybody what to do with their vote.

I'm telling you why I think what I do.

And, I hate scrolling! So I started a new thread.

[bobby]

I was speaking to a broader number of posts/posters.
I didn't intend to single you out, Mr. Ducks.